03-12-2018, 02:12 PM
I get that logic F.U.
But, maturity isn't required to risk one's life and kill people. I think maturity would actually make most individuals less inclined to do so.
That's why the minimum age to join the military is so low and high school campuses remain a major focus of military recruitment, in my opinion -- to maintain what the government considers a sufficient number of armed forces to protect our country.
The military has already had to lower the bar in terms of qualifications to maintain enough troops. There's no way they'd reduce the potential pool of service people by raising the age to 21. A lot of young men and women who consider the military as their best or only option at 18 might feel very differently by the time they turn 21. I think we'd probably see a reinstatement of the draft before a raise in the minimum service age.
Anyway, the military could probably make a strong case that an 18-year-old with a government-issued weapon who's undergone firearms training and is under constant supervision and regulations......... is different than an 18-year-old with no required training and no assured supervision going into a store and buying rifles for recreation or less innocent reasons.
But, maturity isn't required to risk one's life and kill people. I think maturity would actually make most individuals less inclined to do so.
That's why the minimum age to join the military is so low and high school campuses remain a major focus of military recruitment, in my opinion -- to maintain what the government considers a sufficient number of armed forces to protect our country.
The military has already had to lower the bar in terms of qualifications to maintain enough troops. There's no way they'd reduce the potential pool of service people by raising the age to 21. A lot of young men and women who consider the military as their best or only option at 18 might feel very differently by the time they turn 21. I think we'd probably see a reinstatement of the draft before a raise in the minimum service age.
Anyway, the military could probably make a strong case that an 18-year-old with a government-issued weapon who's undergone firearms training and is under constant supervision and regulations......... is different than an 18-year-old with no required training and no assured supervision going into a store and buying rifles for recreation or less innocent reasons.