So I go to a Hunter Education course...


August 22, 2005, 10:19 PM
...And I find some of the stuff the instructors stated to be a little ..."odd". They were ranting about how we should never call our guns WEAPONS because WEAPONS are used by CRIMINALS to MURDER people. Instead, we must call them "Sporting Firearms". This was stressed numerous times. Also, we never "kill" an animal. We "harvest" it (I found that a little...wierd. Maybe I'm just foolish?). Another thing that kinda got me fired up is that one of the instructors was telling us that we had NO REASON to have a loaded firearm ANYWHERE in your house for ANY REASON. I think that's just asinine. :uhoh:

Or am I just an idiot?


If you enjoyed reading about "So I go to a Hunter Education course..." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!
August 22, 2005, 10:23 PM
Ask him why he voted for Kerry

August 22, 2005, 10:24 PM
Well these courses are state run aren't they? What did you expect?

August 22, 2005, 10:37 PM
Too PC for me!

August 22, 2005, 10:38 PM
Tell him to get back to the part about hunting and keep the rest to himself.

August 22, 2005, 10:47 PM
Long time hunter safety instructor here. NY State DEC encouraged all NY Hunter Safety instructors to use the terms "firearm" and "harvest." As SIGarmed suggests, about what you can expect from state run programs.

That said, I taught with a great group of guys. We tried to avoid the word "weapon" but gun and firearm were used interchangably. And when I did the handgun section and used a Glock to illustrate a semi-auto handgun, nobody blanched if I called it a weapon, as it clearly was not a hunting firearm. We talked about killing as well as harvesting animals. But we never instructed students that they should not refer to guns/firearms as weapons. Not a hill worth dying on. I also occasionally taught with some "good ol' boys" who were former military ... who called their firearms any darn thing they wanted to. So it kind of depends on the philosphy of the team you get.

Interesting article in the most recent Field and Stream, blaming some of the decline in the number of hunters on state-mandated HS courses. Article seemed to suggest that the way to go was to get rid of minimum ages as long as the junior is accompanied by a responsible adult. Apparently, a number of states have or are considering such. I liked teaching HS courses; it was a way to give back. But I'd rather take a newbie hunting ...

August 22, 2005, 11:02 PM
I've always heard "harvest" but not from people who "weren't killing". :confused:

What I remember, having gone through Hunter Ed several times by myself or with others, is the old guy with half a hand that would hold it up at the appropriate time in the gun safety talk and say "Ya get one of theeeesssse!" or "And it hurts like hell!"

blind hog
August 22, 2005, 11:05 PM
yes you should go as far as the rest of story sounds like pc yard sausage if it looks like duck and it quacks like a duck then its a duck its only there opinion i would take the course

August 22, 2005, 11:45 PM
My instructors where pretty cool about it all but did suggest using the word harvest insted of killed,wacked or dumped,so as not to convince the fence-sitters that we're all about the blood.They said most people are not anti-hunter or anti-gun,most give it little or no thought one way or the other. Better to give them the best possible look at our side rather than to prove what the anti's have said!!You will probably never change an anti but you have a chance with the undecided!!

August 22, 2005, 11:52 PM
When our club sets up a table in the plaza, people often come up to us and ask "Do we have to have our own weapons to join?"

It's a mindset thing. To the average non-gunowner, the only possible reason for a gun to exist is to eventually shoot someone, and invariably someone innocent. This attitude can best be seen in the execrable book, "The Rifle" by Gary Paulsen. In this book, the rifle almost has a mind of its own - it cannot help but lie in wait to kill all by itself. The use of the word "weapon" to describe all guns is an outgrowth of this kind of thinking.

Of course, "firearm" connotes "weapon," too, so the hunter safety instructors were being silly. ;)

As for the use of the term "harvest" instead of "kill," my hunter safety instructors taught me to use the former, as well. After all, which is more polite: "your mother died," or "your mother passed away"? Using "harvest" helps to emphasize the total package that drives most people to hunt in the first place - getting to know the outdoors, spending time with loved ones, keeping heritage alive, etc.

