View Poll Results: Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

Voters
57. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    19 33.33%
  • no

    25 43.86%
  • other/maybe

    13 22.81%
Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast
Results 71 to 80 of 174

Thread: Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

  1. #71
    Advisor Regicollis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    12-09-10 @ 11:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    318

    Re: Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Oh, that's easy.

    The word is "gym". No one needs gym as much ...l.****, the revisionists are calling it "physical education" as a sop the lowly gym teachers, aren't they? Train those fairly useless sob's as gun safety instructors and set part of that almost completely pointless curriculum into something both usefull and interesting, firearms training.
    I have no problems with having marksmanship as a part of the gym curriculum if the school and the teachers chooses to do so.

    However, as a pre-requisite, only law abiding US citizens and legal residents should be trained in proper gun use. Invaders and criminals can shoot themselves to ribbons, it's okay by me.
    Irresponsible gun owners don't just shoot up each other... they shoot who ever is standing nearby...

    THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    So much for that prior-restraint bull****.

    Driving a car is a privilege, not a Constitutionally protected right.
    Can you tell me why owning a lethal firearm should be a constitutionally protected right, while driving a car should not?

    Naw, bull****.

    You weed out the "irresponsible" gun owners by imposing stringent criminal penalties for using the damn things unsafely and unwisely.
    So we should not do anything to stop irresponsible gun owners before they shoot some innocent guy up?

    I don't believe punishment would be a sufficient deterrent even if we were to let a group of drunken conservatives dream up the most barbaric punishment they could. Even the death penalty don't deter people from murdering each other.

    If you enter your house to see a crew of masked thugs ransacking it, you're perfetly authorized to haul your peice out and kill them.
    Yes, it is insane. Blood for property.
    The poor complain; they always do
    But thatís just idle chatter
    Our system brings reward to all
    At least all those who matter.

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    I have no problems with having marksmanship as a part of the gym curriculum if the school and the teachers chooses to do so.
    That's weird.

    My math teachers were required to teach trigonometry and calculus.

    Gym teachers can be exempted from a basic curriculum requirement?

    When did the rats begin to steer the stable? Gun safety and marksmanship should be made mandatory, and teachers who choose to not teach that part of the course can demonstrate this decision by resigning.

    That's how it works when the public, not the employees, are in charge of the schools.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    Irresponsible gun owners don't just shoot up each other... they shoot who ever is standing nearby...
    That's why you lock them in jail forever and forget to feed them.

    Their existence is not justification for prior restraint, just as the New York Times isn't justification for suspending the First Amendment.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    Can you tell me why owning a lethal firearm should be a constitutionally protected right, while driving a car should not?
    Want me to explain why you can't fly without an airplane, while we're at it?

    Because that's the way it is in the United States.

    Don't like?

    Don't live here.

    It's that simple.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    So we should not do anything to stop irresponsible gun owners before they shoot some innocent guy up?
    What part of prior restraint did you fail to understand?

    If you find someone leaving their guns unattended on the front seat of an unlocked car, yeah, they can be charged with some kind of negligence. But history has solidly proven one essential fact about people:

    You can't outlaw idiocy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    I don't believe punishment would be a sufficient deterrent even if we were to let a group of drunken conservatives dream up the most barbaric punishment they could. Even the death penalty don't deter people from murdering each other.
    The proper exercise of the death penalty not only deters capital crime, it successfully eliminates recidivism.

    When the elimination of the human right to own firearms is taken off the table, what do you propose to do to cure the human race of idiocy?

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    Yes, it is insane. Blood for property.
    No, violent enemies are in your home. Their choice to commit aggression, your choice to respond appropriately. There's absolutely no reason why a man should be forced to flee from his home merely because someone else has decided thug blood is worth more than his TV.

    My TV is worth a dozen thugs, easily.

    That's how you deter crime. You kill criminals and scare the living **** out of them with bullets and buckshot. And you deny those that happen to live access to the civil courts to sue their would be victim.

    Their body, their choice. They choose to put their body in a someone's home where he has the right to defend himself with deadly force. If their bodies get injured or killed, it was their choice.

    It's that simple.

