Bluegrime on 23/7/2010 at 21:03
Quote Posted by Vivian
I honestly don't want to sound like a churl, but do you have a link to the news story about that? If that's seriously a real threat wherever you live then sure, get a gun. Sounds like you would need one. But even then I would suggest that a better long term solution is more/better police and some kind of investigation into what sort of series of events leads to a gang of men skinning people with meat cleavers (which as someone with a reasonably amount of experience in skinning stuff, I have to guess would be really difficult). Or move away from the Valley of the Cannibals. Cormac McCarthy didn't grow up near you by any chance, did he?
So by your thinking, a gun is equivalent to something like a fire-extinguisher. Correct?
Actually Cormac McCarthy did grow up right near where I live, but this happened in Los Angeles. I've tried running google searches for various combination of "Los Angeles County skinning murders barrio" etc etc to no avail, but I can assure you that I'm not just throwing that out there as a "THIS IS WHY MERICA NEEDZ OUR GUNS" kind of thing. It's a real, actual scenario where having a firearm was the difference between life and death.
So yes, a firearm is the equivilent to a fire extinguisher. You can't know exactly when you might need one, but the consequences of being unprepared can be horrific. I'm not some loony who totes a .44 magnum (Most powerful handgun in the world /snarl) around just incase I get mugged, but I believe anyone who has an interest in protecting their household and family from potential assault should own one. Even in an ideal scenario it can take the police five minuets to arrive.. Which is five minuets of being potentially murdered.
And Stitch..
I think you have that backwards. Underestimating a threat to your life is a fine way to die. Calling the police, locking the bedroom door and not being the belligerent party are all part of my home defense plan. But if they come within line of sight ( Which would involve breaching the door to my bedroom, obviously. ) then I can't give them the benefit of the doubt. Maybe you can, but I can't.
Harvester on 23/7/2010 at 21:34
Yes, owning a gun can make the difference between life and death sometimes, and I'm glad your mom and her boyfriend got out alive and managed to take down a couple of killers.
But you do realize other people can come up with anecdotes to support the other side of the argument too, right? I mean I once got ambushed by a drunk guy who wanted to beat me up (because he thought I was some other guy who harassed his friend), I barely managed to talk him out of it but I'm sure glad he wasn't carrying (in Holland, basically only hardened criminals have guns, I wouldn't even know where to get one, your common drunk anti-social asshole does not own a gun). And another time, at a party of my student union in an anti-social neighborhood, a drunk guy crashed the party and asked for beer. He was sent away, but came back moments later with an alarm pistol and started shooting at people. I can tell you I was glad that this guy didn't own a real gun... That, too, might have been the difference between life and death, so see what I'm saying? I'd rather trust statistics that anecdotes.
Stitch on 23/7/2010 at 21:39
Quote Posted by Bluegrime
I'm not some loony who totes a .44 magnum (Most powerful handgun in the world /snarl) around just incase I get mugged, but I believe anyone who has an interest in protecting their household and family from potential assault should own one.
That argument isn't really going to get you very far, though, as far more common than life-and-death struggles are situations in which waving around an owned gun can escalate things horribly.
I don't really want to drag this out too much, as I personally support your right to own a gun if you feel that you need one. You also seem to have your shit together pretty well in regard to not letting your gun go to your head in dicey situations, thereby avoiding the issue of unnecessary escalation (assuming you are being completely honest with us and yourself).
But it's a little silly to argue that everyone needs a gun to gain control over one incredibly unlikely flavor of fucked up shit. I'd undoubtedly feel differently if an unfathomable act of random violence struck as close to home as one almost did for you, but as is I'll happily take my chances and keep those little awesome vehicles of perforating death out of my home.
Bluegrime on 23/7/2010 at 22:16
@ Harvester
I'm glad a firearm was not involved in either situation you mentioned. But the fact that the people involved attempted or attempted to commit violent crimes without one makes them a total non-issue. I have no doubt that either of those men owning a handgun would have made those situations exponentially worse, but so would either of them having a knife/baseball bat/big rock/etc.
@ Stitch
I can respect that. I just felt like Vivian's point about there being no real reason to own a firearm is one stemming from having never needed one or known someone who has. I'm quite confident that I'll never be in that kind of scenario, but being prepared never hurt somebody.
And on that note I'm done fagging up this edumucation thread with my gun tract.
Enchantermon on 24/7/2010 at 00:00
Quote Posted by Kolya
I've got a question about home schooling:
When I went to school, sexual education was part of the biology classes starting when I was 13 or 14, maybe earlier. Do kids of that age still get home-schooled in the US?
Yes.
Quote Posted by Kolya
And isn't it really really awkward to have your mum teach you about menstruation, male and female orgasms, contraception, etc?
Or are these things simply never taught, assuming a firm faith will keep good American teens from doing anything nasty?
Our curriculum covered some aspects of sex, but never ventured into anything you mentioned, and by that point we were using software and my mom's role was smaller; the software presented lectures and graded most homework and test itself; my mom was only involved in the experiments and grading essays; things the computer couldn't do.
I get the impression that my parents expected me to ask about sex if I was ever curious, but I never was. I got a lot of the gaps filled in when I took a Family class in college.
Kolya on 24/7/2010 at 01:54
Thanks for answering the question. I fully understand why you were never curious enough to ask your parents. But I think learning about these things in college may have been a bit too late for me. :D
Enchantermon on 24/7/2010 at 03:07
Sure thing.