August 23, 2005, 12:15 AM
Oh hell... Someone's gotta do it...

This is my weapon; this is my gun.

This one's for killin'; this one's for fun.

rust collector
August 23, 2005, 12:33 AM
Please bear in mind that much of what we teach gets interpreted and then fed to peers and parents later. The class is predominantly 11 year olds, and we have to teach them not to be too bloodthirsty for the good of the sport. The 70% of the population that does not hunt but doesn't mind if I hunt has feelings that must be considered.

We try to teach the kids that happiness is not a large gut pile, if it flies it doesn't have to die, and beer is not a necessary part of a good hunting experience. We also try to give them a shot of game management principles and let them know that hunters help nongame species more than nonhunters do.

There's a lot to try to get across in 10 contact hours, and there's plenty of competition for the limited attention spans of our students. The central theme of the course is safety, not second amendment theory. Thoughtfulness and consideration really aren't cardinal sins, so spare me the PC blather. If you want to advise an 11 year old to keep a loaded gun under his pillow, I guess that's your business. I don't want to read about my students in the newspaper, unless posing with a nice buck.

August 23, 2005, 12:49 AM
I think they use the terms to be more friendly to the uneducated public who have never hunted in their lives. These people are the folks that believe we are killing bambi. As far as keeping loaded weapons goes, I believe this is also directed towards people who keep a loaded deer rifle laying around where children could get there hands on it. Instead of properly teaching people the safe ways to keep loaded firearms for protection, they teach no loaded firearms period. So just take what they say with a grain of salt and use your best judgement.

just my .02

August 23, 2005, 01:03 AM
I agree.

I'd rather put a PC face on hunting than the rednecked one I watched in my rodeo town as a kid.

My first hunting trip ended and on the drive home we came across 2 full bags of garbage and empty shotshells that evidently fell off a truck. We picked up every last piece of trash and shotshell. Neighbors watching I hope.

Sure it is PC bullpoop, but I'd rather not alienate those who have an open mind or who live around the places we practice our hobby.

August 23, 2005, 01:37 AM
My hunter's saftey course in gulfport mississippi was a joke. Those guys were such idiots and they were sooo sure that they were right. My father and I both got a good chuckle when he illustrated a semi-auto handgun and held up his "Springfield 9-1-1" (a springfield armory 1911) believe it or not he, honest to God, believe that the handgun that he had which said Model 1911-A1 on the side was called a "nine-one-one." The were just morons in general and I loathed every minute of the class. I was really upset because I'm sure that those idiots at Cadet Point have soured more than one newbie hunter on the sport. I thank God that no anti-gun librals were there.. they would've had plenty of ammo to turn mississippi into **********.

August 23, 2005, 02:29 AM
I agree, to never use the word "weapon".. I tell other gun owners this as well when I hear them use it.

Is it PC... yes.. Does it make gun owners look better in the eyes of non-gun owners?


I also agree with "harvest".. although I dont use it myself. :o

1911 guy
August 23, 2005, 08:07 AM
P.C. for sure, but they also have to talk to the lowest common denominator. This could be they kid whose dad only takes him out for deer once a year or the woman sitting there just because she wants to see what her son or husband is interested in. Do I agree with the terminology they suggest? Not really, but I'm not bothered by it. I do tell my neices and nephews to never have a loaded gun except when you're actually shooting, but my wife's pistol and mine are both loaded 24/7. Again, the most basic instruction until enough is learned to progress.

August 23, 2005, 08:27 AM
To the average non-gunowner, the only possible reason for a gun to exist is to eventually shoot someone, and invariably someone innocent. This attitude can best be seen in the execrable book, "The Rifle" by Gary Paulsen. In this book, the rifle almost has a mind of its own - it cannot help but lie in wait to kill all by itself. The use of the word "weapon" to describe all guns is an outgrowth of this kind of thinking.

