The best of intentions often precede the drafting of the worst policies. Senate Bill 23-169 is no deviation from that rule. The desire to end gun violence – especially when it victimizes our children – is a universal cause. The unjustified ending of life is not only the gravest violation of liberty but violates our shared morality as a nation.

Though raising the age to own a firearm to 21 seems to check the boxes on paper, it falls short in both effectiveness and principle.

On effectiveness, the results are inconclusive.

The Rand Corporation’s analysis of the handgun age minimum couldn’t draw a conclusion on whether the policy prevents mass shootings or violent crime, though it found it may reduce suicides.

Also read: Increasing gun ownership age deters impulsive decisions | COUNTERPOINT

FBI data isn’t the most comprehensive, but it’s the best we’ve got. According to their latest numbers (2020), 59% of firearm murders were committed with a handgun, where the ownership age is already set at 21, compared to just 3% for rifles and 1% for shotguns (a whopping 36% is unknown). Raising the age for rifles and shotguns seems to simply be boiling the frog one degree at a time on gun rights, as handgun murders are still leading the pack decades after the federal government banned the sale to those aged 18 to 21.

On principle, I’ll begin with a rhetorical question. Why not raise the age to 25, 35, 47, or 72?

Stay up to speed: Sign-up for daily opinion in your inbox Monday-Friday

I understand. We, as a nation, decided to arbitrarily choose 21 as the age at which an individual can vote (which we then reduced to 18). Then, you had to be that age to have a pint, and eventually to have a smoke. Why not guns? Unfortunately, there isn’t much more justification for choosing 21 other than it is consistent with previous policy, and unlike beer and cigarettes, the right to bear arms is a Constitutional right.

An 18-year-old is a legal adult. They get the privilege of jail and prison if they violate the law, the privilege to get married (and divorced), to fight in our wars, and vote for the elderly to continue leading our nation (see: last column). Setting the age of adulthood at 18 is also arbitrary, but it is fair in that everybody archives autonomy, agency and liability at the same age. Telling those adults that they get the liability now, but the full autonomy and agency later seems to defeat the point.

The same political party that seeks to raise the age for a Constitutional right is also flirting with the idea of lowering the voting age to 16, at least for local elections. It would be entertaining if it weren’t serious. If we are to set the minimum age to own a firearm at 21, we should also consider raising the age of adulthood. Or, if some folks on the left desire to be honest about where this is all truly heading, they should debate the repeal of the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution.

For now, the courts have blocked Democrats’ attempt to curtail the constitutional rights of 18-to-20-year-olds. Let’s hope that sticks.

Sage Naumann is a conservative commentator and strategist. He operates Anthem Communications and was previously the spokesman for the Colorado Senate Republicans. Follow him on Twitter @SageNaumann.