You're mature enough to vote or volunteer for military service but not mature enough to order a drink or defend yourself with a handgun. Seems pretty inconsistent to me.
I know 40 year olds who are too immature to have guns, vote, drink or drive a car, and I know 18 year olds who worry me not a bit to carry a gun. No age restriction, no matter how high or low, will do a very good job of screening out the immature among us, at least not once you get past 18.
Here's the reason to lower the age: why should a young girl or guy going to college, who has to walk in questionable areas and/or at odd hours, be legally barred from having the ability to defend themselves? Do we take away their rights b/c other 18 or 20 year olds are fools?
If we did that none of us would have a gun, and that thinking is in fact the basis for the anti-gunner view, that b/c some few are irresponsible we should simply keep us all from having anything dangerous.
Like most gun laws it really only impacts the law abiding. Obviously it's done nothing to slow access to or use of guns by criminals of any age, and I doubt many fools we'd like to see not have one has let it stand in their way often either. So in the end it's mostly those who are responsible enough to have one that it prevents from having one.
I don't lose sleep over this particular restriction, but it seems arbitrary we try to limit what adults can do in pursuit of their own self defense. Of course the drinking age at 21 when you can vote and serve in the military at 18 seems inconsistent to me too. Mostly I think we need to pick an age of "adulthood" and be done with it, whatever number we pick.
