I thought there was a connection between countries with lower drinking ages (canada, various in Europe, Australia) and higher rates of binge drinking among teens 15-19
" Although many young people disobey the drinking age, the evidence shows that it has depressed drinking and saved lives.
The review found the drinking age saves at least hundreds of young lives annually just as a result of reduced alcohol-age-related traffic fatalities among underage drivers. The review pointed to one study after the National Minimum Drinking Age Act of 1984, which raised the legal drinking age from 18 to 21: It found that the number of fatally injured drivers with a positive blood alcohol concentration decreased by 57 percent among ages 16 to 20, compared with a 39 percent decrease for those 21 to 24 and 9 percent for those 25 and older. Other studies had similar positive findings.
Chances are the number of lives saved is higher, potentially in the thousands each year, when accounting for alcohol-related deaths beyond drunk driving, such as liver cirrhosis, other accidents, and violent behavior.
The review also pointed to New Zealand, which reduced its drinking age from 20 to 18 in 1999. The country saw significant increases in drinking among ages 18 to 19, bigger increases among those 16 to 17 years old, and a rise in alcohol-related crashes among 15- to 19-year-olds."
Predatory lenders are everywhere.
I would not object if reasonable consumer protections are in place and enforced.
As an example at 19 I was offered a $70,000 pre approved car loan when I applied for a $1,500 credit card. I earned $22,000pa.
It's not the product that concerns me it's the debt.
I get restricting firearm access to only military personnel under 21 but voting? Why?Old enough to fight in a war, old enough to vote and buy firearms.
You could make a compelling argument that only military personnel under the age of 21 can vote or buy firearms though.
I get restricting firearm access to only military personnel under 21 but voting? Why?
I know but what is the compelling argument behind restricting voting under the age of 21 to only military personnel? I understand firearm ownership since they are put through extensive firearm training but I don't see what being in the military has to do with voting.I dont agree with either. Just playing devil's advocate.
I know but what is the compelling argument behind restricting voting under the age of 21 to only military personnel? I understand firearm ownership since they are put through extensive firearm training but I don't see what being in the military has to do with voting.
But he doesn't mention providing an exception to military personnel, you did. Like Is aid, with gun ownership I get but I'm not seeing the connection between voting and military service.I was going off of the OP.
I'd support entering and completing a firearms safety and laws course. Then entering your info as a gun owner and keep it updated with firearms you currently own.
For the sole fact it might stop a significant percentage of people from impulse buying out of anger and/or depression.
The gun vendors would hate it because I'm guessing a ton of their sales is contingent on someone impulse buying a weapon they see and and like...
I don't know, just throwing it out there.
But he doesn't mention providing an exception to military personnel, you did. Like Is aid, with gun ownership I get but I'm not seeing the connection between voting and military service.
I believe if someone is entrusted with the responsibility to go off to war, they should enjoy the same rights as any adult, regardless of age.
Like a literacy test to vote? I think we tried something like that before...And on the flip side of that coin, make voters establish basic competency at registration.
Admirable but I don't necessarily buy it. War is pretty much always been carried out by young men and I don't think being a soldier makes one more equipped to vote than a civilian of the same age. That said I know you're not arguing for it, just throwing it out there.I believe if someone is entrusted with the responsibility to go off to war, they should enjoy the same rights as any adult, regardless of age.
And on the flip side of that coin, make voters establish basic competency at registration.
Approximately the same thing as "shall not be abridged" when I threaten to kill your entire family unless you give me all of your stuff.What do the words "shall not be infringed" mean?
Like a literacy test to vote? I think we tried something like that before...
Admirable but I don't necessarily buy it. War is pretty much always been carried out by young men and I don't think being a soldier makes one more equipped to vote than a civilian of the same age. That said I know you're not arguing for it, just throwing it out there.
Well maybe look into the history of literacy tests to see why they were banned in the first place.Or demonstrate you understand the basics of government before being able to vote, just like demonstratiing basic firearms competency before being able to own a gun.
I’m just drawing a parallel to the gun laws being proposed, which I’m undecided how I feel about yet, hence this thread to exchange ideas.
Being able to vote and reproduce without the least understanding of the consequences seems just as big a travesty as being able to walk out the door with an AR15 at 18 years old, you know.. while we’re discussing stripping Americans of rights.
U wotApproximately the same thing as "shall not be abridged" when I threaten to kill your entire family unless you give me all of your stuff.
I'm not sure what's unclear about it...we have lots and lots of legal opinion and court decisions that map out the limits of free speech and bearing arms...U wot
This makes sense because 18-20 year olds are still essentially children in adult bodies.
If we’re acknowledging that they lack critical thinking ability by stripping them of their right to own firearms , along with their existing inability to buy alcohol, then voting rights removed would complete the transition to second class citizens that this proposed gun ban attaches itself to.
I personally don’t think we should do either, but answer the question “what age is an adult”? If the answer is 18, then all the legal rights that a 40 year old has need to be granted to the 18 year old. But if the answer is 21, then go ahead and call a spade a spade and treat them like the children that a gun/alcohol ban purports them to be.
Well maybe look into the history of literacy tests to see why they were banned in the first place.