Deepcrush wrote:It was cool being 14 and firing soooooooooo many different guns.
Tsukiyumi wrote:I don't see the problem with it, assuming the parents know this is what their kids are being taught.
Hell, I wish I'd gotten better training when I was younger. I was twelve years old before I held a gun.
And, Mikey, people who would kill innocent people will do so one way or the other. I'd argue that it's better to teach the non-psychopaths how to defend themselves properly.
No arguments. If a kid is going to handle a gun - be it for range shooting, hunting - I'd far prefer he be taught very early how to do it right. However, I never got the impression that the gist of this program was for personal self-defense.
Cpl Kendall wrote:I'd be a little more confident of this program if I knew how in depth they go with risk assessment. There's more to being a soldier or a cop then, "he's got a gun/is brown/has drugs...bang!"
Exactly what I meant when I used the hyperbole (
hyperbole, Tyyr!) about teaching these kids how to hunt people.
Cpl Kendall wrote:Mind you I find this whole thing to be rather amusing. Rather then increase border patrol or law enforcement funding, we can have our kids do it for us! Which on it's own isn't a bad idea but you know some half-wit at the State or Federal level is going to use it as an excuse to avoid funding the mentioned programs.
Well, there's the crux of the matter.
Of course, that's escessive. My primary concern isn't just getting hurt (although this sort of thing obviously has a MUCH higher assumed risk than, say, trying out for the basketball team) but in teaching children to live with a mindset of hunting other humans. Aside from the obvious maladjustments, it's only a matter of time until someone trained that way decides to expand their definition of "viable target" to include an innocent victim.