    Americans should not be forced to be simpering cowards merely because soft headed do gooders are worried about the lives of the damned criminals.

    What's wrong with you people?

  3. #73
    Advisor Regicollis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Denmark
    Last Seen
    12-09-10 @ 11:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    318

    Re: Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    That's weird.

    My math teachers were required to teach trigonometry and calculus.

    Gym teachers can be exempted from a basic curriculum requirement?

    When did the rats begin to steer the stable? Gun safety and marksmanship should be made mandatory, and teachers who choose to not teach that part of the course can demonstrate this decision by resigning.

    That's how it works when the public, not the employees, are in charge of the schools.
    As far as I know the curriculum is not so rigid that gym teachers can't decide whether to teach football or tennis.

    That's why you lock them in jail forever and forget to feed them.
    Too bad they have to hurt somebody before you want to do anything about it.

    Their existence is not justification for prior restraint, just as the New York Times isn't justification for suspending the First Amendment.
    If somebody writes an editorial you don't like, all that happens is that you get angry for a while. When somebody does something stupid with a gun, an airplane or a car you die. See the difference?

    Want me to explain why you can't fly without an airplane, while we're at it?
    I understand why untrained people are not allowed to fly airplanes. What I don't understand is why untrained people are allowed to own lethal weapons.

    Because that's the way it is in the United States.

    Don't like?

    Don't live here.

    It's that simple.
    Come on. That isn't even an argument. Can't you come up with something better than that; something that actually gives a good reason why things should be as they are?

    What part of prior restraint did you fail to understand?

    If you find someone leaving their guns unattended on the front seat of an unlocked car, yeah, they can be charged with some kind of negligence. But history has solidly proven one essential fact about people:

    You can't outlaw idiocy.
    You're totally right. You can't outlaw idiocy and that is why we should make sure idiots are not allowed to have guns in the first place.

    The proper exercise of the death penalty not only deters capital crime, it successfully eliminates recidivism.
    The death penalty certainly did not prevent the inmates on death row from doing the crimes that got them there.

    When the elimination of the human right to own firearms is taken off the table, what do you propose to do to cure the human race of idiocy?
    Americans are virtually alone in thinking gun ownership for untrained idiots is a human right.

    No, violent enemies are in your home. Their choice to commit aggression, your choice to respond appropriately. There's absolutely no reason why a man should be forced to flee from his home merely because someone else has decided thug blood is worth more than his TV.
    It is extremely rare that burglars become violent, whether it is in societies with guns everywhere or in societies with responsible gun laws.

    My TV is worth a dozen thugs, easily.

    That's how you deter crime. You kill criminals and scare the living **** out of them with bullets and buckshot. And you deny those that happen to live access to the civil courts to sue their would be victim.

    Their body, their choice. They choose to put their body in a someone's home where he has the right to defend himself with deadly force. If their bodies get injured or killed, it was their choice.

    It's that simple.
    That is a very callous way to think about human lives.

    Americans should not be forced to be simpering cowards merely because soft headed do gooders are worried about the lives of the damned criminals.
    Neither should Americans live in a society with a ready supply of guns for criminals, psychopaths and idiots. They deserve more safety.
    The poor complain; they always do
    But thatís just idle chatter
    Our system brings reward to all
    At least all those who matter.

  4. #74
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    As far as I know the curriculum is not so rigid that gym teachers can't decide whether to teach football or tennis.
    Why isn't it?

    Generally it's the school boards that make those decisions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    Too bad they have to hurt somebody before you want to do anything about it.
    You are not forced to live in a free country.

    It's your privilege.

    Because it's a free country, we won't stop you from going to some asinine place like England, where they've even outlawed decent cutlery.


    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    If somebody writes an editorial you don't like, all that happens is that you get angry for a while. When somebody does something stupid with a gun, an airplane or a car you die. See the difference?
    Yes.

    Both the editorial and the gun ownership are protected by the bill of rights. No difference at all. Libelous editorials cause harm and can be punished by law. No prior restraint is allowed. Improper gun use can cause harm and is punished by law...unless you're a Black Panther preventing white people from going to a polling place on Obama's election day....and can't be subject to prior restraint.

