Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

concordtom said:

---

At the very end… a high school has a rifle club?
*** is the matter with America? I now know what his motive was. "I'll show you who doesn't have a bad shot, MF's"

---

I, along with about 150 other boys in my childhood Boy Scout Troop, shot rifles each and every year at scout camp and other places. Funny, none of us grew up to be killers.

---

That's an enormous Boy Scout Troop! I don't think I ever saw one with more than 30 or so kids. Impressive that you've kept track of all 150 of them as they became adults.

That said, I had some rifle training too and I've never been tempted to go shoot someone. We did have someone (not a Boy Scout) in my high school that murdered a couple of women a couple of years after high school but he used a big rock (or maybe a big stick).

concordtom said:

---

At the very end… a high school has a rifle club?
*** is the matter with America? I now know what his motive was. "I'll show you who doesn't have a bad shot, MF's"

---

This is about the dumbest comment ever.

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

concordtom said:

---

At the very end… a high school has a rifle club?
*** is the matter with America? I now know what his motive was. "I'll show you who doesn't have a bad shot, MF's"

---

I, along with about 150 other boys in my childhood Boy Scout Troop, shot rifles each and every year at scout camp and other places. Funny, none of us grew up to be killers.

---

That's good.
What if you multiply your troop by 1M - then what happens?

Eastern Oregon Bear said:

---

Chapman_is_Gone said:

---

concordtom said:

---

At the very end… a high school has a rifle club?
*** is the matter with America? I now know what his motive was. "I'll show you who doesn't have a bad shot, MF's"

---

I, along with about 150 other boys in my childhood Boy Scout Troop, shot rifles each and every year at scout camp and other places. Funny, none of us grew up to be killers.

---

That's an enormous Boy Scout Troop! I don't think I ever saw one with more than 30 or so kids. Impressive that you've kept track of all 150 of them as they became adults.

That said, I had some rifle training too and I've never been tempted to go shoot someone. We did have someone (not a Boy Scout) in my high school that murdered a couple of women a couple of years after high school but he used a big rock (or maybe a big stick).

---

I've known someone to stab someone else to death, because she had a mental slip and did it. 5hit happens.

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

At the very end… a high school has a rifle club?
*** is the matter with America? I now know what his motive was. "I'll show you who doesn't have a bad shot, MF's"

---

This is about the dumbest comment ever.

---

What would you say if I told you the Oakland Unified High School District is canceling their debate programs and instead going to launch marksmanship squads.

Do you approve of these high schools having gun programs? Or, only the rural schools where fathers and son go on annual hunting weekends for elk and such?

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

At the very end… a high school has a rifle club?
*** is the matter with America? I now know what his motive was. "I'll show you who doesn't have a bad shot, MF's"

---

This is about the dumbest comment ever.

---

What would you say if I told you the Oakland Unified High School District is canceling their debate programs and instead going to launch marksmanship squads.

Do you approve of these high schools having gun programs? Or, only the rural schools where fathers and son go on annual hunting weekends for elk and such?

---

I would tell you that the word "Unified", when used in the name of a school district, means K-8 plus high school... together (unified). In some cases, the high school district is actually separate from K-8, in which case they use the word "Union", as in the Acalanes Union High School District (in Lamorinda plus part of Walnut Creek).

Then, you would tell me to get lost. Then, I would laugh. Then, you would also laugh.

Big C said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

At the very end… a high school has a rifle club?
*** is the matter with America? I now know what his motive was. "I'll show you who doesn't have a bad shot, MF's"

---

This is about the dumbest comment ever.

---

What would you say if I told you the Oakland Unified High School District is canceling their debate programs and instead going to launch marksmanship squads.

Do you approve of these high schools having gun programs? Or, only the rural schools where fathers and son go on annual hunting weekends for elk and such?

---

I would tell you that the word "Unified", when used in the name of a school district, means K-8 plus high school... together (unified). In some cases, the high school district is actually separate from K-8, in which case they use the word "Union", as in the Acalanes Union High School District (in Lamorinda plus part of Walnut Creek).

Then, you would tell me to get lost. Then, I would laugh. Then, you would also laugh.

