Listen, Anne, what if statistics showed that 2% of women killed violently were killed by the use of martial arts? Would you still advocate training women in martial arts? What if a karate dojo that had trained someone who later used those skills to harm a woman were to attempt to hold a fundraising karate competition to raise money for breast cancer...and also showcase their dojo. Would you refuse to accept the donated funds?
Honestly, you live in an unrealistic world. I'm retired after almost 22 years in the military and now am involved in law enforcement as both a trainer and an officer. Your position is ridiculous and based on fantasy. Martial arts in the real world are not like Hollywood, where the small guy kicks the big guy's a** all the time with all sorts of fancy chop-chop nonsense. In the real world the single determiner of who wins such encounters is size. One of the earliest ads for one of Samuel Colt's revolvers in (I think it was) the 1830's touted the revolver as a tool that "makes the little man equal to the big man." No amount of self-defense, martial arts training is going to do that for either women or men. A firearm is the one tool which actually accomplishes that goal. Guns aren't for everyone and I wouldn't force someone to use one if they didn't want to, but why is it that you liberals always want to tell others how to live? I don't care if you use a gun or not, but stop telling others how to live their lives and get off your moralistic mountain and stop looking down on those who do. I thought such moral judgmentalism was supposed to be confined to conservatives? You're the first people to defend a woman's "right" to terminate the life of her baby and the "right" of gays to live their lives as they wish, but the first to attack actual rights that are found in the constitution but which you are either threatened by or which you wouldn't avail yourself of. I just don't understand the liberal mindset. Stop cutting your nose off to spite your face. It's counterproductive to a goal that I thought would be beyond politics, fighting hormonal cancers in men and women, but now am sadly informed is apparently not.
For the same reason Lance Armstrong came up with his silly yellow "Live Strong" bands...because it raises awareness, which is one of the laudable goals of the Susan G. Komen foundation as well as every organization fighting cancer. The same reason that people I see drive around with bumper stickers on their cars that read, "Save the ta-tas" and "I love my ta-tas." To raise awareness. Increased awareness leads to increased public interest, involvement and participation in the fight. How can you possibly object to that? Honestly, there are 80 million gun owners in America...or something like that...maybe more. Increased awareness among that demographic could be HUGE in the fight against breast cancer. Imagine if each of those gun owners contributed $10 dollars to the fight. The result would be almost a BILLION dollars to fund research, treatment, care, etc. How can that possibly be a bad thing? Your position is clearly from the "cut your nose off to spite your face" perspective. You sound like my pastor who constantly rails against the lottery...except he's smart enough to honestly admit that if I won the lottery he'd willingly accept my contribution of my tithe of 10% of my winnings, with which he could do a lot of good. All the issues of factual inaccuracy and illogic in your position aside, I recommend that you sit down and evaluate your views and consider what is really important.
The whole point is to raise awareness about breast cancer. Julie and S&W are helping to do that. To say that an inanimate object is the cause of anything is ridiculous. Spoons don't "make" people fat. A car can't do anything without a person behind the wheel. A gun is a tool just like a hammer or a bat.
A sportsperson, perhaps.
Anne Landman
Well, I hope you get your way soon, Anne. Then breast cancer research won't have any money at all.
Listen, Anne, what if statistics showed that 2% of women killed violently were killed by the use of martial arts? Would you still advocate training women in martial arts? What if a karate dojo that had trained someone who later used those skills to harm a woman were to attempt to hold a fundraising karate competition to raise money for breast cancer...and also showcase their dojo. Would you refuse to accept the donated funds?
Honestly, you live in an unrealistic world. I'm retired after almost 22 years in the military and now am involved in law enforcement as both a trainer and an officer. Your position is ridiculous and based on fantasy. Martial arts in the real world are not like Hollywood, where the small guy kicks the big guy's a** all the time with all sorts of fancy chop-chop nonsense. In the real world the single determiner of who wins such encounters is size. One of the earliest ads for one of Samuel Colt's revolvers in (I think it was) the 1830's touted the revolver as a tool that "makes the little man equal to the big man." No amount of self-defense, martial arts training is going to do that for either women or men. A firearm is the one tool which actually accomplishes that goal. Guns aren't for everyone and I wouldn't force someone to use one if they didn't want to, but why is it that you liberals always want to tell others how to live? I don't care if you use a gun or not, but stop telling others how to live their lives and get off your moralistic mountain and stop looking down on those who do. I thought such moral judgmentalism was supposed to be confined to conservatives? You're the first people to defend a woman's "right" to terminate the life of her baby and the "right" of gays to live their lives as they wish, but the first to attack actual rights that are found in the constitution but which you are either threatened by or which you wouldn't avail yourself of. I just don't understand the liberal mindset. Stop cutting your nose off to spite your face. It's counterproductive to a goal that I thought would be beyond politics, fighting hormonal cancers in men and women, but now am sadly informed is apparently not.
For the same reason Lance Armstrong came up with his silly yellow "Live Strong" bands...because it raises awareness, which is one of the laudable goals of the Susan G. Komen foundation as well as every organization fighting cancer. The same reason that people I see drive around with bumper stickers on their cars that read, "Save the ta-tas" and "I love my ta-tas." To raise awareness. Increased awareness leads to increased public interest, involvement and participation in the fight. How can you possibly object to that? Honestly, there are 80 million gun owners in America...or something like that...maybe more. Increased awareness among that demographic could be HUGE in the fight against breast cancer. Imagine if each of those gun owners contributed $10 dollars to the fight. The result would be almost a BILLION dollars to fund research, treatment, care, etc. How can that possibly be a bad thing? Your position is clearly from the "cut your nose off to spite your face" perspective. You sound like my pastor who constantly rails against the lottery...except he's smart enough to honestly admit that if I won the lottery he'd willingly accept my contribution of my tithe of 10% of my winnings, with which he could do a lot of good. All the issues of factual inaccuracy and illogic in your position aside, I recommend that you sit down and evaluate your views and consider what is really important.
The whole point is to raise awareness about breast cancer. Julie and S&W are helping to do that. To say that an inanimate object is the cause of anything is ridiculous. Spoons don't "make" people fat. A car can't do anything without a person behind the wheel. A gun is a tool just like a hammer or a bat.
Pages