    You don't have to live in a free country if you don't like it.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    I understand why untrained people are not allowed to fly airplanes. What I don't understand is why untrained people are allowed to own lethal weapons.
    Damn, some people can't figure out that their examples are just parrots of themselves.

    Am I required to inform these ignorant types of people that their example of car driving (a privilege) already dismissed, covers their parallel example of aircraft piloting? Are we going to have to suffer some fool then bringing in train conducting? Truck driving, since trucks aren't cars? Hot air ballooning next? The Space Shuttle? When will this ignorant person figure out that we already dismissed all his parallel little flawed arguments?

    Hmmm?

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    Come on. That isn't even an argument. Can't you come up with something better than that; something that actually gives a good reason why things should be as they are?
    I'm clearly not required to generate new arguments when you're recycling old crap.

    And, I'm explaining to you your options, since you seem to be densely unaware of what you can do when you don't like living in a free country.

    Why don't you move to Mother Russia? They still have strict gun control over there.

    Of course, the Russians have the highest per capita murder rate of any industrialized nations, but hell, if they're not killed with those evil guns, it's fine, right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    You're totally right.
    Something I've always known.

    Being God is a good thing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    You can't outlaw idiocy and that is why we should make sure idiots are not allowed to have guns in the first place.
    I think we just need to urge the people afraid of freedom towards the door.

    Most of America's problems will be solved when the nervous nellies either leave or get laid.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    The death penalty certainly did not prevent the inmates on death row from doing the crimes that got them there.
    That's because it's not enforced.

    Welcome to the real world. When criminals are convicted, then executed, rapidly and messily, others pondering similar crimes get queasy.

    But we've got your ideal society now. Criminals do whatever they want, they go to jail, they get out, they commit more crimes, they go back to jail, and sometimes they get out again.

    You people have a really effective system, if your goal is maintenance of prison guard unions and police force payrolls.

    It's not very good if you want the citizens to be safe.

    Why don't you try a little experiment.

    Put a huge sign in front of your house advertising Handgun Control Inc. Get all your like feeling neighbors to do the same. Put an advertisement on TV touting your neighborhood as a gun-free zone, so that everyone knows how safe you people really are.

    Maybe festoon your homes with the red international strike-circle over the image of a pistol, to make sure everyone knows what you mean and can be proud of your efforts, that should do it. Call yourselves the Gun Busters. Be creative, okay?

    Do that and let us know how well it works.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    Americans are virtually alone in thinking gun ownership for untrained idiots is a human right.
    You think this is some kind of logical point?

    Besides proving people who aren't Americans have their heads up their asses, what have you done?

    Seriously, it's clear you do not live in the country you were intended to be in and you need to re-locate, soon, so you can be happy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    It is extremely rare that burglars become violent, whether it is in societies with guns everywhere or in societies with responsible gun laws.
    It's even rarer when the burglars think the homeowner might have a gun.

    Burglars burgle elsewhere when they get that notion.

    And they don't care if the hand holding the gun is "trained" or not, if the gun is trained in their direction.

    Naturally, your silly failed arguments aside, almost every adult who buys a gun willingly gets training on that instrument, since most adults aren't the idiots the gun control freaks are...er assume them to be.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    That is a very callous way to think about human lives.
    Callouses....come from hard work.

    Thinking is hard work.

    Try it some time. Never too late to start for you, you know.

    Try to do it before you find yourself in the position of wishing that cop was there when you needed him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    Neither should Americans live in a society with a ready supply of guns for criminals, psychopaths and idiots. They deserve more safety.
    They deserve the unrestricted freedom to arm themselves so the threats presented by psycopaths, idiots, criminals, and politicians can be mitigated readily.

    Oh, gee, did you bother to mention that Virginia Tech was a gun free zone?

    Did you notice the killer there didn't pay attention to the rules forbidding guns there?

    Gee. A psychopath who didn't obey the law, massacring nearly two dozen men and women who were stupid enough to believe that idiot laws like that protected them.

    Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen Texas....a dining room full of well trained law abiding Texans, killed by a lone psychopath gunman...becuase they obeyed the law forbidding them from bringing their own weapons into public places.