---

No.
I would tell you, "Really??? Damn! I never knew that before. AND, I always wondered what the hell that wording was always used for. Thanks!"

Okay, now we can both laugh together.

^ funny story about that, ct, it was, like, the one fact i retained from my teacher credential program... thought i'd share

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

At the very end… a high school has a rifle club?
*** is the matter with America? I now know what his motive was. "I'll show you who doesn't have a bad shot, MF's"

---

This is about the dumbest comment ever.

---

What would you say if I told you the Oakland Unified High School District is canceling their debate programs and instead going to launch marksmanship squads.

Do you approve of these high schools having gun programs? Or, only the rural schools where fathers and son go on annual hunting weekends for elk and such?

---

I would tell you that your premise that teaching gun safety and marksmanship promotes assassins and gun violence is completely asinine; that it is like arguing that teaching drivers education promotes drunk driving and automobile deaths. I would also tell you that there's an inherent racism in saying urban Oakland kids can't be trusted to have firearms knowledge and training (and it's a red herring to say it comes in exchange for some other program).

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

At the very end… a high school has a rifle club?
*** is the matter with America? I now know what his motive was. "I'll show you who doesn't have a bad shot, MF's"

---

This is about the dumbest comment ever.

---

What would you say if I told you the Oakland Unified High School District is canceling their debate programs and instead going to launch marksmanship squads.

Do you approve of these high schools having gun programs? Or, only the rural schools where fathers and son go on annual hunting weekends for elk and such?

---

I would tell you that your premise that teaching gun safety and marksmanship promotes assassins and gun violence is completely asinine; that it is like arguing that teaching drivers education promotes drunk driving and automobile deaths. I would also tell you that there's an inherent racism in saying urban Oakland kids can't be trusted to have firearms knowledge and training (and it's a red herring to say it comes in exchange for some other program).

---

Yes, there is inherent racism in the question. I posed it to light up the reader's mind. Obviously!

For instance, ask the typical MAGA voter in (Nebraska) if a high school shooting problem is okay, and they'll conjure up visions of hunting. But then ask them if Brooklyn, Detroit, DC kids should have the same thing and they'll likely think Straight Outta Compton, no. And ask them why they think "no" and they'll say, as I'm saying, that it would lead to more gun violence - as I'm suggesting. But I'm saying it happens for everyone, urban kids AND the (Nebraska) kids.

I strongly disagree with your suggestion that people don't think about the activities they are engaged in.

If you give a kid permission to roam after school, they will roam with their tennis shoes. Introduce a bicycle and they'll go that much further. Give them a car, and they'll start to think about where they can go next. They'll look at maps.

Without the car, their imagination stays more local.

Introduce a gun into the home, and the chances of a gun getting used go up big time.

Now, a wise retort might be to ask if sex education leads to higher levels of sex engagement. But in that case, I'd tell you that the pistol comes already built-in.

There.
Debate, discuss.

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

I would tell you that your premise that teaching gun safety and marksmanship promotes assassins and gun violence is completely asinine; that it is like arguing that teaching drivers education promotes drunk driving and automobile deaths. I would also tell you that there's an inherent racism in saying urban Oakland kids can't be trusted to have firearms knowledge and training (and it's a red herring to say it comes in exchange for some other program).

---

Yes, there is inherent racism in the question. I posed it to light up the reader's mind. Obviously!

And I strongly disagree with your suggestion that people don't think about the activities they are engaged in.

If you give a kid permission yo roam after school, they will roam with their tennis shoes. Introduce a bicycle and they'll go that much further. Give them a car, and they'll start to think about where they can go next. They'll look at maps.

Without the car, their imagination stays more local.

Introduce a gun into the home, and the chances of a gun getting used go up big time.

Now, a wise retort might be to ask if sex education leads to higher levels of sex engagement. But in that case, I'd tell you that the pistol comes already built-in.

There.
Debate, discuss.

