Our gun safety ed and free locks get "investigated"

[FC]

I am steaming. Here at the hospital we got 5000 free gun locks. We had a big public safety program underway. Today I got the word that some bozo has caused us to get our program put under investigation! The word is that somebody thought the Emergency Nurses Assoc. is anti-gun. Bull-crapola. Here I have 26 guns and a bulletin board and I don't object, but some retard does, whoever the jerk is.

Like I said once on Bill's board, "Just because someone pulls a trigger doesn't make him my brother".

There are a lot of retarded shooters and hunters out there. You meet them at the range. I am embarassed by them. It's like having some nutball representing the Church making you look like a wierdo since you go there too.

[MorgansBoss]

Sorry to hear about the situation FC. Hope its not serious or hinders your program. As I've said many times I've been involved in firearms safety training for many years now. I've lost count of students but its likely over a thousand now. Many probably don't actively hunt or shoot anymore. Many of the young women were obviously only involved to appease or impress their boyfriend or father. Of course there are boys in this category to (although you can substitute "peers" for boyfriend!). Some of them will drift back eventually but most importantly, even if they don't, they learned gun safety and that the shooting sports are not the evil the anti-gunners portray it as. Should we ever need their vote I'm confident we'll have it. THAT is one of the most important benefits of firearms safety classes - teaching the truth about guns. Hope everything works out and your program gets back on track.

 

Now to breech another delicate matter I've been thinking about for some time.

 

"It's like having some nutball representing the Church making you look like a wierdo since you go there too."

 

Some of the language, subjects and ideas expressed here lately have been on the outer edge. z1r's recent departure has highlighted this issue but it's certainly not an isolated case. I'm not one for censorship or political correctness but I do favor "good taste!" In that reguard we must remember that in a public forum such as this - especially now that its advertised - we owe every gun owner the courtesy of portraying ourselves respectibly. Nobody wants to be the "nutball" who casts the whole congregation in a bad light. Most of us regulars know each other well enough to let our feelings and biases out of the bag occasionally as if we were actually in a private conversation - we're not. We have visitors we never meet. They are other shooters as well as casual surfers and perhaps even folks doing research for one reason or another. When our prejudices or other left-field rantings are proudly posted these people see gun owners with bad habits. I don't want to be portrayed as such and we all owe it to each other not to do this.

 

I'm not trying to be holier than thou. I'm not claiming any sort of superiority. Shoot, I have as many odd ideas as anyone but I'd personally like to see things cleaned up a bit. Not a popular stance I know and flame away, but I feel strongly it had to be said. Once again;

" It's like having some nutball representing the Church making you look like a wierdo since you go there too."

[Doble Troble]

I have as many odd ideas as anyone

 

MB, I think we should all feel free to relate what may be odd ideas. If we are not free to do this, and to see the reaction caused, how can we learn that the idea might be bad?

 

I hope that everyone will post about the reasons that they have problems with ideas posted. I guess I do kind of see how five letters may to some render a joke offensive, but I also think that its important for those who take offense to clearly communicate why. If this isn't done, secluded areas of thought are created. Because secluded areas of thought remain unexamined, they become even more dangerous and damaging than open discussions of potentially bad ideas.

 

If passers-by cannot tolerate open, honest discussions of ideas (even if on the surface they're distasteful) I think that we shouldn't be bothered that they don't stay.

 

An open dialog is usually of greater value than a proper one. Isn't this the kind of diversity that we should promote?

[FC]

There is a problem in that if topics are relative much of the time. Some folks get easily offended, and some don't. I don't want to do like our infamous board counterpart and be an autocratic ruler. In other words, I am lenient on topics- but if somebody gets brave they have to be prepared to defend themselves. Dog eat Dog is pretty much hands off unless it gets crazy. When I had to be an umpire and take sides and play policeman I lost the desire to run this show. It is too emotionally draining. I find that the peer pressure usually suffices to regulate things. Police thyself is the best route. I don't really know how to put that any better. I can't picture very many outside the shooting world hanging around to view the landscape. That can happen, but the only time in 3 1/2 years was when teenage twerps from England spammed us bad. In return I made their lives pretty unpleasant for two weeks. A truce was called.

 

I'm not above reproof, so fire away!