He thought my purpose was to make rationalizations for the negligent, unsafe gun handling. He was ridiculously wrong.
Why was he wrong? His perception trumped reality. This is a problem, a big one.
That's exactly what I'm saying. Care to explore and discuss the reasoning further, or will you avoid the exercise because your conclusion is fixed?
If you have no further contributions on this subject, why do you keep typing in this thread?
Identify and advance past roadblocks? Of course.
Attempting to stop me? Good luck.
1. This isn't an exercise you're conducting on your pupils. I'm not your pupil. You've not earned that with me. Here's the reality. We're all just members of a gun board posting what we think. In this case, we're discussing the helplessly pedantic trivial differences between two different sets of gun safety rules. For cryin' out loud.
2. Regarding the bold text. Then, as promised, I say you're as wrong as anyone who says the NRA 3 shouldn't be taught. We've discussed that in the other thread about this topic several months ago. You've not presented anything new that counters my conclusion about this. I suggested a way for you to convince me that this is more than trivial. But you declined.
3. I'm not trying to stop you. You're free to claim **** matters more than it does. I'm free to say it's much ado about not much until such time that you can present a good case that it's more than trivial. You haven't done that.