• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Give a man a fish he eats for a day...

DebateChallenge said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
humbolt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Teach OK, but good luck gearing him up.
 
faithful_servant said:
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.
Click to expand...

I think he/she plays/played a lot of call of duty.
 
humbolt said:
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.
Click to expand...

:lamo

Not bad!!
 
Mach said:
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.
Click to expand...

The unelected demigods on the supreme court have ruled that the police have no responsibility to protect individual citizens

If that is all you are depending on you are very much at risk from the criminals
 
vegas giants said:
Ten years active duty military

We would need to train them so much it would be easier just to hire cops.
Click to expand...

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.
 
zsu2357 said:
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.
Click to expand...

What the what? As usual your post is unintelligible
 
Rucker61 said:
Only you are actually responsible for your own personal protection. It's your choice to decide if you accept that responsibility.
Click to expand...

But,but that is what the police are for. Oh yeah that's for drawing your outline.
 
DebateChallenge said:
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.
Click to expand...

If your neibourgh is a bit on the mad or drunk or just nasty side do you want him armed up?

How about that guy you almost crashed into by accident on the way into work? The one with the bull horns on his truck?
 
zsu2357 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Wow ! Only in America could 'children' be trusted with guns. Just how crazy are you people !? :lamo
 
Last edited:
Rucker61 said:
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.
Click to expand...

And a bonus... he didn't die of "gun violence".. so everyone is so much better off including the man on fire.
 
flogger said:
Wow ! Only in America could 'children' be trusted with guns. Just how crazy are you people !? :lamo
Click to expand...

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..

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.
Click to expand...
 
jaeger19 said:
And a bonus... he didn't die of "gun violence".. so everyone is so much better off including the man on fire.
Click to expand...

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 :cool:
 
flogger said:
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 :cool:
Click to expand...

Well that's the irony... WE ARE safer.. and we still have guns.
 
jaeger19 said:
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..
Click to expand...

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:
 
zsu2357 said:
Teach OK, but good luck gearing him up.
Click to expand...

It's entirely possible to fish with a pole, a string, and a hook. It's a lot more fun to have the gear. If you're serious, you'll need a steady income to be able to afford it all.
 
flogger said:
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:
Click to expand...

.. 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.

.
 
flogger said:
Thats just a total denial of the bald facts
Click to expand...

Nope its an understand of the statistics. And not raw numbers.. that feed your emotion.
 
jaeger19 said:
.. 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.

.
Click to expand...

I tend to go with safeguarding kiddies from an avoidably violent fate .... I guess to you I'm just funny like that
 
jaeger19 said:
Nope its an understand of the statistics. And not raw numbers.. that feed your emotion.
Click to expand...

But you cannot do numbers let alone statistics and cannot tell the difference between the two so it all ends there really :doh
 
flogger said:
But you cannot do numbers let alone statistics so it really all ends there :doh
Click to expand...

Yeah... whatever makes you better I guess flogger.. You've been spanked too many times about firearms statistics, crime statistics and validity by me (and a multitude of other people) for anyone to really care about what you say on this matter.
 
flogger said:
I tend to go with safeguarding kiddies from an avoidably violent fate .... I guess to you I'm just funny like that
Click to expand...

that's the irony.. you are not.

The statistics prove that. Cripes.. man.. its so sad watching you flail around. Heck.. its sad how safe the UK could actually be if you spent less wasted resources on gun issues.. and more on other things that have a proven track record.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom