I don't agree with the thesis of this article. I do not like 4-H taking NRA money and I think 8 is too young, but I have no issue in general with kids participating in shooting sports. Learning to shoot skeet or targets is not going to lead to mass shootings. That is not what is normalizing guns. Also, shooting sports generally use rifles (and not AR-15s) while most mass shootings are done with handguns. As far as I can see, shooting sports are not all that different from archery. I don't think archery is going to lead to killing either.
Shooting sports are one of the more legitimate uses of guns. They are not what is glorifying guns and making a gun culture in America.
Shooting sports are one of the more legitimate uses of guns. They are not what is glorifying guns
Gun sports absolutely glorify guns. Are you trolling right now? Jesus christ.
No, they don't. It's a sport. It's in the Olympics.
Carrying rifles in cases to the range, putting on your protective gear and learning all the safety procedures, then learning proper stances and target shooting teaches respect for guns.
This is coming from someone who took shooting sports through 4-H starting at like 10, and doesn't own a single gun today. It really is like archery or any other sport. I enjoy archery more and went on to be a 4-H archery instructor for a while.
I have absolutely no problem with people using guns in a target shooting type of way.
Or in other responsible types of ways, like properly managed hunting or where there are things like moose and polar and grizzly bears. Guns are tools.
I don't like guns, but I understand. Gun nuts are the problem, as are guns as tools that are only designed to kill humans. I can even understand why people would want to shoot an assault rifle or other weapon of war.
It just needs to be controlled.
The worst part is that I would really like to spend an afternoon blowing shit up. Go to someplace fun. Learn about the process. Then push the pluger.
The problem is that that's actually well controlled. Enough so that I can't really find a good way to experience it outside of a construction project in my past.
I've often wondered if weapons like AR-15s should be only allowed to be owned by gun ranges and similar setups. You'd go in, rent an AR-15 for a certain period of time, get a safety lesson on how to use it, and then go to a shooting range where targets have been set up for you to shoot at.
When you're done, you turn the weapon back in and go on your way. The gun range locks it up and is responsible for it. If an employee makes off with the gun and shoots someone, the gun range is liable. If the guns aren't locked up properly and someone breaks in and steals it, the gun range is liable.
There would be regular checks to make sure the gun range was compliant with safety procedures. Kind of like what restaurants go through to make sure that they are storing food properly.
This would allow people to fire weapons like an AR-15 in a safe manner with minimal risk that this gun would be used for a mass shooting.
Of course, given the current Supreme Court makeup, I fully expect that this would be deemed unconstitutional.
Does archery glorify bows and arrows?
Yes. Sports glorify said activity. Football glorifies football and basketball glorifies basketball. This is an extremely simple concept. You should not be struggling this much to grasp it.
Football glorifies the sport of football. It doesn't glorify the football.
Lmao okay you're just being disingenuous and obtuse. Bye bye.
I love it when two of my least favorite users find each other and totally justify my feelings about them both.
Ironic.
deleted by creator
Since this thread is getting irrational, and Lemmy is pretty toxic in this way, I'll reply up here and take my down votes to agree with you.
ZeroCool needs to stop trying to be offended and actually read what you're saying.
Of course archery doesn't glorify bows and arrows. It may glorify archery, but there is nothing wrong with archery unless you are using it for evil.
Edit: ahh as predicted. Can we please be more understanding and less obstinate?
I think if people want to argue that shooting sports glorify guns, they have to then say that the Olympics glorifies guns, because the Olympics features shooting sports. And you're not going to get to the Olympic level of shooting sports unless you start practicing as a kid.
I don't think 8 is too young. I think kids need to be exposed to responsible gun use long before they see irresponsible gun use in fiction.
The problem isn't the "glorification" of guns as others have suggested. The problem is normalization of criminal gun use. Responsible gun use should be depicted as the rule, not the rare exception. A kid should not be seeing a gang member or white supremacist murdering a cop on TV before she has been taught the four rules and how to handle a BB gun.
OP in here flaming lmao
Edit: Don't see why I'm getting downvoted. Dudes speaking facts.
This is such a bullshit article. Yeah the NRA is a terrible organization and there are a lot of reasons to attack them. But attacking the educational, gun safety and shooting sports programs that they offer or fund is complete bullshit and is detrimental to the public good.
This is like saying we shouldn’t offer driving classes because one day a student might get into an accident.
Correlation is not causation.
This is like saying we shouldn’t offer driving classes because one day a student might get into an accident.
No, it's like saying driving classes shouldn't be beholden to funding from the "Reckless Driving Is Fun Yeehaw Get-er-Done" club. You're just flat out misrepresenting the article. Did you actually read the article? Because it sure does sound like you're just replying to the headline.
Without funding from the NRA those programs and facilities likely would not exist. I read this article for exactly what it is, a hit piece by anti 2A advocates to keep knowledge of firearms that does not fit their narrative from the public.
Even if the classes provide a public service and help save lives it doesn’t fit the “guns are bad Mckaaay” narrative they want to push.
Without funding from the NRA those programs and facilities likely would not exist. I read this article for exactly what it is, a hit piece by anti 2A advocates to keep knowledge of firearms that does not fit their narrative from the public.
If you're so concerned about youth programs to teach children "firearm safety" maybe you should be paying for those classes and facilities to exist instead of the NRA. Did you even entertain that possibility for a moment? Don't answer that, it's a rhetorical question. We both know you didn't and you wouldn't.
The NRA is a organization that is funded by donations. I have no problem with them using those donations to promote safety and marksmanship.
I personally can’t fund the facilities that these activities take place in. Just like you most likely couldn’t fund a gymnasium or skate park. There are non profits who help provide funding for all these activities, 2A organizations are no different.
Gymnasiums and skate parks don't package and market fear and teach children to use deadly weapons, so yeah they're a little different
deleted by creator
Obviously you’ve never attended a firearms safely course or marksmanship course. I’ve attended sessions with all of my children.
They never market fear and always seek to instill safety and marksmanship.
You can wring your hands, fear monger and try to build a false narrative all you want. But you are just like the right wing religious nut jobs who attack sex education. Like them you’re just hurting society by trying to keep people ignorant.
just like relig
The NRA markets fear. It's their sole purpose for existing. I don't think they should be involved in firearms training whatsoever.
This is like saying we shouldn’t offer driving classes because one day a student might get into an accident.
This is a hilarious example considering that in most states you have to be like 16 or something before any driving classes are offered. For precisely the reason you stated.
It's additionally hilarious because cars are something that just about every person in America has to use at some point. Transportation is essential and there are very few other ways to do it, thus driving privileges that are easily and affordably obtained even at the young age of 16 or so are a necessary and calculated risk. I personally would not want that to be a reality for guns and defense, but what do I know.
Sounds like we should pass another amendment guaranteeing access to driving…
