On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:00:34 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:21:46 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
"jds" ssss wrote in message ...
hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in
the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature, grown
up enough to handle them. turns out i was. i have weapons on my boat, in
my home and on my person at all times. if you have ever needed a weapon to
keep yourself or family alive, you understand what i mean. regards, j.d.

And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that means
all those 17 are? Hardly.
Haha. Now you're trying to entirely change the argument. You were
claiming Zak shouldn't have a gun because he is 17. The only way that
argument works is if *no* 17 yo's are old enough to use guns safely,
because if some are, Zak might be one of them.


Some 12 year olds know more about politics and current events than
many 40 year olds. I guess we should lower the voting age to 12. heck,
maybe five is old enough. After all, it only takes one example to
prove something on your planet. I'm sure there is at least 1 five year
old that could qualify.

How about instead of trying to determine an age to descriminate people
at, you base it upon competence, which occurs at different ages for
different people?


Risky as it sounds, I think you should retain the right to vote.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:02:09 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:38:11 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"jds" ssss wrote in message ...
hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in
the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature,
grown
up enough to handle them. turns out i was. i have weapons on my boat, in
my home and on my person at all times. if you have ever needed a weapon
to
keep yourself or family alive, you understand what i mean. regards, j.d.


And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that
means
all those 17 are? Hardly. It's a fact that a young person's brain isn't
fully mature (on average) until they're in their mid-20s.

You are correct in that some 17 year olds aren't mature enough to make
decisions, but neither are some 20, 30, 40, 50,.... year olds.
Physical age is hardly a gauge of mental maturity. If it were the
daily news would read much different then it does.

If your supposition is correct why are we allowing people younger then
17 drive cars? Have a look at the statistics and see who are killing
the most people? Car drivers or gun owners?

I suggest that a great deal of the supposed immaturity of the youth
today is really the fact that they are cosseted and cuddled by their
parents and never have to make a decision. So they never do learn to
do so.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


I made no claim that 17 year olds should not be allowed to have a gun. I
stated a fact about the mature brain. This has little to do with whether or
not one should take a gun aboard. I think it's a bad idea, and I stated my
reasons. If you disagree, that's your choice. If you want to get into a
discussion about whether or not someone should get a drivers license or the
immaturity or maturity of youth, that's best done in another newsgroup.

The paid captain of a 4 million dollar luxury yacht was just released
after 127 days in a mexican jail. Authorities, while conducting a drug
search, discovered his boss's gun.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:00:34 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

wrote:
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 14:21:46 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

Capt. JG wrote:
"jds" ssss wrote in message
...
hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam
in
the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature,
grown
up enough to handle them. turns out i was. i have weapons on my boat,
in
my home and on my person at all times. if you have ever needed a
weapon to
keep yourself or family alive, you understand what i mean. regards,
j.d.

And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that
means
all those 17 are? Hardly.
Haha. Now you're trying to entirely change the argument. You were
claiming Zak shouldn't have a gun because he is 17. The only way that
argument works is if *no* 17 yo's are old enough to use guns safely,
because if some are, Zak might be one of them.


Some 12 year olds know more about politics and current events than
many 40 year olds. I guess we should lower the voting age to 12. heck,
maybe five is old enough. After all, it only takes one example to
prove something on your planet. I'm sure there is at least 1 five year
old that could qualify.

How about instead of trying to determine an age to descriminate people
at, you base it upon competence, which occurs at different ages for
different people?


Risky as it sounds, I think you should retain the right to vote.



Now that's funny.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

In article lutions,
"Capt. JG" wrote:

So, you weren't on your boat. You carry the shotgun and the sidearm on your
boat, but do you travel to foreign ports? I doubt it. If so, please let us
know which ones.

Carrying a Firearm, aboard a Vessel in International Trade is no "Big
Deal" if you follow the International Conventions, and Treaties, put in
place by the IMO. (International Maritime Organization - part of the
United Nations) Specifically, you must have a "Customs Locker" that
meets IMO Requirements, you MUST Declare any Firearms, to the Customs
Officials, upon entering any Foreign Port, and comply with the IMO
Conventions for such situations. Is it a "Hassle", Yes, and, No, and
Maybe. Some folks do it, some folks don't. US Flagged, and US Military
Ships, routinely travel to many Ports of Call, in many different
Countries, and they don't seem to have much of a problem, complying with
the IMO Conventions. Of course what country would want a 5" Autoloader
Pointing at their Customs Shed, ready to reduce it to rubble.......