My daughter's school made her read this.

August 23, 2005, 10:02 AM
Things sure have changed.
When I was still teaching about 15 years ago, WE were encouraged (by the master instructors) to stress that they were weapons, even the bows! (I taught firearms and archery)
:rolleyes: :scrutiny:

August 23, 2005, 10:03 AM
The only time I've ever chewed a magazine editor a new one for changes to an article of mine is when he changed a quote about "killing", to "harvesting". Thankfully the magazines are getting away from using "harvest"...finally!! It also drives me crazy to hear it on hunting shows. People reading hunting magazines and watching hunting shows do NOT need to be bathed in the PC glow. They know that killing is killing. As far as the non-hunting crowd, they know we're killing too. The ones that hate it will hate it no matter what we call it. The ones who are on the fence are not going to be influenced by PC terminology one way or the other. Harvesting is what you do to corn and beans. Our society is far too intent on hiding reality behind vague terms.

August 23, 2005, 10:18 AM
OK then,if someone breaks into my house..I'll use my "sporting firearm" to "harvest" them........and I'll use as many "exploding projectiles" as it takes to do it :uhoh:

August 23, 2005, 10:55 AM
Having been through a couple of these classes with mine and other's kids:
At least around here the kids under age 14 (IIRC) have to be accompanied by an adult. About half the time that's MOM !!! So what gets stressed is safety, game management, and sportsmanship/ethics.

A "Weapon" can be a gun or a bow or a knife or a baseball bat or a hammer. Weapons are used to kill people. (As bogie stated......)

A "Firearm" or a "Bow" is used to "Take" or "Harvest" game.

Yes, it may seem "PC" but the goal is to get young people into the fields and woods to hunt safely and ethically. But Mom has got to be comfortable with the fact that you won't shoot yourself or get shot accidently. They may still have a problem with "Oooky" stuff, but as long as they don't have to see it they will support the kids in their interest to hunt.

August 23, 2005, 11:01 AM
Elmer Fudd PC Crap :banghead:

August 23, 2005, 12:49 PM
I'm with scout26 on this one. I try to avoid the word "weapon" unless I really mean it. I know it's PC tripe, but sometimes it pays to play well with others.

Additionally, I'm of the school of thought that says it's not a weapon until intent is formed to use it as one. My kitchen knives are for slicing, chopping, or otherwise preparing food. They're not weapons. If you break into my home while I'm cooking dinner, though, my 10" chef's knife is going to become a weapon in short order. Ditto with a car, baseball bat, telephone cable, or electrical wiring: they're not weapons until somebody decides to use them as such.

My guns are the same way: they are tools for propelling one or more projectiles downrange in a consistent manner so as to deliver energy to a target. Most of them are for paper and/or clay. A few are used for hunting, and I'll grant that they are weapons when used for that purpose (though I shy away from the term; see above about "playing well with others"). My 870 with the 18" barrel and buckshot is a home defense weapon: I've already formed the intent to make that my defensive weapon in the event of a home invasion. Ditto with my sidearm (1911): even though I haven't chosen a target (haven't needed to, and, God willing, won't need to), I have formed intent to use it should the need arise. The 1911 in the cabinet, though, isn't.

Mmmmm, pedantry.

August 23, 2005, 01:03 PM
My instructor told me that if we wanted to memorize everything in the hunter's ed book "You'd have to have some kinda photogenic memory"


brad cook

August 23, 2005, 01:03 PM
I'll bet Ted Nugent would make a heck of a Hunter Safety instructor! :D

August 23, 2005, 01:13 PM
For some reason those euphemisms are giving me the willies.

Then again, I've got a working understanding of ecology (and a 7am class on the subject, which means I'm getting up at 5 am :banghead: )

But it's the blatant wordsmithing that really gets to me, it's the same thing that Disney does when they call fingerprinting their 'guests' the 'hand-e-scan'

August 23, 2005, 03:37 PM
And I find some of the stuff the instructors stated to be a little ..."odd". They were ranting about how we should never call our guns WEAPONS because WEAPONS are used by CRIMINALS to MURDER people.

That is the stupidist, most ignorant thing I've heard all day. I would have left and asked for my money back.

What a friggin moron.

August 23, 2005, 07:40 PM
Having been a Hunter Education Instructor for nearly 25 years and a NRA Firearm Instructor for over 20 years, let me shed some light on the is "Hunter" education, not Firearm education. Firearm instuction just happens to be a small part of the overall program mandated by States to obtain a hunting license whereas firearm/weapon specific classes are a whole different game and cover different material.

The firearm portion has nothing to do with personal defense and protection, it only provides a brief overview of firearms to those with little exposure who will use a gun hunting.

A frying pan is a "weapon" if used in an offensive manner....the same applies to firearms, it's all about intent.

Guns are refered to weapons by law enforcement and military because that is how they will most likely be used. As a rule, "Hunting" applications of firearms are not used for protection or self defense. This is why they are not refered to as "Weapons".

The term kill is an accurate description what occurs in hunting....are there less offensive or better choices of words?..yes. "Harvest" does not evoke the same mental picture as "Killer" to the non-shooting public, so why cast more negative upon the sport than is necessary?

Loaded gun in the house?.....this is not a personal protection course or CC classes. It's about "Hunting"....the point is hunting firearms should not be left loaded in the house.

Few things offend gun owners more than the misuse and ignorance of firearms in the movies and televison. Yet that is exactly what gun owners do when they use the wrong terminology and context of firearm usage.

Andrew Rothman
August 23, 2005, 07:54 PM
The NRA is very clear in its instructor training: It's a "gun" or a "firearm," but never a "weapon."

The NRA, people.

Relax. They're just words, and it's just hunting.

Eskimo Jim
August 23, 2005, 08:03 PM
write a letter to the head of the Department of Wildlife (or whatever the agency is called in your state) if you wish. Is it really that big of a problem that requires getting excited about? they say Tomato, you say Tomahto. Does it really make that much difference? :uhoh:

Use their words until you get the certificate, then run from the room muttering killing deer with my weapon etc etc to your heart's content. :evil: Sure it is PC run amok :banghead:


August 23, 2005, 08:31 PM
It's not totally wrong to say weapons are used by criminals to kill people but so do cops and the military. I subscribe to the belief that "weapons" are for killing people and not animals and I think that's the point he was trying to make so don't be too hard on the guy. :)

I personally prefer the term "gun". Even though I may kill a person with one someday that's not the sole reason I own it. It's just as a rope can hang a person to death yet I don't call my rope a weapon because it's useful for so many other things. I do possess items which I consider weapons yet even those I don't call weapons. These are only useful for harming people yet even so I don't call them weapons. I call my swords "swords" for example.

Words are funny things. There is a correct and an incorrect use but I feel everyone should have the liberty to pick and choose their own preference. I don't get ticked when somebody calls a magazine a clip as long I understand the meaning. The problem with imposing PC terminology is in it's attempt to control the choices of others. That's anti-freedom.

I am way past having to worry about hunters safety but I do take the CCW indroctinations. State law mandates some of the rediculous things these instructors say. It's not their fault so I don't grief them about it (too much :D). I resentfully take my certificate and am glad that it's behind me.

I say "let's go hunting". Never "let's go harvest" or "lets go kill". That isn't going to change unless I decide it will and I have a pretty good idea that is not going to happen simply because someone else wants it to be so.

August 23, 2005, 09:03 PM
Rembrandt makes some good points. It is a "hunter safety" course, and the whole purpose is exactly that: hunter safety. We don't teach hunting per se, and we don't teach shooting. We try to help folks going into the woods, possibly for the first time, how to do so in a manner that is safe to them and others. We also try to give them a respect for the sport.

