Joe Dees wrote:
>
> I quote from:
> http://www.handguncontrol.org/facts/ib/assault.asp
> Handgun Control works to enact sensible gun control legislation in the United State but does not seek to ban guns.
Riiiiight. You believe what they say on their web site, why don't you
believe everything you read everywhere? Or do you?
> Eddie Eagle's message tends to glamorize gun ownership as a badge of adulthood and coolness, with a cartoon character to hook the message, much as Joe Camel did for tobacco.
*Utter* ballocks, and it sounds as if you're parroting a party line.
Have you actually studied the materials? I have, and I've taught with
them, even though I am not and have never been a member of the NRA. It's
straightforward. Eddie Eagle says "I care too much about you to see you
get hurt," and "Stop. Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult." to
the youngest kids. Older kids get a more sophisticated set of messages,
but they no more glamorize guns than does the Boy Scouts of America.
> Kids should know not to touch guns, and to tell a responsible adult about guns they find, but a child safety program cannot substitute for adult responsibility, only supplement it, and I have concerns about a propagandized 'NRA Youth".
Indeed. Have your concerns. By all means, keep the NRA honest about what
the program will and won't do; but kindly can the Joe Camel crap. Me, I
have concerns about a propagandizing establishment that is the
overwhelming source of glamorizing gun *use*, not ownership, as a badge
of coolness and adulthood and whatnot. Such as a greaaaat many Hollywood
blockbusters.
Such things are what adult responsibility *and* programs like Eddie
Eagle have to work *against*.
> >There are some little kids that were effectively killed recently by the
> >State of California's child safety law - when the naked guy with the
> >pitchfork broke in, the oldest child could not unlock Daddy's gun to
> >attempt to defend her siblings. I hold the lawmakers responsible for this
> >kind of incident.
> >
<snip>
> >Stupid, well-meaning laws.
> >
> They'll most likely save a lot more lives than they lose; if people are gonna sue either way, there will be many more suits for many more deaths without such laws.
I notice your total lack of compassionate response to the cited case.
Were the deaths in question _right_? Was Kitty Genovese's death any more
terrible?
I think not.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:50:16 MDT