Shooting Sports - Good or Bad?

[mikeb302000]

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23980400-children-banned-from-shooting-events-in-2012-ticket-giveaway.do">The London Evening Standard reports on a controversial decision by the Mayor.

London schoolchildren are eligible for 125,000 Olympic tickets but these will not include any featuring guns, as Games organisers and City Hall fear a backlash from the anti-gun lobby.

Giving children tickets to the events, at the Royal Artillery Barracks in Woolwich, could have appeared at odds with Mayor Boris Johnson's bid to quell teenage gun and knife crime.

A source said: "We decided it would not be appropriate. It's the only sport children will not be able to go to as part of the Ticketshare scheme."

Those opposed to the decision, such as Georgina Geikie, 26, http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2011/08/shooting-sports-good-or-bad.html">pictured here, a Commonwealth Games bronze medallist and Olympic pistol hopeful, feel it's wrong because it would give kids an opportunity to see guns in a different light, something not related to violence and crime.

But, would it really? I'm not convinced. My idea has always been that shooting sports are nothing more than simulated killing. Often the targets are in human shape, for crying out loud. The Olympics probably doesn't use the human silhouette for its competitions, but the idea is still there.

Guns were not made for shooting paper targets or clay disks. They were made for shooting living beings and no matter how much one tries to disguise the fact, this is the underlying truth.

What's your opinion? Is participation in a shooting sport good innocent fun? Do children who watch and take part begin to see the connection with gun violence as they grow older? Is there a connection?

http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/">(cross posted at Mikeb302000)

What do you think? Please leave a comment.

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[ingac70]

2. Arrows were made for killing living beings.

You have a problem with archery?

Seriously, I don't see how Olympic shooting is going to encourage gun violence. And that level of sport shooting doesn't use human shaped targets.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXaeNR0IAWI&feature=related

[Remmah2]

8. Greek roots.

Many olympic track and field events have their roots in Greek weapons and war of the era. You mentioned the arrow. In addition, javelin, hammer throw, discus. Fencing evolved from swords. Wrestling and equestrian were events which allowed soldiers and officers to show off their strength and agility skills. I suspect running type track events allowed practice in retreat for those who did not believe in the afore mentioned olympic events.

[happyslug]

56. That is a good Question, was Archery part of the Ancient Greek Olympics

The Spartans were noted for holding Archery in contempt (Mostly because it was a peasant weapon that could kill a Spartan Soldier long before he could kill the peasant). The Persian used Archery against the Spartans, both with failure and success but from the accounts I have read, Archers, being from the lower classes of society, was looked down on by the Greeks who were permitted to play in the Olympics.

The People of Crete were known for Archery (Cretan Archers were used to Kill the Second Gracchi, along with his supporters in Rome).

More on the Gracchi, the last leaders of Rome who fought for land reform, land reformed needed at that time (c130 BC) but denied by the rich of Rome till long after the fall of the Roman Empire 500 years later:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gracchi

Wikipedia list Javelin throwing, but NOT Archery as a sport in the Ancient Olympics:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Olympic_Games

Javelin throwing was NOT as accurate as Archery and did not have the range of Archery, but it was something heavy infantry of the Greeks could do while still able to hold a shield and be prepared to fight as heavy armored infantry. The Ancient Romans tended to hire Mercenaries to be used as Archer, even when every free man of Rome was viewed as also being a Soldier (Through Roman Light Troops were known but Roman sources are unclear if such light infantry used slings, Bows or just Spears). At the same time we have reports from the 300s and 400s ADS (i.e. in the Christian era of the Roman Empire), when the Roman of that time period did use Slings in addition to being heavy infantry.

Sling was the other ancient throwing weapon, and again NOT in the Olympics. King David was known to use a sling, and while inferior to Archery in range, could match it in accuracy (Through slings lost energy faster then arrows, given the larger shape of such projectiles and it was for this reason sling were noted for having a shorter effective range then archers).