    Glad to see they were protected by the law.

    Columbine High School....two psychopaths went on an uninterrupted rampage shooting students in the school while the po-leece, you know, the guys who not only had the traing, who not only had the guns, but who were specifically hired to protect the innocent, waited patiently outside the school to see what was up.

    ONE Virginia Tech Student, ONE Luby's Cafteria diner, to break the law forbidding access to self-defense or ONE cop with balls to screw departmental procedure to do his real job, could have turned each of those situations around.

    Those situations are YOUR world at work, not mine.

    Your world is a failure.
    Last edited by Scarecrow Akhbar; 01-16-10 at 06:29 AM.

  5. #75
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    No, thank you, I think that, as imperfect as it is, I prefer the present status quo to letting government get it's foot in that door. Especially since firearm accidents have been on the decline for a long time anyway.

    The "slippery slope fallacy" does not apply if the slope is greased and you're being pushed.

    At any rate, if it is a "fallacy", there are a number of states already practicing that fallacy in the way they handle concealed carry permits under their "discretionary issue" policy.
    Hmm, let me ask you something. Why is it that certain restrictions on gun ownership are viewed as 'okay' by people on the right, but others aren't? The two most common cases being age restrictions and restrictions on gun ownership by convicted felons. These clauses clearly violate a 'no restrictions on gun ownership at all' policy, yet few on the right bring them up as something that should be changed. It seems like the government's foot is already in the door to me, and few of you are interested in getting it out (or at least you aren't vocal about it).
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  6. #76
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    Hmm, let me ask you something. Why is it that certain restrictions on gun ownership are viewed as 'okay' by people on the right, but others aren't? The two most common cases being age restrictions and restrictions on gun ownership by convicted felons. These clauses clearly violate a 'no restrictions on gun ownership at all' policy, yet few on the right bring them up as something that should be changed. It seems like the government's foot is already in the door to me, and few of you are interested in getting it out (or at least you aren't vocal about it).
    Limitations on the rights of minors is standard operating proceedure even in the free-est of societies, because young minors are insufficiently developed, mentally and emotionally, for many things... like unrestrained sexual activity.

    However I think we go much too far in restricting minors access to guns. Technically you're an adult at 18, and can vote or join the military, but you can't buy a handgun or get a carry permit. Inconsistent, IMO. As I've already said, I think younger minors should recieve training and be able to shoot under supervision at any age.

    I've expressed my opinion before on the subject of felons. If a convicted felon is potentially a threat to society (such that he cannot be trusted with arms), he needs to be kept in prison either for life or until he is "cured". If he isn't a threat any longer, if he can be trusted to walk the streets with good citizens... then he can be trusted with the right to bear arms.

    My chief concern, 2A-wise, is not letting government get any more intrusive on the matter and rolling back unreasonable restrictions like "discretionary" carry permits. Of course, something like 41 states are "shall issue" now, so it would seem the people have spoken and the States, at least, have been listening.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  7. #77
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    Limitations on the rights of minors is standard operating proceedure even in the free-est of societies, because young minors are insufficiently developed, mentally and emotionally, for many things... like unrestrained sexual activity.

    However I think we go much too far in restricting minors access to guns. Technically you're an adult at 18, and can vote or join the military, but you can't buy a handgun or get a carry permit. Inconsistent, IMO. As I've already said, I think younger minors should recieve training and be able to shoot under supervision at any age.
    Fair enough. I suppose my take on the age issue is that age alone can't tell you when someone is mature enough to handle adult things. I feel like there are some 16-year olds out there that are mature enough to handle themselves as adults, and 25-year old that aren't. It's not so much that I feel that guns are a special case and you should have to prove yourself competent to own one, it's that I feel that you should have to prove yourself competent to be a legal adult at all.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

  8. #78
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

    Quote Originally Posted by molten_dragon View Post
    Fair enough. I suppose my take on the age issue is that age alone can't tell you when someone is mature enough to handle adult things. I feel like there are some 16-year olds out there that are mature enough to handle themselves as adults, and 25-year old that aren't. It's not so much that I feel that guns are a special case and you should have to prove yourself competent to own one, it's that I feel that you should have to prove yourself competent to be a legal adult at all.

