Quote Originally Posted by brobar View Post
How so? I said I feel everyone should get in-classroom hands on training. I didn't go so far as to elaborate when, where or how. I said I couldn't understand why some would prefer to do it in a digital format if hands-on, live-fire training was available. I said it didn't make much sense (to me). However... the more I think about generations today... I guess I could see why some people would prefer it.

And what is with the issuing of M4's and ammo comment? When you take shop class... do you get issued a car and tools to take home with you to keep? When you take home ec... do you get issued sewing machines with a lifetime supply of thread and a gas range oven with a lifetime supply of self-rising flour?
Your responses seem to cast things in a very narrow frame of reference. Ex. your explanation of a generational difference to explain the POV's different from your own seems, well, a bit simplistic - IMO, of course.

As I read BG's response to your post, he was (I believe) merely carrying your argument to a further point in your own logic path. For there to be a mandate for universal gun training, there would need to be universal acceptance of gun exposure. i.e. using cstone's procreation reference - the very reason there is now a universal mandate for sex education (under the euphemism of 'health' education) is due to the universal acceptance that our youth are going to be exposed to sex. Your argument follows that example as a direct parallel - EXCEPT - there is no universal acceptance of gun exposure. If there were such universal acceptance - then your suggestion of mandated training in school makes sense - as does BG's comment about M4 issuance.

Make sense now?