The upside of Archers and Slingers is that both require constant practice. In many society such practice was discouraged for the ruling elites feared the peasants would use such slings and bows against them. In other societies slings and Archery was encouraged, but in such societies such the peasants were encouraged to be slingers and archers and the chief way this was encouraged was to give peasants certain rights and privileges as long as their could provide slingers or archers as needed.

Ancient Greece was NOT such a Society (On the other hand Ancient Crete and Ancient Iraq seems to have been. Ancient Rome does NOT seem to have encourage Slings or Archery. Prior to about 400, Rome preferred to hire Iraqi Archers, after 400 AD a turn to "Hunnic" and other horse archers from the Steeps of Russia was Rome's and later Constantinople's first choice of archers. After about 800 AD, Vikings and later Slavs were hired by Constantinople for this role.

Just pointing out Archery does NOT appear to be an ancient Greek Olympic event, Shooting tends to view itself as a descendant from Archery and as such can NOT claim any descent from the Ancient Games played in the Ancient Greek Olympics.

[AtheistCrusader]

3. Why would you spew out this uninformed nonsense without

researching olympic target shooting at all? You don't know for sure what the targets look like? Honestly? And you want people to discuss/comment on your opinion?

Ok then.

The only target in any shape other than round, for Olympic events, is the running boar silouette.

I see you used the weasel words 'living being', nice cop out there, then going on to describe it as 'gun violence'. You realize guns, particularly the longer range, single shot, highly accurate 'type' used for Olympic biathlons, are often used for hunting, right? Is hunting 'gun violence' to you? The entire history of this sport is tied first to hunting, not combat. Combat (ski patrols) came much later.


Unrec for 'hey come look at my blog/advertsing'.

[mikeb302000]

5. I don't think you read it properly

I didn't say the olympic targets are shaped like people.

My opinion is the whole thing is sick. Everything about guns is violent. You can disguise it all you want, but what it boils down to is simulated killing.

[beevul]

6. And there we have it.

"My opinion is the whole thing is sick. Everything about guns is violent. You can disguise it all you want, but what it boils down to is simulated killing."


Well that didn't take long at all, did it.

At least you're as honest as you are wrong.

[Remmah2]

9. Why do you ask the question "Good or Bad" when you've already made a decision?

nt

[gejohnston]

11. I you feel the same way about

archery, fencing, javelin throwing, martial arts, etc. that would be consistent. If not, there is either a disconnect or it is specifically guns and nothing to do with violence.
How do you feel about video games where you do have simulated killing?

[AtheistCrusader]

13. I don't think you wrote it properly.

"The Olympics probably doesn't use the human silhouette for its competitions, but the idea is still there."

'Probably' means you don't know. Hence, you didn't do any basic research at all.
There isn't anything sick about hunting, which is what the olympic and paralympic events simulate.

The world does not revolve around your personal gut reaction, however inaccurate it may be.

[SteveM]

31. "...whole thing is sick." Spoken like an orthodox prohibitionist.

You're idea is to hide the eyes of anyone who might catch a glimpse of something YOU find repugnant. What else do you find repugnant?

On a wider issue, it appears there are many in England who have degenerated into "solving" violence by banning the mere appearance of those articles and behaviors they despise.

[spin]

32. I think you have a sick opinion ...

When I am target shooting I am trying to shoot a high score on the bullseye target or place my shots into a small group.

I'm not trying to kill the target.

[DWC]

59. The skills tested in every event of the Olympics

are directly or indirectly tied to the ability to prevail against one's opponent(s)and can be applied to "simulated killing".

Therefore, (to paraphrase) In your opinion the whole thing about the Olympics is sick. Everything about the Olympics is violent. You can disguise it all you want, but what the Olympics boils down to is simulated killing.

And that's the truth.

[mahina]

4. Depends

as usual. Depends on the people, their intentions, & their character. It's not a black and white world, mostly.