Ryder said: I say "let's go hunting". Never "let's go harvest" or "lets go kill". That's exactly right. We go hunting. But hunting is the full experience of getting ready, spending time afield, and returning home safely, whether or not you've taken game.

I like the term "harvest" in that I believe it shows respect for the game animal. My own ethic is consistent with this. Sure I kill what I hunt. But the kill isn't the hunt. I hope kids pick up a bit of my respect for the outdoors and the game. I want them to take the time to practice with their firearms/bows so they can be sure of a one-shot kill, and to have the respect that if they wound an animal, they'll track it for nine hours or nine miles if needed. Somehow, "harvesting" communicates that much anticipated end of a successful hunt in the same way "harvest" reflects the end of a successful growing season. "Kill" is accurate, but it is so perfunctory that it doesn't capture "the hunt."

I really wish I could have all would-be hunters read Meditations On Hunting by Jose Ortega Y. Gasset, but I guess that would be too much to ask. :)

August 23, 2005, 10:05 PM
I appreciate the insight provided by members and more notably the other instructors here. Thanks for shedding some light on the subject. I guess I just have a problem with getting reallly annoyed by people constantly using PC terms. I'll work on it. :P

August 23, 2005, 10:22 PM
Harvest? Sporting Firearm? The "state" for the most part is anti right? These are NRA and gun manufacturer words. Why would the state want you to use softer words that won't upset folks?
Am I wrong?

August 23, 2005, 10:29 PM
Harvest? Sporting Firearm? The "state" for the most part is anti right? These are NRA and gun manufacturer words. Why would the state want you to use softer words that won't upset folks?

Maybe North Carolina is just trying to make everyone happy? :confused:

August 23, 2005, 10:50 PM
We try to teach the kids that happiness is not a large gut pile

It's not? :evil:

I kinda like using "harvest", instead of kill, for the fence-sitters benefit. However, I don't like being conditioned to (or seeing kids conditioned to) using "sporting arms" because they are in fact weapons (as I define that term), and if their only use is sporting, then we've got no real need or protection for them under the US Constitution. But still, not too big of a deal at that age.

August 23, 2005, 11:15 PM
I'll bet Ted Nugent would make a heck of a Hunter Safety instructor!

Here's how to find out!

Teds Kamp for Kids (

August 23, 2005, 11:42 PM
Well, as far as "weapon" goes, it's right there in my NRA basic pistol safety course lesson plan that I ought not to use the term, on page III-4, underlined, "Do not use the term weapon in this course. Weapon has a negative connotation."

As for "Harvest", well, I think it better captures the whole picture of what goes on in turning your animal into delicious meals. All the magazines like to ignore the whole part where the rest of the day is hard work with hauling and blood and entrails and skinning/plucking, just like if you shot a ripe wheat field and had to drag it home and make it into bread. ;)

August 26, 2005, 05:30 AM
In regards my reluctance to use "harvesting".

I grew up on a farm. When we harvested crops we did not come home empty handed. I've spent whole seasons in the woods hunting without firing a single shot. We did not use the two terms interchangably. Hunting is recreation, harvesting is work.

Aren't you afraid the term harvesting will give non-hunters the false impression that success is guaranteed and animals are defensless easy pickings? In my opinion this could generate more anti-hunters.

As I said, it doesn't bother me what words others choose. i just wanted to explain myself better.

cracked butt
August 26, 2005, 05:52 AM
I have to concur with the instructors who posted on this thread. My dad was a Hunters Education instructor for about 15 years and it was always "firearm" and "harvest."

I took the NRA Riflle Instructors course a few years ago and it was stressed there that the word "weapon" not be used, but use the word "firearm" instead.

In bothe instances, the course being taught or the course to be taught would be for beginners in the firearms field. It makes more sense to give firearms at least a neutral connotation versus a negative connotation by the words used to describe them. PC crap, yes, but the people being taught are not likely to be shooting 3-gun matches or IDPA anytime soon after taking the courses.