It's certainly not for everyone. Specifically, those who are more likely to make use of the information would naturally want to know earlier.
fett on 24/7/2010 at 05:18
Gah, I'm in the middle of moving and really want to sink my teeth into this thread, but very little time right now. So quickly:
Someone asked about resources - my kids are too young to need expensive science resources yet, but the HS homeschoolers I know typically purchase very expensive kits and equipment, or simply do without. I think there's an inordinate amount of focus on OMG WHAT ABOUT SCIENCE?? among homeschool critics. The whole point of homeschooling (for the people I run with, at least) is to allow the child to pursue their natural interests, in view of them eventually moving into that career field. A kid who is THAT interested in the sciences will most likely conclude that they need to enter public education to have access to proper resources, or will typically coordinate with other students of similar interests to obtain them or gain access at a community college, etc. Either way, by the time most HSers reach that age, they seem to be pointed pretty firmly in a specific direction, and if it's not toward the sciences, they will do the minimum amount of work in that area to get by, while focusing on other areas that they are inclined toward. I don't think this is very different from high school where non-science oriented students take a year of biology, a year of physical science, and spend all their elective credits on the arts. Additionally, I challenge anyone outside of a career in the field of science to name a single thing they learned in chemistry or any other advanced science class that actually matters in daily life (not the knowledge -the application). It's very possible to live a full, successful life without Bio II, Chemistry, or Advanced Nuclear Physics instruction. In fact, for someone like me who has no interest in those things, it's imperative that I NEVER have to study them to have a full, successful life. ;)
@SD - I can only speak from my experience. My co-op group rents the classrooms of a local church for classes 1-2 times per week, but I would say out of 200 families, maybe half are Christians. The ones I've met who are do NOT teach Creationism and are often openly hostile toward the idea of indoctrinating children. I do however know from my time spent in the Christian sub-culture that many, many families homeschool for exactly the reasons you state. But the number of "secular" homeschoolers is growing rapidly. Google "secular homeschoolers" or "non-theist homeschoolers" and you'll see what I mean. I also think it depends on where you are. We have a lot of religious nuts who homeschool here, but I'm in the Bible belt. There are huge pockets of secular homeschoolers on both coasts and in the mid-west though.
@Koyla - my wife being a nurse, we're very open with our kids about body functions, biological needs, etc. We try to be age appropriate, but if our kids ask about sex or some such, we try to be as honest as possible so as not to make them ashamed or afraid to ask such questions. I.E. - my boys have both had the whole concept of erections explained to them, because they've noticed that their penis changes when it gets cold or warm, or simply because like all little boys, they sometimes get them in the morning or whatever. It's their body, they deserve to have their questions answered, but we only answer what they ask and no more - I'm starting to realize that the time for learning is "right" when the kid thinks about a topic enough to form an intelligent question about it, and it hasn't come back to bite me yet. I *hope* by the time my boys hit puberty, we have an open enough relationship that they have no problem whatsoever talking to me about it. I couldn't do that with my dad b/c he was very distant, and I'm trying not to be with my kids. I'd much rather them learn about sex from me than in P.E. class or in the neighbors backyard where they're too embarrassed to ask questions, or may not get all the information they want.
Kolya on 24/7/2010 at 07:53
Well I just think that some things are easier to ask someone who's impartial and impersonal, ie not your mum or dad. I was raised by open minded people I guess but I never asked them about sex. I mean bloody hell, they're my old folks! It just seemed so inappropriate for the relation we had.
When puberty hits and kids develop their own sexuality there's a need to distance themselves from their parents, and they do. What seemed to be normal and cool before - like talking about everything - suddenly becomes awkward and painful. It's nothing personal, no matter what kind of great and attentive dad you were, it's just part of becoming a grown up individual.
So they turn elsewhere with their questions: Peers, magazines and the net are actually a lot less embarrassing than asking your parents. Even if these are not the greatest information resources. If you're still waiting for them to form an intelligent question then, it might well be too late.
I know, you're the parent, not me. What do I know. But I'll ramble on and you just bear with me. :)
I personally believe that kids need to be taught about sex early on. That is certainly before they hit puberty, when these things become very urgent and awkward because your body is mutating. And at least from that time on they need to have access to a responsible adult who is to act as nothing but an information kiosk and not likely to tell your parents about your questions.
Brian The Dog on 24/7/2010 at 12:02
Quote Posted by fett
Additionally, I challenge anyone outside of a career in the field of science to name a single thing they learned in chemistry or any other advanced science class that actually matters in daily life (not the knowledge -the application).
Not only that, I did a four-year degree in Physics at a top uni, and the only two courses I use on a day-to-day basis 8 years on are (a) C++ Programming, and (b) Classical Mechanics - the latter only because I'm currently doing a PhD in a related field. So I definitely agree with you :)
The main reason kids should be taught science is so that they know how to think in a scientific way, get used to thinking about problems in an analytical process, and draw conclusions from data. These skills are useful in all areas of life. The best work we did at uni was generic problem-solving classes in the first year, where we were taught how to tackle problems.
Science is definitely important since it gives rise to technology, but it's only important that someone understands it, not necessarily yourself. Knowing for yourself comes in handy when you question certain scientists findings on the contentious issues of the day (e.g. MMR vaccine here in the UK).