[ileus]

7. shooting sports are nothing more than simulated killing. Often the targets are in human shape

And dildo are nothing but dull knives...


No they're not...who makes this shit up?

Someone doesn't know dick about "shooting sports" this person has confused SD targets and training, with competition target shooting. The problem is the person writing this article doesn't know anything about shooting sports except they involve "gunz" that seem scary to him/her. Try telling someone that shoots on a team they're just practicing to kill people and wait for their reply.


We went out this past weekend (kids 7&9 the wife and I) and had a good time shooting "paper targets and clays" not once were any of use ignorant enough to believe we were practicing for shooting humans.

There is no connection with shooting targets on Saturday evening and "gun violence" there is nothing to see but paranoid people afraid of guns.

[gravity556]

10. No doubt.

Captain Blogsalot has no understanding of firearms, no idea about firearms lawa and even less of a clue as to what shooting sports are all about.
If I had a month to teach him (and an old school Nun to whack his knuckles with a yardstick for wrong anwers, he'd still miss the point, but woud develop a serious phobia about nuns bearing rulers) he'd still be clueless, simply because it't impossible to rid someoe of a bias. Can't teach a skinhead a new philosophy, but you can hope thtat the Nun's corrective curriculum would at least slow down his blog spamming.

What better target than a sihlouette is there to practice on if your goal is to be able to defend yourself? I have never see a picture of a captured armed robber that looked like a small target with circles all surrounding a bullseye. In fact, the more anatomically correct, the better. I want to know if that round landed in a non-vital area (like a love handle) or if I put that round into his spleen or aorta.

Besides which, most shooters I know shoot double taps, 3 is for zombies.

So, what would you v

[mikeb302000]

42. I disagree Ileus

Some young children and sportsmen can successfully divorce what they do at target proctice from the inbuilt violence and simulated killing which is part and parcel of shooting. Others, when they grow up and when they think about self defense or home protection realize what it's all about.

Disguise it all you want. It's violent sick shit. That's my opinion.

[PavePusher]

49. "Disagree" all you want.

Cite your evidence if you want your opinion to have any weight.

[Ready4Change]

12. You are fully entitlted to your opinion.

I'm not required to agree with it, and I don't.

Mankind is a marvelously creative creature, with a past full of beautiful achievements and tragic destruction. We have found ways to convert practically every one of our creations into tools of destruction, and have also turned most of our tools of destruction to peace. Aircraft can drop bombs or emergency supplies. You can run long distances for fitness or sport, or to deliver messages about the progress of battles. Art can enlighten, or propagandize. Fire arms can kill, or put food on the table, or punch holes in paper.

As I grew up, I went with my brothers as they hunted rabbits, and followed the exploits of my uncles, who were well known hunters. Yet I have only owned fire arms to shoot paper and steel targets. My youthful experience hasn't made me into a habitual killer.

I use fire arms as a physical, mental and mechanical challenge, seeing how accurately I can project that small chunk of metal onto a target hundreds of yards away. For me it is a form of meditation, as I meld the elements of wind, gravity, breath and pulse together, as I focus away from my daily problems of work and stress, seeking that quiet pool of stillness from which, hopefully, will emerge a perfect arc of motion.

Really. That's what shooting sport is to me.

[melm00se]

14. they have their undies

over shooting sports but nary a peep regarding:

Archery - you shoot arrows to kill things
Fencing - swords serve no purpose other than killing people
Modern pentathlon - a sport created to celebrate the basic, at the time, military skills of a cavalry soldier which included shooting and fencing
Tae Kwan Do - the Korean art of kicking the hell out of each other
Boxing - another "beat the hell out of each other" sport
Judo - a kinder and gentler "beat the hell out of each" other sport which includes strangling submission holds
Wrestling - the sport of tying your opponent into knots to score points or submission

to my eye, these are all violent sports and, if good ol' Boris were intellectually honest he wouldn't give children tickets to these events either....but that won't happen.