---

Teaching people how to shoot properly, how firearms function and about firearms safety is NOT teaching them how to be mass murderers or assassins. This is the fallacy of your position - any knowledge could only be used for nefarious means. That is flat out wrong. In fact, the exact opposite is true. People who take these classes think about firearms in more guarded, responsible and productive ways because that expectation is set and because they experience the inherent dangerousness of firearms at the range. They are taught to think about responsibility and safety, not shooting people.

Your guns in the home argument is moving the goal posts / red herring. No thanks.

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

tequila4kapp said:

---

concordtom said:

---

At the very end… a high school has a rifle club?
*** is the matter with America? I now know what his motive was. "I'll show you who doesn't have a bad shot, MF's"

---

This is about the dumbest comment ever.

---

What would you say if I told you the Oakland Unified High School District is canceling their debate programs and instead going to launch marksmanship squads.

Do you approve of these high schools having gun programs? Or, only the rural schools where fathers and son go on annual hunting weekends for elk and such?

---

I would tell you that your premise that teaching gun safety and marksmanship promotes assassins and gun violence is completely asinine; that it is like arguing that teaching drivers education promotes drunk driving and automobile deaths. I would also tell you that there's an inherent racism in saying urban Oakland kids can't be trusted to have firearms knowledge and training (and it's a red herring to say it comes in exchange for some other program).

---

Yes, there is inherent racism in the question. I posed it to light up the reader's mind. Obviously!

For instance, ask the typical MAGA voter in (Nebraska) if a high school shooting problem is okay, and they'll conjure up visions of hunting. But then ask them if Brooklyn, Detroit, DC kids should have the same thing and they'll likely think Straight Outta Compton, no. And ask them why they think "no" and they'll say, as I'm saying, that it would lead to more gun violence - as I'm suggesting. But I'm saying it happens for everyone, urban kids AND the (Nebraska) kids.

I strongly disagree with your suggestion that people don't think about the activities they are engaged in.

If you give a kid permission to roam after school, they will roam with their tennis shoes. Introduce a bicycle and they'll go that much further. Give them a car, and they'll start to think about where they can go next. They'll look at maps.

Without the car, their imagination stays more local.

Introduce a gun into the home, and the chances of a gun getting used go up big time.

Now, a wise retort might be to ask if sex education leads to higher levels of sex engagement. But in that case, I'd tell you that the pistol comes already built-in.

There.
Debate, discuss.

---

It is hard to compare sex education to firearm education. Unprotected sex currently leads to more than 15x more deaths than firearms.

Except for the disturbed individuals who are deviant. Now they know all the specifications, how accurate the weapon is from 150 yards.

Let's get some other voices in on this.

Do you think it's wise to teach people all about how guns work? How to shoot from range with rifles and scopes? What is the redeeming social "plus" here?

concordtom said:

---

Except for the disturbed individuals who are deviant. Now they know all the specifications, how accurate the weapon is from 150 yards.

Let's get some other voices in on this.

Do you think it's wise to teach people all about how guns work? How to shoot from range with rifles and scopes? What is the redeeming social "plus" here?

---

Honest question, what is your experience with firearms? Military? Never?

The social utility is that people are taught gun safety, self control/discipline and responsibility, which mitigates the risk of both accidental and intentional shootings. No organized training program just hands a gun to people and lets them blast away. Again, safety, self control/discipline and responsibility.

Since it's very unlikely we'd ever be able to ban gun ownership in this country, I think it would be good if all gun owners were required to take gun safety courses.

concordtom said:

---

Except for the disturbed individuals who are deviant. Now they know all the specifications, how accurate the weapon is from 150 yards.

Let's get some other voices in on this.

Do you think it's wise to teach people all about how guns work? How to shoot from range with rifles and scopes? What is the redeeming social "plus" here?

---

Is it wise to teach disturbed individuals the specifications of *****es and vaginas?

sycasey said:

---

Since it's very unlikely we'd ever be able to ban gun ownership in this country, I think it would be good if all gun owners were required to take gun safety courses.

---

Sure. Of course. If you buy a gun, you should be required to do various things with it - like keep it from your deviant 20 year old. Or yourself, for when you go crazy later on in life and turn it on yourself or others. Remember! The #1 gun death is not murder or self defense or accident - it's SUICIDE. So, prior "reasoned" and "safety-taught" gun owners can and do become unreasonable.
But, back to the question at hand.



