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)