[Ready4Change]

15. The Marathon too.

One of the original modern Olympic events meant to commemorate the run of a Greek soldier to bring news of the Battle of Marathon to Athens. Running as a tool of war.

[Atypical Liberal]

16. You must be against Karate, Hapkido, Judo, Archery, Fencing etc.

Those opposed to the decision, such as Georgina Geikie, 26, pictured here, a Commonwealth Games bronze medallist and Olympic pistol hopeful, feel it's wrong because it would give kids an opportunity to see guns in a different light, something not related to violence and crime.

But, would it really? I'm not convinced. My idea has always been that shooting sports are nothing more than simulated killing. Often the targets are in human shape, for crying out loud. The Olympics probably doesn't use the human silhouette for its competitions, but the idea is still there.

Guns were not made for shooting paper targets or clay disks. They were made for shooting living beings and no matter how much one tries to disguise the fact, this is the underlying truth.

What's your opinion? Is participation in a shooting sport good innocent fun? Do children who watch and take part begin to see the connection with gun violence as they grow older? Is there a connection?

There are many sports that are derivatives from violence. Target shooting is as legitimate a sport as archery, or Karate, or Hapkido, or Judo, Fencing, or any other martial art.

Even if you subscribe to the idea that shooting a bullseye is "simulated killing", the fact of the matter is there are lots of different martial arts that really are simulated combat. There is nothing wrong with learning combat skills. Learning a martial art is a useful skill that also teaches discipline of the mind and body, respect of self and others, and more.

I shot in a competitive shooting event just last weekend, shooting revolver, carbine, and musket. I took medals in two events. None of our targets look anything like a human being. We shoot at clay pigeons, ceramic tiles, and bottles of colored water.

If you are against target shooting with a firearm because you see it as simulated killing, then you must equally be against fencing, or archery, or Karate, etc. etc. etc.

[ileus]

22. 4 years of Judo and I never realized I was practicing to kill people.

Same goes for 30 years of shooting.....

Someone must have forgotten to tell me and my guns we were training to kill people. That's not very progressive of me...am I a democrat or a Democrat?

[Glassunion]

17. I totally disagree with you. Using your own logic, we may as well ban the games all together.

Since you feel that shooting sports are detrimental, do you also believe that a large portion of the other games are detrimental as well. They are also simulated killing using your definition of the sport.

Archery: Is simulated killing
Gymnastics and Weightlifting: Simulated military training
Equestrian: Are simulated cavalry events
Wrestling: Two people simulating killing each other
Marathon: A race to celebrate and reproduce a messenger bringing news of a military victory
Long, Triple and High Jump: Simulating an individual's physical prowess on a battle field
Pole Vault: Simulating the use of such devices for siege warfare to surmount enemy walls
Shot Put, Hammer and Discus Throw: Simulating the hurling of a heavy object in warfare
Javelin Throw: Simulating throwing a spear
Decathlon: A combination of simulated warfare events
Badminton: A "game" invented by the British Military
Boxing: A simulation of two people trying to kill each other
Fencing: A simulation of two people trying to kill each other with swords
Field Hockey and Football(soccer): A simulation of military maneuvers to defeat an enemy
Judo: A simulation of two people trying to kill each other
Pentathlon: A combination of killing sports and military prowess
Rowing and Sailing: Another military simulation of naval manuvers
Taekwondo: Another simulation of two people trying to kill each other
Ice Hockey: Another military simulation of maneuvers to defeat an enemy
Some skiing events: Yet another simulation of military prowess.
Luge: A viking invention.
Any event with a firearm: Of course all simulated killing...

So that leaves us with some swimming, biking, basketball, tennis, skating, skiing, and bobsleigh events. Not enough to fill such a grand event as the Olympics.

From my point of view, I would agree that originally they were simulation of warfare in some form or another; however, today they are nothing more than games. There are many sports and games that take their root in warfare. Just look at American Football, hockey, basketball, chess and a large portion of these very Olympic games. However they have all evolved over the decades(or even centuries) into something that has nothing to do with killing or warfare. They now stand on their own as games or sports, nothing more.