    I don't disagree with you. I've known some sixteen year olds who were far above average in maturity and reason, and I have encountered people in their early thirties who don't appear to have ever grown up. That latter problem is likely well beyond the scope of this thread.

    Likely it would be much more accurate to evaluate every individual as an individual, regarding "age of majority"...but it would also be far more complex and legally expensive to do so, which would explain why we pick a number that seems average and go with it.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  9. #79
    Global Moderator
    The Hammer of Chaos
    Goshin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Dixie
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:09 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    44,157

    Re: Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Regicollis View Post
    Can you tell me why owning a lethal firearm should be a constitutionally protected right, while driving a car should not?
    America was founded on a tradition of private ownership of arms, as both a needful tool, a means of self-protection, and a final bulwark against tyranny. We continue to view personal arms in this manner. In Europe, those who come closest to our viewpoint are the Swiss, but there are substantial differences in detail.

    This discussion should really be a thread of its own, as it could run to hundreds of posts.

    There is that fact that criminals, who do not obey gun laws, tend to get guns if they want them no matter what the law says. Gun laws chiefly serve to disarm the law-abiding, leaving them more at the mercy of the armed thug.

    Any government which has an armed citizenry must be wary of pushing the People too hard, lest they take up arms and rebel, or start assassinating politicians. Our Founders believed that an armed citizenry was such an essential building block to a free society that they enshrined that right as the second of ten Amendments enumerating the most essential rights of the people.

    In short, when the State has a monopoly on armed force, your rights as a citizen are at the sufferance of the State's armed thugs. When you are in possession of arms capable of largely equalizing the equation, the State must take care not to arouse the population. Before someone starts talking about cruise missles and smart bombs, and how the military is far too powerful to be resisted by a citizenry with rifles, do two things: first look up Fourth Generation Warfare, then consider that the US military numbers about 3.5 million, whereas American gunowners number around 90 million.... many of them veterans.

    I don't believe punishment would be a sufficient deterrent even if we were to let a group of drunken conservatives dream up the most barbaric punishment they could. Even the death penalty don't deter people from murdering each other.
    Nor does gun control deter people from murdering. They simply obtain guns illegally, or resort to knives and bats.



    Yes, it is insane. Blood for property.
    Contrary to a baseless assumption you made in an earlier post, burglaries often do turn violent when the homeowner is present...and often they begin with violence...look up Home Invasion. The point is when someone breaks into your house, *you do not know their intentions!* Pausing to inquire politely whether they merely wish to steal your TV, or whether they also have plans to stay for dinner and rape your daughter after shooting you in the head, is a good way to get killed.

    If you do not have the right to defend your home against invading criminals with whatever level of force seems necessary, you are not free, IMO. You are under the subjection of any violent criminal who sees fit to break in your door, and that isn't liberty.

    I note that you live in Denmark... well, do things your way in Denmark, and leave us to our way in America. I suggest that you do not immigrate to America. You wouldn't fit in here too well.

    Fiddling While Rome Burns
    ISIS: Carthago Delenda Est
    "I used to roll the dice; see the fear in my enemies' eyes... listen as the crowd would sing, 'now the old king is dead, Long Live the King.'.."

  10. #80
    Anti-Hypocrite
    molten_dragon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Southeast Michigan
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 04:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Liberal
    Posts
    9,351

    Re: Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

    Quote Originally Posted by Goshin View Post
    I don't disagree with you. I've known some sixteen year olds who were far above average in maturity and reason, and I have encountered people in their early thirties who don't appear to have ever grown up. That latter problem is likely well beyond the scope of this thread.

    Likely it would be much more accurate to evaluate every individual as an individual, regarding "age of majority"...but it would also be far more complex and legally expensive to do so, which would explain why we pick a number that seems average and go with it.
    Agreed. It would be almost impossible to implement.
    If you build a man a fire, he'll be warm for a day.

    If you set a man on fire, he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

Page 8 of 18 FirstFirst ... 678910 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •