Gun law tweaks allow young adults to get a concealed carry permit

[hq]

Some states experimented with lowering the drinking age to 18 and it turned out to be a big mistake.

In quite a few parts of the world this is a lot different. For example, in Germany a 13 year old can legally have a glass of wine or a beer at home or even in a restaurant when a custodian is present, and at the age of 16 on his/her own. In Finland the drinking age is 18. It's all about what you've accustomed to.

A case in point: I have quite a few American buddies and sometimes they bring their kids over when they come to Finland. Usually my older kids of same age, 18-21, keep company to them and at some point take them to bars and clubs downtown. We all know what happens. They end up bringing, sometimes even literally carrying their guests back to our house. They're not used to going to clubs due to US drinking age of 21. When they can, it's something new, they're excited and more often than not get hammered. It's the same thing with Scandinavian teens in Germany and Austria, in popular alpine skiing destinations. Drinking age is 16, they can get into bars and clubs, go overboard with alcohol and have hangovers that can only be measured on the Richter scale. Been there and done that myself in the 80's. Seen that happen time and time again.

Not that different from Montana and "Reasonable and prudent" speed limit experiment a few years ago. It was full blown Montanabahn and was shut down shortly afterwards.

It takes a far longer time to find a real baseline; the real long-term effects of changes in legislation. US teenagers are not that different from German or Scandinavian teenagers. The arbitrary legal age for certain things is different and they just adjust their behavior accordingly. Changing the law for a few short years does little to change the learned behavior pattern; a minimum of ten years will give much more realistic perspective whether a change actually is a mistake or not. Or simply looking at how a different legislation works elsewhere and refrain from branding teenagers in another country "different" by their geographical location. In reality they rarely are.

 

[George Dickel]

In quite a few parts of the world this is a lot different. For example, in Germany a 13 year old can legally have a glass of wine or a beer at home or even in a restaurant when a custodian is present, and at the age of 16 on his/her own. In Finland the drinking age is 18. It's all about what you've accustomed to.

A case in point: I have quite a few American buddies and sometimes they bring their kids over when they come to Finland. Usually my older kids of same age, 18-21, keep company to them and at some point take them to bars and clubs downtown. We all know what happens. They end up bringing, sometimes even literally carrying their guests back to our house. They're not used to going to clubs due to US drinking age of 21. When they can, it's something new, they're excited and more often than not get hammered. It's the same thing with Scandinavian teens in Germany and Austria, in popular alpine skiing destinations. Drinking age is 16, they can get into bars and clubs, go overboard with alcohol and have hangovers that can only be measured on the Richter scale. Been there and done that myself in the 80's. Seen that happen time and time again.

Not that different from Montana and "Reasonable and prudent" speed limit experiment a few years ago. It was full blown Montanabahn and was shut down shortly afterwards.

It takes a far longer time to find a real baseline; the real long-term effects of changes in legislation. US teenagers are not that different from German or Scandinavian teenagers. The arbitrary legal age for certain things is different and they just adjust their behavior accordingly. Changing the law for a few short years does little to change the learned behavior pattern; a minimum of ten years will give much more realistic perspective whether a change actually is a mistake or not. Or simply looking at how a different legislation works elsewhere and refrain from branding teenagers in another country "different" by their geographical location. In reality they rarely are.

I spent 9 years in Germany while in the military and am married to a German lady. We visit frequently with her family and she stays in phone contact with them weekly. The Germans are now having problems with teenagers abusing alcohol. My sister-in-law has commented numerous times about incidents at wine and beer fests where young people get extremely drunk, get into fights, intimidate older people, pass out in the street after binging, and generally being punks. It is getting to be such a problem that young people are being prohibited entry to these events and the police are cracking down extremely hard. Legislation is being considered to raise the legal age from 16 yrs, to a higher undetermined age at this time. Things may be different in Finland but Germany is definitely having problems.