August 26, 2005, 08:05 AM
Ryder, helpful clarification. Most of the kids (and adults) in my classes over the years, despite many being from rural areas, were not actively involved in farming, so they wouldn't have that same point of view.

I, too, have had "dry seasons" (when I didn't take game), but it seems to me that that expression is also consistent with an agricultural metaphor. Extended dry seasons can be "bad things" for farmers, as well as hunters.

We spend some time on ecology, including animal birth rates, life expectancies, habitat carrying capacity, deaths from starvation, predation, and hunting ... all of which give the kids an appreciation for the "cycles of life" that are common understanding to farmers. For many in the class, all they've heard before is the "PC crap" they get in "environmental extremist gradeschool curricula." We try to give them a better understanding of the role sportsmen and women play in conservation. With that backdrop, I think the expression "harvest" makes particularly good sense.

But hey! We're talking about introducing a bunch of newbies to the "sport" of hunting. For some rural families, though, hunting is every bit as much work as farming. They depend on the game taken for food. Many of the kids I taught in central NY State were far different from the upscale, computer-savvy firearms enthusiasts found on THR!

August 26, 2005, 08:13 AM
Why can't we just use the terms 'rifle', 'pistol', or 'shotgun'?

PC stuff is stupid. All part of the pussification of America.

August 26, 2005, 08:48 AM
"Semantics", the PC fun game :barf:

Though I well understand the concept of controlling the topic by framing the conversation, which means choosing and controlling the vocabulary carefully, at some point it just gets silly.

I agree that "weapon" has a combat connotation, and one does not do combat with deer and ducks in the normal course of hunting (please, no "bucks gone wild" stories :p ). "Harvest" is clearly a nod to putting a 'kinder, gentler' face on hunting for the citified, but I wonder where these sensitive souls think their steaks and chops come from? I don't think the term "slaughter house" is about to be replaced with "harvest house" any time soon, nor do I think it has caused too many to turn from carnivore to vegitarian. Then again, we "dress" game rather than butcher it, though I couldn't tell the difference the last time I took a deer apart.

Allin all, it's pretty stupid, but I'll concede it may be necessary to protect the sport in this day and age. :banghead: :confused: :rolleyes:

August 26, 2005, 09:06 AM
Ryder, that is one of the best rationales for not using "harvest" that I've heard yet.

I like to use the words "shoot" or "kill" even in mixed company, because I'm a big fan of the truth. But I'm also not against saying something like "it was a successful hunt". "Harvest" just seems disingenuous to me...But that's just me.

August 26, 2005, 10:50 AM
PC semantics. Use it if you like it. "Firearm" seems not overly objectionable to my ears, however, I get tired of the overuse of "harvest."

I am a "weapon" kinda guy, ever since the gentle ministrations of my drill sergeants set me on the path of righteousness. Any firearm and any carrying blade is a weapon to me.

August 26, 2005, 01:43 PM
Ok, I guess I have to pipe up. In NY, these Hunter Education classes are free. You don't pay for the books, the targets, additional handouts or even the privilage to show up. The instructors are volunteers. We do not get paid ANYTHING to teach these classes even though we have to tolerate a great deal.

In order to be certified as a teacher, we are required to use the terminology that the state tells us to, which include the terms "Harvest", "firearm" and "entrails". We have to refrain from calling the anti-hunters and anti-gun people names, regardless of how outraged we feel.

Using the PC terms helps to show the anti-'s that we are not all like the stereotype that hunters have. Sometimes it is difficult to remember to use the terms that the state tells us we have to instead of "killed" and "gutted". Have I used these terms outside of class? Yes, to other hunters who are not offeneded by the imagery that these terms provoke.

I guess my point would be this. It is a privilage to attend these classes in order to get the required license you need to have the privilage to hunt. In my state, you do not pay, so deal. If you are outraged that we use PC terms in the class, don't attend. It's 12 hours and it's free. If you want to hunt legally, it's a small price to pay.

