MaggieD
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 43,244
- Reaction score
- 44,664
- Location
- Chicago Area
- Gender
- Female
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
That's not very nice.
That's just exactly what I thought of when I read the thread title.
That's not very nice.
That makes very good sense. While I may protect my neighbor 1 time maybe 2, I won't make it a career. Your right teach him, if he refuses he's on his own.Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for life.
Anyway that same philosophy can be applied to guns in regards to personal protection. Protect a man and he's protected when you're around, give a man a gun and teach him how to use it and he's protected for life even when you're not around.
In my limited experience, if you teach a man to fish, the next thing he wants is a lot of expensive fishing equipment, a boat, license fees waived, and on and on it goes. You may be better off just giving him the fish in the end.
That's why you train them. But my guess is that you think that anyone shooting a firearm is using the "spray and pray" tactic, since I'd bet that your exposure to firearms is limited to action films.
In my limited experience, if you teach a man to fish, the next thing he wants is a lot of expensive fishing equipment, a boat, license fees waived, and on and on it goes. You may be better off just giving him the fish in the end.
I think this is simplified to the point of being absurd. As are many of the right-wing styled all-or-nothing, black/white styled worldviews.
In the modern world, most people, even if they don't admit it, divide responsibilities under are fairly civilized, legal framework and lifestyle in the U.S. The inanely high standard of living int he U.S. is a direct result of that. You could move into the wilds and live off the land, but one would argue that would be dramatically less efficient and a dramatically lower standard of living (to each his own, but you get the idea).
You do not build your home typically, you buy it from a builder.
You do not perform your own surgery, you buy that service from a credentialed physician.
You do not write all the software you use, you license it.
You do not grow all the food you consume, you buy it.
The notion that somehow you *should* provide your own personal protection, and not primarily rely on other people to provide it, based on a single phrase, seems absurd.
Why not list the pros/cons, it would at least seem more like you tried. I think in most cases, we do things we enjoy or are good at, and we try to outsource the rest.
Ten years active duty military
We would need to train them so much it would be easier just to hire cops.
Weren't all your "toddlers"crowded in the back of the room? If this is so then my youngest daughter could have taken him out. But apparently no CCTV so we will never really know exactly.
Only you are actually responsible for your own personal protection. It's your choice to decide if you accept that responsibility.
What the what? As usual your post is unintelligible
Give a man a fish he eats for a day, teach a man to fish he eats for life.
Anyway that same philosophy can be applied to guns in regards to personal protection. Protect a man and he's protected when you're around, give a man a gun and teach him how to use it and he's protected for life even when you're not around.
Weren't all your "toddlers"crowded in the back of the room? If this is so then my youngest daughter could have taken him out. But apparently no CCTV so we will never really know exactly.
How about a quote from a British philosopher: Build a man a fire, and he's warm for a day. Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Wow ! Only in America could 'children' be trusted with guns. Just how crazy are you people !? :lamo
To put hunting’s safety standing into perspective, compared to hunting a person is . . .
•11 times more likely to be injured playing volleyball
•19 times more likely to be injured snowboarding
•25 times more likely to be injured cheerleading or bicycle riding
•34 times more likely to be injured playing soccer or skateboarding
•105 more times likely to be injured playing tackle football.
And a bonus... he didn't die of "gun violence".. so everyone is so much better off including the man on fire.
I guess being shot in vastly greater numbers than elsewhere in the developed world must feel far better. Think of all that 'freedumb' after all
How crazy...?
Well.. depends on your reference of whats crazy. But in a state in which we hunt.. hunting with firearms starts at 9 years old.
And statistically..
Well that's the irony... WE ARE safer.. and we still have guns.
Teach OK, but good luck gearing him up.
And as a consequence 'statistically' your kiddies aged 5 -14 are some 17 times more likely to be murdered by firearm than anywhere else in the developed world
I thought you were an anti statistics kinda guy :wink:
Thats just a total denial of the bald facts
.. I am a statistics guy.
The likelihood of them getting killed or even injured while hunting is so much smaller than if they played say football.
So.. I choose to have them in a safer sport.. while you prefer to have your children have multiple strikes to the head from a ball and suffer later in life from chronic head injury.
but that's your choice.. I prefer to go with the valid statistics.
.
Nope its an understand of the statistics. And not raw numbers.. that feed your emotion.
But you cannot do numbers let alone statistics so it really all ends there :doh
I tend to go with safeguarding kiddies from an avoidably violent fate .... I guess to you I'm just funny like that