 

[Sam1911]

21 is not a random age some one came up with, it was based on research of real world experiences....Why do we have soldiers fighting at 18, because this age group believes they are bullet proof, invincible and will live forever. I know my friends and I felt that way. Easier to get this group to attack a machine gun than the 21 year old that has discovered they are not bullet proof and immortal and may have a family they are responsible for.

I was in the Army for almost 21 years and supervised a lot of 18 - 21 year old men and women. More than most people will know in their entire life so I think I have a pretty good base of experience. Most 18 year olds lack the common sense, emotional maturity and life experiences for me to feel comfortable with them carrying a weapon openly or concealed.

Seems like a pretty clear choice then. The only ethical thing to do is to raise the age of enlistment to 21. It would be utterly predatory to pretend that these young people, who don't have even the discipline or life experience to carry a firearm around in a largely peaceful nation, have the required cognizance and vision to be capable of making the incredibly consequential decision that they will fight and kill other people, and lose their own lives for causes their nation decides are important.

If these people can't be trusted to even understand the law and the responsibilities of not harming others unjustly, then giving them the option of signing their lives away for death on a contested street in some third-world slum, or life in a burn ward having plastic body parts fitted to what's left of them is truly and clearly far too great a responsibility for their un-developed minds to handle.

 

[George Dickel]

Seems like a pretty clear choice then. The only ethical thing to do is to raise the age of enlistment to 21. It would be utterly predatory to pretend that these young people, who don't have even the discipline or life experience to carry a firearm around in a largely peaceful nation, have the required cognizance and vision to be capable of making the incredibly consequential decision that they will fight and kill other people, and lose their own lives for causes their nation decides are important.

If these people can't be trusted to even understand the law and the responsibilities of not harming others unjustly, then giving them the option of signing their lives away for death on a contested street in some third-world slum, or life in a burn ward having plastic body parts fitted to what's left of them is truly and clearly far too great a responsibility for their un-developed minds to handle.

In other words my experience as a squad leader, section chief, platoon sergeant, and other leadership positions in the Army mean nothing. Sam, what military experience do you have, how many 18 - 21 year olds have you been totally responsible for? So what are your bonafides that you are basing your opinion on? What about the 18-21 who have never been in the military? Where are they getting their "required cognizance and vision" from?

 

[.455_Hunter]

I started carrying a .38 revolver both openly and concealed on an almost daily basis at age 13, so my opinion on the matter is probably going to rub a lot of you the wrong way.

For example, as Senior Patrol Leader for my Scout Troop at 16 &17, I was the one who carried on our camping and backpacking trips, not the Scoutmaster.

 

[Sam1911]

I think you missed my point George. Or are avoiding it. This isn't a matter where bona fides change any underlying factor of truth or ethics.

We can send them to die. We can't allow them to walk among us as full citizens, armed, to succeed or fail to be law abiding citizens. We can tell their mothers how sorry we are and just how ever so grateful the nation is that Johnny took that blast or chunk of shrapnel for his country. We can put up 18 year old Bill for as long as he needs there in Walter Reed, to gain some ability to move his prosthetic arm, or to talk to his fiance through an electronic device. That's ok. He signed the paperwork, and it's a free country, right? He made his choices.

But the choice to carry a firearm in case someone tries to kill him while he's at the ATM? No. That's just too big a deal.

What about the 18-21 who have never been in the military? Where are they getting their "required cognizance and vision" from?

I don't know...perhaps the same place their enlisted brethren get the required cognizance and vision from that enables them to sign a form and swear that they'll advance into some Jihadist's kill zone, or stroll across a land mine for their country.

 

[hq]

Things may be different in Finland but Germany is definitely having problems.

Not that much different. Teenagers between 14 and 17 get their hands on alcohol easily and teenage drinking (like all drinking regardless of age, this is Finland, after all) is very common. In binge quantities. It isn't uncommon to see drunken teenagers downtown on friday and saturday nights but on the other hand secondary, causal problems are relatively rare. Kids drink, some of them get quite drunk, sober up by the next morning and that's usually it. Fatal and serious injuries are surprisingly rare. On the other hand issues like drug abuse (even cannabis), teenage pregnancies, gang activity and so forth are virtually nonexistent.

One of the many possible explanations is that alcohol is relatively easy to come by. Officially only state liquor stores can sell anything stronger than beer and alcohol tax is among the highest in the world, but there's a whole industry of - for the lack of a better word, bootlegging - from nearby EU countries like Estonia and Latvia, and the street price of a brand-name vodka is approximately the same as that of a couple of marijuana joints. Getting caught underage with a bottle of hard liquor won't normally get you arrested, possession of cannabis even in small amounts will. It's been like this for decades, my father told me stories of when he was a teenager in 1910's and 20's and it seems like nothing has really changed. Prohibition (yes, we had one too) was an interesting experiment; according to his first hand experience that's when all hell broke loose and everyone drank whatever they could get their hands on like there was no tomorrow.

Back when handgun permits could be had at the age of 15 there was no problem of teenagers carrying guns on the streets. Quite a few had pistols, but left them at home whenever they went out to party with friends. No point in packing heat when there's no gang culture to speak of and as long as you stay away from bad neighborhoods, getting even into a fist fight is unlikely.

I'm not sure how US soldiers you supervised behaved in an environment foreign to them, especially considering German legislation in regard to drinking age. It's been a while since I did my military service, but generally speaking of the platoon (and later, company) I was responsible for had very few issues with alcohol. Most recruits were between 19 and 24 and I can't remember a single one who wouldn't keep their act together. Some needed a push to a right direction but cases which required MP intervention were limited to 1-2 a year in a company of 120-130 men.

 

[George Dickel]

I think you missed my point George. Or are avoiding it. This isn't a matter where bona fides change any underlying factor of truth or ethics.

We can send them to die. We can't allow them to walk among us as full citizens, armed, to succeed or fail to be law abiding citizens. We can tell their mothers how sorry we are and just how ever so grateful the nation is that Johnny took that blast or chunk of shrapnel for his country. We can put up 18 year old Bill for as long as he needs there in Walter Reed, to gain some ability to move his prosthetic arm, or to talk to his fiance through an electronic device. That's ok. He signed the paperwork, and it's a free country, right? He made his choices.

But the choice to carry a firearm in case someone tries to kill him while he's at the ATM? No. That's just too big a deal.


I don't know...perhaps the same place their enlisted brethren get the required cognizance and vision from that enables them to sign a form and swear that they'll advance into some Jihadist's kill zone, or stroll across a land mine for their country.

And respectively Sam, I believe you are missing my point. My point of view is based on years of experience with this age group and it isn't just my experience it is the experience of the entire military. That is why private weapons aren't allowed in the barracks. Yours is an emotional opinion based on a idea of fairness. I'm sure you know that life isn't fair in any way. Facts and experience have to take precedence over fairness. Most medical studies agree that the human brain is still developing even into the late teens and their impulsiveness and judgement is not completely developed and matured. That undeveloped mind is why the military likes these young people, they are more easily molded to believe in the warrior creed and that they are invincible.

Believe me it shreds my soul to see these young guys blown to pieces, minds shattered by IED'S and the effects of the savagery of war on their physiological health. These are my fellow soldiers and I have great empathy for them and that is why I believe that any one under 21 should not go into war.

I guess we are just going to have to agree to disagree.

 

[George Dickel]

Not that much different. Teenagers between 14 and 17 get their hands on alcohol easily and teenage drinking (like all drinking regardless of age, this is Finland, after all) is very common. In binge quantities. It isn't uncommon to see drunken teenagers downtown on friday and saturday nights but on the other hand secondary, causal problems are relatively rare. Kids drink, some of them get quite drunk, sober up by the next morning and that's usually it. Fatal and serious injuries are surprisingly rare. On the other hand issues like drug abuse (even cannabis), teenage pregnancies, gang activity and so forth are virtually nonexistent.

One of the many possible explanations is that alcohol is relatively easy to come by. Officially only state liquor stores can sell anything stronger than beer and alcohol tax is among the highest in the world, but there's a whole industry of - for the lack of a better word, bootlegging - from nearby EU countries like Estonia and Latvia, and the street price of a brand-name vodka is approximately the same as that of a couple of marijuana joints. Getting caught underage with a bottle of hard liquor won't normally get you arrested, possession of cannabis even in small amounts will. It's been like this for decades, my father told me stories of when he was a teenager in 1910's and 20's and it seems like nothing has really changed. Prohibition (yes, we had one too) was an interesting experiment; according to his first hand experience that's when all hell broke loose and everyone drank whatever they could get their hands on like there was no tomorrow.

Back when handgun permits could be had at the age of 15 there was no problem of teenagers carrying guns on the streets. Quite a few had pistols, but left them at home whenever they went out to party with friends. No point in packing heat when there's no gang culture to speak of and as long as you stay away from bad neighborhoods, getting even into a fist fight is unlikely.

I'm not sure how US soldiers you supervised behaved in an environment foreign to them, especially considering German legislation in regard to drinking age. It's been a while since I did my military service, but generally speaking of the platoon (and later, company) I was responsible for had very few issues with alcohol. Most recruits were between 19 and 24 and I can't remember a single one who wouldn't keep their act together. Some needed a push to a right direction but cases which required MP intervention were limited to 1-2 a year in a company of 120-130 men.

I don't know what army you were in or what kind of unit but I could write a book on the problems with drunk soldiers I experienced while in the Army.

 

[danez71]

Danez71,

You've been around long enough to know that Sam is communicating more than what was written. Pity we don't have an irony emoji to make that obvious.

I totally got the sarcasm but it was the framing of the sarcasm.

Hard to explain exactly in text with out getting too wordy so I'll just mostly leave it and say.... Let's face it, just about everyone is disposable in the military; not just the 18-21 yr old.



Btw, all you gotta do is tell the guy that implemented the new site to add a sarcastic emojis. Personally I don't like the purple text as the indication for a few reasons.

 

[mljdeckard]

In Utah we can carry on-campus. I just spent three weeks in a refresher course at the U of U and I carried every day.

The governor will likely veto it.

I don't think that being mature enough to carry is defined by any specific age. I have known teenagers who are mature enough, I have known 40-year olds who aren't. (Same goes for military service.) I suspect it could cause some backlash for the argument for campus carry, where we could say previously that most college students aren't old enough to get permits anyway. I finished my first enlistment just before my 21st birthday. It was right about the time Utah went "shall-issue". I remember the several months I had to wait to get my permit seemed like such a long time. But I got over it.

On principle, I don't oppose lowering the age, but I'm not sure the benefit is worth the political capital it will cost.

 

[hq]

I don't know what army you were in or what kind of unit but I could write a book on the problems with drunk soldiers I experienced while in the Army.

I can easily believe that. I served in Finnish Defence Forces (no surprises here), in a total of four different units. Mainly rapid deployment, which may or may not explain the better behavior of recruits, along with majority of them being already experienced in the effects of alcohol at their late teens and early twenties. Or partly because at the time code red wasn't uncommon when someone screwed up. Or overemphasizing the pride in exemplary conduct. Hard to say, but the combination seemed to work and in a few short months a mob of unruly youths became a well-oiled machine. My son served in long range recon and according to him there were absolutely no issues with anyone misbehaving, which is understandable considering the hardcore nature of the unit.

In my experience many, even most teenagers can and will behave very well, given the opportunity to take responsibility for their actions. Spoon-fed safe space individuals never will. Firearms, alcohol, work, family; they're all related and dependent on the person's learned behavioral patterns.

 

[denton]

Yesterday, the Governor signed the bill. Utah law now is that 18 year olds can obtain a concealed carry permit that has a few extra restrictions.