Is it a good thing to have a gun program at a high school so that kids who may have never been exposed to guns, or would otherwise never have an introduction to guns, can indeed become exposed to guns, possibly interested in guns, and suddenly, aha, think of novel ways to use guns?

OR

Is it better to not expose people to guns, because - oh, I don't know - then they wouldn't actually think to use them?


My question is not about BANNING guns or teaching gun safety. It's about "promoting" them. School clubs promote their particular subject matter. That's not something I want promoted in my neighborhood. That just leads to more "gun enthusiasts" who buy more guns, and more guns leads to more shootings. You can't have a shooting without a gun.

Gosh, I think this is a real easy one. But, have at it, folks.

concordtom said:

---

sycasey said:

---

Since it's very unlikely we'd ever be able to ban gun ownership in this country, I think it would be good if all gun owners were required to take gun safety courses.

---

Sure. Of course. If you buy a gun, you should be required to do various things with it - like keep it from your deviant 20 year old. Or yourself, for when you go crazy later on in life and turn it on yourself or others. Remember! The #1 gun death is not murder or self defense or accident - it's SUICIDE. So, prior "reasoned" and "safety-taught" gun owners can and do become unreasonable.
But, back to the question at hand.



Is it a good thing to have a gun program at a high school so that kids who may have never been exposed to guns, or would otherwise never have an introduction to guns, can indeed become exposed to guns, possibly interested in guns, and suddenly, aha, think of novel ways to use guns?

OR

Is it better to not expose people to guns, because - oh, I don't know - then they wouldn't actually think to use them?


My question is not about BANNING guns or teaching gun safety. It's about "promoting" them. School clubs promote their particular subject matter. That's not something I want promoted in my neighborhood. That just leads to more "gun enthusiasts" who buy more guns, and more guns leads to more shootings. You can't have a shooting without a gun.

Gosh, I think this is a real easy one. But, have at it, folks.

---

I remember a while back when I was living in San Francisco (this would be in 2008, I think -- Obama's first election) there was a local measure on the ballot to eliminate the JROTC program in the public high schools. The logic was that exposing young kids to militaristic ideas at an early age was bad. This is also obviously near the end of the Bush years so this anti-military sentiment was very high on the left.

And you know what? I might have personally agreed with this. I never had any interest in ROTC or the military. But other people are, and I'm not naive enough to think the US military is suddenly going to cease to exist. Why deny the opportunity to kids who are interested? I voted against the measure. I think I would apply the same rubric to gun safety clubs in schools that serve areas with a lot of gun owners (especially rural areas).

If it were up to me I'd prefer to not have any guns around . . . but it ain't all up to me. If they are going to be around let's teach people to be safe.

Two different subjects: 1. firearm instruction/safety for kids. 2. guns in kids' homes, not locked up

I feel my posit hasn't been addressed. Which is this - if you draw a focus to guns, by having a club about them, you're probably going to have more gun activity (outside of non-injurious activities like target practice and hunting).

People disagree with that posit? Really?

concordtom said:

---

I feel my posit hasn't been addressed. Which is this - if you draw a focus to guns, by having a club about them, you're probably going to have more gun activity (outside of non-injurious activities like target practice and hunting).

People disagree with that posit? Really?

---

I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, honestly.

sycasey said:

---

concordtom said:

---

I feel my posit hasn't been addressed. Which is this - if you draw a focus to guns, by having a club about them, you're probably going to have more gun activity (outside of non-injurious activities like target practice and hunting).

People disagree with that posit? Really?

---

I'm not sure it makes much of a difference, honestly.

---

Lol.
You're right.
Why do I care?
Thank you.

concordtom said:

---

I feel my posit hasn't been addressed. Which is this - if you draw a focus to guns, by having a club about them, you're probably going to have more gun activity (outside of non-injurious activities like target practice and hunting).

People disagree with that posit? Really?

---

Yes, you will have more activity. People will practice at the range and consider hunting.