Should kids be taught combat in schools

Intrepid wrote:

I wonder if those who advocate such things have children of their own.

Likely if they had any, they are now dead of gunshot wounds.

Why am I not surprised that this is happening in Texas and that OSD is here waving his little flag?

The fact is that, despite all the media hype, schools are still among the safest places for kids. Perhaps because of that same media hype, we have this Chicken Little approach to the straw man issue of school safety.

Please don't confuse reasonablesness with cowardice. I certainly try not to confuse lunacy with grit.

I don't know why I bother with you, David, why I allow myself to get drawn into these silly conversations. I've said it once, but, just to cover all bases, I'll say it again:

To teach kids self-defense measures is reasonable and worthwhile. I have no objection to teaching them marksmanship and firearm safety at an appropriate age (say, 14 and up?). But to suggest that a child who has not yet developed sound judgement about when it is appropriate or inappropriate to use deadly force as a form of self defense is not only self-defeating, it is criminal. I say self-defeating because now you are certainly running the risk of more shootouts between teenagers and -- in your scheme -- even pre-teens where in the past a simple school-yard scuffle would have sufficed. My objection to kids trying to rush an armed adult has the same ground -- the child's lack of good judgement. If you or I were faced with an armed adversary, we could probably make a pretty good judgement as to how to try and disarm him/her. (I'm giving you a lot of credit here, you'll notice. I'm not at all sure if I'm right in this.) We would be able to estimate at just what point it is safer to attack than to stand still as a target. I submit that persons of a certain age (under 18 or so) are not capable of making this fine distinction. They are simply too immature.

For the record, I am a gun-owner and no pacifist. As I recall, though, I was 14 or thereabouts before I was allowed to even handle a firearm, and then only under the strictest adult supervision. Good thing, too. I probably would have shot my own foot off without that supervision. I have served in the armed forces of the United States and, as an officer, have been responsible for training men in the use of all sorts of bang-bangs. I wouldn't hand a loaded gun to a pre-teen boy or girl any more than I would allow a suckling infant to play with a sharp scalpel.

That's why I came into this fray - to make a point that Merry just made. Teach them self-defense. Teach them conflict reslution. Teach them to be kinder and more empathic with their peers and communities.

Do not teach them how to fight - it will instill fear and anxiety as well as provide food for brawls.

<deep sigh>

Where is all of this slaughter occurring? Have I been missing the news? Where are all of these killers of children? Do you have the numbers?

They could, of course, take all the gungas, davids and the like, and hire them to wear real police gear and guard the children for us. I would feel much safer with my grandkids in their capable hands. No hall pass? POW! Uncle here to pick up the nephew for a doctor appointment? Likely story. POW! Substitute teacher, eh? You don't like no teacher to me. POW! Life would be simpler then. Much simpler.

Intrepid wrote:

Where is all of this slaughter occurring? Have I been missing the news? Where are all of these killers of children? Do you have the numbers?

Even if your entire exposure to the internet is A2K, newspapers still aren't that expensive. Most daily editions are still about 25 cents, which hasn't changed in several decades.

I've got a suggestion for Intrepid and a couple of others here and other places on the net who claim to be bothered by the exploding numbers of firearms in this country.

Want to reduce the number of firearms in America, or at least stop the growth in such numbers?

Here's the most effective way I can think of to do that: Refrain from electing any more psychopaths to the presidency of the United States.

Most Republicans and other normal people in America never had any real inkling of how seriously ****ed-up Slick KKKlinton was until somehwere around 1997. At that point, attendance at gun shows went totally insane.

Gunshows had long been the domain of small numbers of hunters, collectors, and affectionados, but the attendance tripled, quadrupled, quintupled, and then started increasing by factors of ten and 20 and 30 as ordinary people increasingly felt threatened by the KKKlinton regime and the likes of Janet Reno running our justice department. Sales of every sort of semiautomatic weapon went off the charts, and people who hunt but had never owned military style weapons started buying them in twos and threes. It got to where you couldn't find parking places within blocks of such events.

Now, after six years of having the national government back under adult supervision, that sort of activity is starting to fall off a bit, which I'd presume is the way most liberals would like it.