If I may ask, have you ever been target shooting? If not, I would recommend it. This may give you a better understanding of the activity.

[ileus]

18. Basketball = Bullet Basket = Human

[ileus]

19. Football = Bullet Receiver = Human target

[Katya Mullethov]

24. Exceeding the recommended daily allowance of irony

Meanwhile ,
"Monday's event, held in a small park in Newark's gritty South Ward, offered children who brought in plastic weapons of any kind a choice of new, non-violent toys and books. Among the offerings were new hockey sticks"

[Glassunion]

27. HA +1

[ileus]

20. You've very successfully put 2 and 2 together and gotten a beaver

You've very successfully put 2 and 2 together and gotten a beaver. You're so far off the mark that you've left numbers altogether and entered addition with mammals.

[Union Scribe]

36. Dam that was funny.

Dam, huh huh. :P

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

46. haha!

[DissedByBush]

21. Think about drugs

We don't want kids seeing them in a dangerous, unprofessional environment.

So we'll deny little Johnny his diabetes medicine, because it's drugs.

Sadly this isn't a joke, we've been denying people the medicinal benefits of cannabis and LSD for years because of the War on (Some) Drugs.

Still doesn't make it smart.

[one-eyed fat man]

23. For someone who quotes Virgil

You do not know a damn thing about arms, or the history of the Olympics and the sports represented.

[Union Scribe]

25. What do I think? I think you don't care about what I or anyone else thinks.

The only time you post is to post links to your blog, and the only time you follow up on those is to defend your practice of doing so or to tell someone they can't read. You may have wrapped yourself up in a nice gap in the rules, and apparently won yourself one crusader who keeps trying to get REAL posters in trouble, but most of us know what you're doing by now.

[mikeb302000]

43. actually I care very much what you think

about the topic I introduce in my posts. Unfortunately you're more interested in attacking me personally for the way I do it.

The funny thing is you and your friends call youselves Democratic and liberal, yet your behavior on my discussions seems more like the Republican conservative method. I don't completely understand why that is, but I object to it.

Shooting guns at targets is simulated killing, that's my opinion. What's yours, not on my posts or my intentions or my personality, but on the issue of target shooting as it relates to gun violence.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. wrong reply - n/t

[PavePusher]

26. The people who made that decision...

are unmitigated fucking morons.

One of many reasons I did not extend my assignment there.

[iverglas]

30. snork

You're sure it's not because they wouldn't allow silencers?

:eyes:

[PavePusher]

35. Really?

http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sa=X&ei=C2xVToKAO_PSiAK7yrn2DA&ved=0CGcQvwUoAQ&q=Britain,+firearm+suppressors&spell=1&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&fp=77518b420f98066a&biw=1280&bih=869

I want strawberry this time, please.

[iverglas]

37. try to follow the conversation

Per a post earlier today, Hoopla Phil turned down a job in Washington State because he coudn't have silencers.

Some might not believe the tale ...

But still. Now you're up to speed.

[X_Digger]

39. Now if retailers in UK didn't sell supressors over the counter, your jab might have been funny. n/t

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

29. I have no problem with sports shooting

In the proper controlled environment, and subject to the practitioners/competitors not being permitted to possess handguns or certain other types of firearms used in the sports away from the secure facility where the shooting is done.

(Yes, I recognize that people in rural locations would still shoot cans off stumps with their varmint-shooting things, and I'm not going to get too exercised about that largely because it's one of those things nobody could do much about if they wanted; public education and information campaigns about firearms safety are probably the best approach to reducing any associated harm.)

There are loads of sports that have evolved from utilitarian activities. Sports shooting evolved at least in part from hunting; witness "clay pigeons". Sprints and marathons are just flight from predators by another name. I'm sure hockey and football evolved from something ... just not very far ...