"You" wrote in message
...
In article lutions,
"Capt. JG" wrote:

So, you weren't on your boat. You carry the shotgun and the sidearm on
your
boat, but do you travel to foreign ports? I doubt it. If so, please let
us
know which ones.

Carrying a Firearm, aboard a Vessel in International Trade is no "Big
Deal" if you follow the International Conventions, and Treaties, put in
place by the IMO. (International Maritime Organization - part of the
United Nations) Specifically, you must have a "Customs Locker" that
meets IMO Requirements, you MUST Declare any Firearms, to the Customs
Officials, upon entering any Foreign Port, and comply with the IMO
Conventions for such situations. Is it a "Hassle", Yes, and, No, and
Maybe. Some folks do it, some folks don't. US Flagged, and US Military
Ships, routinely travel to many Ports of Call, in many different
Countries, and they don't seem to have much of a problem, complying with
the IMO Conventions. Of course what country would want a 5" Autoloader
Pointing at their Customs Shed, ready to reduce it to rubble.......


Yup... I never said it was impossible. I said that I thought it was a bad
idea and not worth the hassle. Also, I don't believe Zak was involved in
"International Trade" nor would most people here, but you never know.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:02:09 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:38:11 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"jds" ssss wrote in message ...
hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam in
the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature,
grown
up enough to handle them. turns out i was. i have weapons on my boat, in
my home and on my person at all times. if you have ever needed a weapon
to
keep yourself or family alive, you understand what i mean. regards, j.d.


And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that
means
all those 17 are? Hardly. It's a fact that a young person's brain isn't
fully mature (on average) until they're in their mid-20s.

You are correct in that some 17 year olds aren't mature enough to make
decisions, but neither are some 20, 30, 40, 50,.... year olds.
Physical age is hardly a gauge of mental maturity. If it were the
daily news would read much different then it does.

If your supposition is correct why are we allowing people younger then
17 drive cars? Have a look at the statistics and see who are killing
the most people? Car drivers or gun owners?

I suggest that a great deal of the supposed immaturity of the youth
today is really the fact that they are cosseted and cuddled by their
parents and never have to make a decision. So they never do learn to
do so.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


I made no claim that 17 year olds should not be allowed to have a gun. I
stated a fact about the mature brain. This has little to do with whether or
not one should take a gun aboard. I think it's a bad idea, and I stated my
reasons. If you disagree, that's your choice. If you want to get into a
discussion about whether or not someone should get a drivers license or the
immaturity or maturity of youth, that's best done in another newsgroup.


Just as discussion of guns is more logically done in rec.guns.....

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:02:09 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:38:11 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"jds" ssss wrote in message
...
hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam
in
the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature,
grown
up enough to handle them. turns out i was. i have weapons on my boat,
in
my home and on my person at all times. if you have ever needed a
weapon
to
keep yourself or family alive, you understand what i mean. regards,
j.d.


And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that
means
all those 17 are? Hardly. It's a fact that a young person's brain isn't
fully mature (on average) until they're in their mid-20s.

You are correct in that some 17 year olds aren't mature enough to make
decisions, but neither are some 20, 30, 40, 50,.... year olds.
Physical age is hardly a gauge of mental maturity. If it were the
daily news would read much different then it does.

If your supposition is correct why are we allowing people younger then
17 drive cars? Have a look at the statistics and see who are killing
the most people? Car drivers or gun owners?

I suggest that a great deal of the supposed immaturity of the youth
today is really the fact that they are cosseted and cuddled by their
parents and never have to make a decision. So they never do learn to
do so.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


I made no claim that 17 year olds should not be allowed to have a gun. I
stated a fact about the mature brain. This has little to do with whether
or
not one should take a gun aboard. I think it's a bad idea, and I stated my
reasons. If you disagree, that's your choice. If you want to get into a
discussion about whether or not someone should get a drivers license or
the
immaturity or maturity of youth, that's best done in another newsgroup.


Just as discussion of guns is more logically done in rec.guns.....

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Well, that's true, but the discussion was about guns on boats, which is a
legitimate topic, as long as it doesn't (which it did) devolve into
political bs.

