Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, if I am following you correctly, we should teach children sex ed because we have one of the highest unwanted pregnancy rates in the civilized world, and bad things like disease can happen if you don't practice safe sex, right? But, you think a trip to the gun range, which would teach kids that guns are not a toy and teach them how to safely handle them, is a bad idea, even though this country has one of the highest gun fatality rates in the civilized world?
How is that logic consistent?
Children are born with the equipment they need for sex like it or not, if a parent wants to buy a gun let them take responsibility and teach their children rather than devote a field trip. All for gun safety as there are a lot of fools out there just not at a the expense of education.
Teaching kids about adjusting sights and how it impacts the bullet impact provides a great application of geometry and trig. Understanding bullet drop over distance, an excellent example of physics in action. Recoil? Force and momentum.
I'd have to say all of that is more useful than say looking at old paintings, let alone the junk that passes for "modern art".
Shooting a gun and adjusting to hit a target is not math anymore than a basketball player is using math when he takes a shot. Art is already part of the curriculum that benefit students in many ways, very little to gain by going to a range.
Children are born with the equipment they need for sex like it or not, if a parent wants to buy a gun let them take responsibility and teach their children rather than devote a field trip. All for gun safety as there are a lot of fools out there just not at a the expense of education.
Yes like I said a ways back this is a parents job not the school.........but many let the school raise their kids nowdays.
Shooting a gun and adjusting to hit a target is not math anymore than a basketball player is using math when he takes a shot. Art is already part of the curriculum that benefit students in many ways, very little to gain by going to a range.
You couldn't be more wrong. As I said before, if you have ever fired at a target 200 yards away then you have at least subconsciously used practical geometry. And if you've fired at 500+ yards, you've more than likely done that geometry consciously, either with a calculator or on paper. Talk to someone who went through the Marine Corps Reconnaissance program and ask them if they could have passed without geometry and at least rudimentary physics.
As for basketball, yes, it does require at least a basic knowledge of the fundamentals of geometry, whether it's taught formally or acquired through practical application.
Okay. I think the time would be better spent on academics, but it's their choice.
Okay, so let's eliminate all high school sports. Football, basketball, baseball, all athletics. Their time is better spent on academics, according to you. Right?
Yes like I said a ways back this is a parents job not the school.........but many let the school raise their kids nowdays.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
I agree with you, now that has to be a first.
I agree that it should be a parent's job to teach firearms safety. That being said, there are too many people out there who are irrationally afraid of guns and wouldn't even be in the same room with one, much less teach their children about the responsible use of firearms. "Guns are bad, mmmkay" is not a responsible way to teach firearms safety.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.