Firearms aren't toys, though; they come with inherent dangers, and children using them for any purpose isn't appropriate, just like tackling and body-checking aren't appropriate for kids. Airsoft-type things to start, maybe, but not before an age of some discernment.


But really. Would the youth of Glasgow's slums be less likely to be running with gangs at the age of 10 if they were taught target shooting? Sounds like a pretty ludicrous theory, to me.

They tend to carry and use knives these days; maybe they could be taught whittling as a way to introduce them to the wonderful socially productive uses of knives.

As for children attending the events ... they may attend, of course, they just aren't being given official free tickets. Big whup, I'd say.

[spin]

33. I see no problem with "sports shooting" ...

I also see no problem with those who own the firearms being allowed to posses their firearms off the range.

Of course, I believe in strict range safety being practiced at any shooting event.

I don't believe that exposure to target shooting results in children growing up to become criminals just as I don't believe that allowing children to take well supervised classes in karate or judo will turn them into bullies.

Teaching a child the basics of shooting firearms will familiarize them with gun safety and should lead to a reduction in tragic gun accidents. It can lead to a hobby that may enjoy for the rest of their lives, which is probably why competitive shooting is often frowned upon in nations where the citizens favor strong gun control. For example Great Britain ...

Britain's pistol shooters complain they are at a disadvantage because gun laws since the Dunblane massacre mean they have to train abroad.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23980400-children-banned-from-shooting-events-in-2012-ticket-giveaway.do

I also really do not see a big deal in not giving away free tickets for children to attend the shooting events as if they did attend, they probably would be bored to death.

[X_Digger]

34. Children can learn self-discipline, teamwork, and self-esteem from many activities..

including the shooting sports.

I'm not big on organized sports for adults (especially paying athletes gobs of money to do so), but I can see the value for kids.

[PavePusher]

50. mikeb claimed, on another website, that "Children can not be educated!!"

He refused to answer any follow-up questions... hmmmmm....

[gravity556]

40. Good to hear the UK finally got all their violence under control!

No more slashings with stanley knives? How about baseball bats and gangs of whaddya call violent little shits unlikely to contribute anything to society but a body count and countless dollars spent keeping him in jail for 4 years after he murders someone? Hooligans or yobs?

And I'll bet, according to IVG's constant referral to Americans who believe in the whole bill of rights as killers and killers to be, that comparatively, you could walk through downtown Toronto, drunk to the gills and never once be accosted by someone with ill intent. Since we all have been informed that guns are the only factor in a murder-if there hadn't been a gun, nobody would have used a knife or their fists, or a lock in a sock, or a #10 can of baked beans. Or poison. None of those count though, because they weren't comitted with a firearm.

[Name removed]

45. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

52. your replacement message

things do seem to get mislaid around here.


Are you addressing me?

If that were the case, I'd have expected to see something relevant in your post.

Can you explain the rationale for the more stringent firearms control introduced in the UK a few years ago?

In your own words and your own time.

It's something that's been overlooked here in recent months, I see, so it seems to be time to educate a whole new crop who don't seem to have done their own homework.


according to IVG's constant referral to Americans who believe in the whole bill of rights as killers and killers to be

<Here I will word my comment more directly: does it come naturally to you to misrepresent other people's ideas and words, or do you have to work at it?>


you could walk through downtown Toronto, drunk to the gills and never once be accosted by someone with ill intent

I haven't done it recently, although I did do it in Montreal not too long ago. Nonetheless, I assure you that I can very confidently say: yes. The co-vivant did it regularly just before we met, and had been doing it since his youth. I can't even imagine what you might be in doubt about. Did you seriously imagine that anyone could not do that?? Have you ever been to downtown Toronto??

Lordy, the idea that people in this place could fancy themselves so expert in so many things, and actually think that it would be unsafe to wander around downtown Toronto at any time of the day or night, in any condition ...

Now, you might not want to do it in Vancouver's downtown east side, although even there, you wouldn't be really likely to encounter problems. Winnipeg, now, maybe you'd want to be a little more careful. But Toronto? What a joke.

[GreenStormCloud]

38. Are you also against archery, javelin, and fencing? N/T

[ManiacJoe]

41. Do you have no idea where the Olympics come from?

The whole thing is originally based on military skills competition.
:rofl:

[WAFS]

44. You do make some good points.

Guns are machines designed to effectively kill something. Any improvement to a gun is done to make it fire faster, straighter, or more efficiently in some manner. I also agree that the purpose of shooting targets is to make one a better, more accurate, more deadly shooter.

That said, I still enjoy going to the range for a little friendly competition punching holes in paper targets. I own guns, I've been shooting guns for over 35 years, and yet I've managed to never shot or kill anything.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

48. many people shoot targets for the challenge ... "good or bad" depends on the intent of participants

It's actually pretty difficult and there are alot of challenging factors trying to hit a target with consistent precision. I know people that complete in 1000 yard "open sight" competitions (no use of optics or telescopic sights). It's mind blowing the amount of skill and discipline it takes for people to do this. Personally, I find the physics and variables and mechanics of long range shooting (exterior ballistics and forces) enthralling.

There's alot of specialized rifles & equipment that people use for target shooting that would actually be impractical if used in terms of "killing other humans". Like fencing or other similar sports... target shooting has evolved into a freindly competition.

Can target shooting be used to train for warfare or people use tactical weapons to target shoot? Absolutely, but not exclusively. I believe the spirit of the games and cmopetition - the CONTEXT of the activity is what determines the nature and wholesomeness of the activity.

[Remmah2]

51. England has a serious political correctness problem.

This is the country that banned Boy Scouts from carrying pocket knives.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Remmah2]

54. Archives from right wing sources.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/6145785/Scouts-to-no-longer-bring-penknives-on-camping-trips.html

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/other/outdoors/article12312.ece

[Glassunion]

55. Ha! "A growing knife culture"

[rl6214]

58. Hmmm, someone dosen't seem to know what they are talking about

No, this is NOT the country that banned Boy Scouts from carrying pocket knives.
Posted by iverglas
You need to get your head out of the ass of those gun militant website.

[friendly_iconoclast]

61. If you can't be accurate, be emphatic- and hope others don't notice your error.

Until they do notice, of course....

[iverglas]

62. I find a reply of mne has got mislaid

Why would my pointing out that the statement I am replying to is false have such an effect??

Got anything to back up that staement, friend?

[Francis Marion]

57. Shooting, taken seriously, is a martial art.

One available only to free people.

Don't get stuck on one design possibility. Choice and utility are up to us. There's no crypto-originalist 'need' to use a tool one way only. Hence you can enjoy a steak dinner with the family using those nice sharp steak knives (daggers), and nobody gets hurt. Even the kids use them.

It's possible that spears were designed in the stone age kill animals and people. Should the kids not be allowed to watch the javelin events?

Wrestling, boxing, Taekwondo?

Ancient armies marched long distances. Should kids be kept from wearing shoes or standing in lines?

Don't team sports and martial arts build positive character in young persons? Why would an organized shooting program produce a different result?

The olympic games were a special place for military age Greek males to compete for glory in various martial arts. They would be baffled by this particular English debate.

Shooting teaches kids that quality in produces quality out, as shown by the grouping punched into the paper target. That if you want to get good at something, you have to spend time with it and master the fundamentals. That there is no substitute for hard work and practice. That you have to respect the way you use your tools, and properly treat other people.

It is far better to teach young persons how to use firearms properly than to pretend they don't exist.

Education is the right answer.

Unless the kids in question don't live in a free country. If that is the case, for the better construction of their enslavement, and the health of the status quo, by no means should they have any guns or knowledge of the same.

[Tuesday Afternoon]

60. Fun is what it is.