I do not, however, condone instructors that do not even know what model firearm they own or are demonstrating. That's just stupid. If you're going to teach it, know it. If you don't know it, learn it. If you're not going to learn it, go away.

Just my opinions.


PS: You could probably tell by my taglines that I'm not all that PC outside of class.... :D

August 26, 2005, 05:44 PM
I am not totally at odds with use of the term for hunting. Hope I haven't hurt anyone's feelings over this. I do believe harvest is acceptable usage when referring to larger aspects of hunting.

A reporter stating that there were 300,000 participants in this state's annual deer harvest sounds perfectly fine to my ears. A conservation officer looking forward to next years doe harvest? Nothing wrong with that. So there obviously is a place for the term in teaching new hunters about the harvest hunters participate in.

August 26, 2005, 06:26 PM
I have raised and taught my three sons to hunt whitetails, beginning when they were little tykes who got to tag along with me up to the present where they have become my trusted hunting companions. One of the greatest lessons I emphasized to them is the gravity of taking a life. I think the use of the term "harvest" glosses over the reality of what we do as hunters and disrespects the high regard for all living things that we need to possess.

I harvest tomatoes from my garden each year, but I have never "harvested" a deer or an elk. Do cougars "harvest" their meals?

Killing is not an abhorrent practice, it is part of the natural cycle, and when we choose to take our place as hunters in the food chain, it is likely that we will eventually kill. Maybe if we were less concerned about offending the sensitivities of those whose aim is to deprive us of our heritage and more honest with ourselves, the "fence-sitters" would become a bit less squeamish. Maybe a few come to realize and accept that meat is not born on a styrofoam plate with a cellophane wrapping, and that hunting is simply an alternative choice to USDA fare that benefits the health of the herds and those who pursue them.

And as for my children, they do not relish the taking of a life, but they understand the role of the hunter and accept the consequences of their actions. They do not take their responsibilities lightly, and have learned that making a clean and fast kill is the paramount consideration when they must decide whether to drop the hammer.

I'm not so sure that lesson can be understood if one is taught to view his quarry as he would an ear of corn.

August 26, 2005, 07:01 PM
Somehow this quote from Lewis Carroll's "Through the looking glass, and what Alice found there" seems oddly appropriate.

To be sure I was!' Humpty Dumpty said gaily as she turned it round for him. `I thought it looked a little queer. As I was saying, that seems to be done right -- though I haven't time to look it over thoroughly just now -- and that shows that there are three hundred and sixty-four days when you might get un-birthday presents --'

`Certainly,' said Alice.

`And only one for birthday presents, you know. There's glory for you!'

`I don't know what you mean by "glory",' Alice said.

Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. `Of course you don't -- till I tell you. I meant "there's a nice knock-down argument for you!"'

`But "glory" doesn't mean "a nice knock-down argument",' Alice objected.

`When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, `it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less.'

`The question is,' said Alice, `whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

`The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, `which is to be master -- that's all.'

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything;

As a formal journalist and a current video producer of internal corporate propaganda, I select and use words carefully, not just for PC-ness but for precision in meaning and connotation. Words can have great power. Or they can be just babble that sounds good.

August 26, 2005, 08:08 PM
When I was a Law Enforcement Firearms instructor, we used the term weapon a lot. I have been a Hunter safety since 1968, in teaching that course I use the term firearms. And one last thing, I think all States are short qualified Hunter safety Instructors and there appears to be a number on this site that are qualified. That's according to what I read, now my challenge is step forward and volunteer. It can be very rewarding doing this. Remember this in most states they don't receive one thin dime for doing this, in fact it costs me some every class I teach. One more thing before I get off my soap box. The future of hunting and firearm ownership is the youth of this great country, not us. PS a baseball bat can be a weapon.

If you enjoyed reading about "So I go to a Hunter Education course..." here in archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join today for the full version!