A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun aboard,
what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I would
put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

Capt. JG wrote:
"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:02:09 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:38:11 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"jds" ssss wrote in message
...
hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam
in
the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature,
grown
up enough to handle them. turns out i was. i have weapons on my boat,
in
my home and on my person at all times. if you have ever needed a
weapon
to
keep yourself or family alive, you understand what i mean. regards,
j.d.

And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that
means
all those 17 are? Hardly. It's a fact that a young person's brain isn't
fully mature (on average) until they're in their mid-20s.
You are correct in that some 17 year olds aren't mature enough to make
decisions, but neither are some 20, 30, 40, 50,.... year olds.
Physical age is hardly a gauge of mental maturity. If it were the
daily news would read much different then it does.

If your supposition is correct why are we allowing people younger then
17 drive cars? Have a look at the statistics and see who are killing
the most people? Car drivers or gun owners?

I suggest that a great deal of the supposed immaturity of the youth
today is really the fact that they are cosseted and cuddled by their
parents and never have to make a decision. So they never do learn to
do so.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

I made no claim that 17 year olds should not be allowed to have a gun. I
stated a fact about the mature brain. This has little to do with whether
or
not one should take a gun aboard. I think it's a bad idea, and I stated my
reasons. If you disagree, that's your choice. If you want to get into a
discussion about whether or not someone should get a drivers license or
the
immaturity or maturity of youth, that's best done in another newsgroup.

Just as discussion of guns is more logically done in rec.guns.....

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Well, that's true, but the discussion was about guns on boats, which is a
legitimate topic, as long as it doesn't (which it did) devolve into
political bs.

A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun aboard,
what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I would
put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull.


We agree. My original point, that many didn't see my way, is that a
..357 is way too powerful to have on a boat. In the hands of a 16 year
old is a side issue.

You can do a lot of unintended damage with a gun that powerful. You
might be safer without it.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:33:44 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:02:09 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"Bruce In Bangkok" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 10:38:11 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

"jds" ssss wrote in message
.. .
hmmm, interesting. when i was 17 i was being trained by my uncle sam
in
the uses of powerful weapons. he seemed to think i was old, mature,
grown
up enough to handle them. turns out i was. i have weapons on my boat,
in
my home and on my person at all times. if you have ever needed a
weapon
to
keep yourself or family alive, you understand what i mean. regards,
j.d.


And, because you were "matrure" enough to have them at that age, that
means
all those 17 are? Hardly. It's a fact that a young person's brain isn't
fully mature (on average) until they're in their mid-20s.

You are correct in that some 17 year olds aren't mature enough to make
decisions, but neither are some 20, 30, 40, 50,.... year olds.
Physical age is hardly a gauge of mental maturity. If it were the
daily news would read much different then it does.

If your supposition is correct why are we allowing people younger then
17 drive cars? Have a look at the statistics and see who are killing
the most people? Car drivers or gun owners?

I suggest that a great deal of the supposed immaturity of the youth
today is really the fact that they are cosseted and cuddled by their
parents and never have to make a decision. So they never do learn to
do so.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


I made no claim that 17 year olds should not be allowed to have a gun. I
stated a fact about the mature brain. This has little to do with whether
or
not one should take a gun aboard. I think it's a bad idea, and I stated my
reasons. If you disagree, that's your choice. If you want to get into a
discussion about whether or not someone should get a drivers license or
the
immaturity or maturity of youth, that's best done in another newsgroup.


Just as discussion of guns is more logically done in rec.guns.....

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)


Well, that's true, but the discussion was about guns on boats, which is a
legitimate topic, as long as it doesn't (which it did) devolve into
political bs.

A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun aboard,
what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I would
put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull.

Probably as good a pick as any. The point is that you can only defend
against one or possibly two people who come aboard and even then only
is they are unarmed. You simply aren't going to defend your boat
against a "pirate Boat" by yourself as any "pirate boat" is going to
have a couple of M-16's at a minimum and no matter what you have it
isn't going to be enough - unless you are awful, awful, lucky.

Cheers,

Bruce
(bruceinbangkokatgmaildotcom)

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 20:33:44 -0700, "Capt. JG"
wrote:

A better question would be... if you're decided to have a single gun aboard,
what should it be? I was thinking my .38 Special would be fine, but I would
put shotgun pellet rounds in it. No reason to blow a hole in the hull.

Your shot load is for snakes inside a range of ten feet. If it won't
penetrate the average hull it isn't enough gun to defend yourself
with. The 38 Special is considered to be on the light side for
shooting people.

Casady