2 ms·

Why not weapons? With a competent instructor, the accident risk is lower than for any of your suggested alternatives.

by dfranke 17y ago

TriinT 17y ago
I have nothing against weapons. I actually like them. However, a camp for teenage boys where there's weapons training would be a PR disaster. The feminists would complain that it was a men's conspiracy to impose the old status quo. The far left-wing whackos would compare it to Hitler's youth. I believe that teenage boys can be taught how to shoot, and that they can be trained to use weapons in a responsible manner. An old drill instructor would be required to keep the kids in check, though. Much of this PR nightmare could be avoided if there were no weapons. Martial arts would be OK. By keeping weapons out, you could sell it as an extreme sports camp, rather than a boot camp for teenagers ;-) Image is everything.
- anamax 17y ago
  > Much of this PR nightmare could be avoided if there were no weapons. At what cost in effectiveness? If you don't tell the loons to get stuffed, your life is run by loons.
  - TriinT 17y ago
    I think the cost would be infinitesimal. Weapons are cool, but not essential. In a way, doing without weapons would be fun. Teach the kids martial arts. Their bare hands would be their weapons. What I like about martial arts is that it's a bit like mathematics. In math you can't fool yourself thinking you know more than you do... your own limitations are right in front of you, in the blank sheet of paper reminding you that you're no Grothendieck. In martial arts you also know your limitations. If you don't, you get your ass kicked really quick. In this age of grade-inflation where all kids are believed to be geniuses until proven otherwise, knowing where you stand relative to your peers is good. Harsh, but it builds character ;-)
    - anamax 17y ago
      > I think the cost would be infinitesimal. What is your "thought" based on? > Weapons are cool, but not essential. I've got nothing against martial arts, but AFAIK, they weren't associated with the observed reduction in criminally violent gun use. Assuming that the effect is real and significant, why don't you find it important? I'll state my bias up front - I'm all for reducing criminal violence. (However, that means that I oppose things that don't reduce criminal violence because they make it harder to do experiments and I think that restricting people for no good reason is bad.)

Why not weapons? With a competent instructor, the accident risk is lower than for any of your suggested alternatives.

by dfranke 17y ago

Why not weapons? With a competent instructor, the accident risk is lower than for any of your suggested alternatives.

I have nothing against weapons. I actually like them. However, a camp for teenage boys where there's weapons training would be a PR disaster. The feminists would complain that it was a men's conspiracy to impose the old status quo. The far left-wing whackos would compare it to Hitler's youth. I believe that teenage boys can be taught how to shoot, and that they can be trained to use weapons in a responsible manner. An old drill instructor would be required to keep the kids in check, though. Much of this PR nightmare could be avoided if there were no weapons. Martial arts would be OK. By keeping weapons out, you could sell it as an extreme sports camp, rather than a boot camp for teenagers ;-) Image is everything.

anamax 17y ago
> Much of this PR nightmare could be avoided if there were no weapons. At what cost in effectiveness? If you don't tell the loons to get stuffed, your life is run by loons.
- TriinT 17y ago
  I think the cost would be infinitesimal. Weapons are cool, but not essential. In a way, doing without weapons would be fun. Teach the kids martial arts. Their bare hands would be their weapons. What I like about martial arts is that it's a bit like mathematics. In math you can't fool yourself thinking you know more than you do... your own limitations are right in front of you, in the blank sheet of paper reminding you that you're no Grothendieck. In martial arts you also know your limitations. If you don't, you get your ass kicked really quick. In this age of grade-inflation where all kids are believed to be geniuses until proven otherwise, knowing where you stand relative to your peers is good. Harsh, but it builds character ;-)
  - anamax 17y ago
    > I think the cost would be infinitesimal. What is your "thought" based on? > Weapons are cool, but not essential. I've got nothing against martial arts, but AFAIK, they weren't associated with the observed reduction in criminally violent gun use. Assuming that the effect is real and significant, why don't you find it important? I'll state my bias up front - I'm all for reducing criminal violence. (However, that means that I oppose things that don't reduce criminal violence because they make it harder to do experiments and I think that restricting people for no good reason is bad.)