Need someone to talk me down, or at least clear up some confusion

[Guest submarines]

This is the stuff that news are made of. You can draw attention to the absurdity of the situation and the slippery slope towards redefining basic safety rules plus one's rights to protect oneself using weapons.

[Wheres Toto]

If this is a officially sanctioned youth organization of any kind, it is against more than one set of international laws/treaties for youth to recieve any kind of weapons training.

 

I'm sorry to say that this is a VERY beig deal.

 

It is a big deal at the level of the United Nations.

 

I believe country can be suspended from membership for nationally sanctioning an organization that appears to provide weapons training to minors.

 

The laws against child soldiers apply to everyone, no matter how senseless they seem in a civilized nation.

 

If you are teaching archery for sportsmanship, a bow and arrow is not a weapon. It's only a weapon if you are providing training for combat. I'm sorry -- I get that it hits us in a blind spot, because child soldiers are such s foreign concept to us, and it's so clearly not what you are doing... But, yeah, that's not an insurance concern. It's a very sensitive issue if international import.

 

If your org wants to be disbanded and suppressed by your gov't they can continue to allow the casual use of the word weapon -- because that's what would "rightly" happen if it was "real" weapons training for minors (child soldiers). I expect they have been warned at that level (but I expect very few people know why it matters).

 

This is what I was thinking - that teaching archery as a sport they may not want it referred to as weapons training....

 

BUT what if you are teaching history?  How do you talk about the historical uses of bow and arrow, guns, cannons, etc. without referring to them as weapons?

[Butter]

If this is a officially sanctioned youth organization of any kind, it is against more than one set of international laws/treaties for youth to recieve any kind of weapons training.

 

 

 

Then why did my 12 year old son go to the National Shooting Complex for a Boy Scout (definitely an officially sanctioned youth organization) campout last weekend where they did skeet shooting, made and shot their own atlatls, shot BB guns, did archery, etc. all while calling all of the things they used "weapons?"  They went through a weapons safety course for the various things they used before they were allowed to use any of them.  It was pretty much basic weapons training for all the boys.  No one had a single issue with the things being called what they were: weapons.

[Heather in Neverland]

I would have to leave the organization on the grounds that they simply annoy me. I might be able to handle it if I were being paid but I refuse to volunteer to be annoyed.

[JFSinIL]

If this is a officially sanctioned youth organization of any kind, it is against more than one set of international laws/treaties for youth to recieve any kind of weapons training.

 

I'm sorry to say that this is a VERY beig deal.

 

It is a big deal at the level of the United Nations.

 

I believe country can be suspended from membership for nationally sanctioning an organization that appears to provide weapons training to minors.

 

The laws against child soldiers apply to everyone, no matter how senseless they seem in a civilized nation.

 

If you are teaching archery for sportsmanship, a bow and arrow is not a weapon. It's only a weapon if you are providing training for combat. I'm sorry -- I get that it hits us in a blind spot, because child soldiers are such s foreign concept to us, and it's so clearly not what you are doing... But, yeah, that's not an insurance concern. It's a very sensitive issue if international import.

 

If your org wants to be disbanded and suppressed by your gov't they can continue to allow the casual use of the word weapon -- because that's what would "rightly" happen if it was "real" weapons training for minors (child soldiers). I expect they have been warned at that level (but I expect very few people know why it matters).

 

Our local martial arts studio (national headquarters for the particular Korean martial art) has weapons training - using that term - as part of the curriculum (bo staff, num chucks, etc.) .  The head of the studio is also a lawyer.  

 

 

[8circles]

Our local martial arts studio (national headquarters for the particular Korean martial art) has weapons training - using that term - as part of the curriculum (bo staff, num chucks, etc.) . The head of the studio is also a lawyer.

 

 

Same here. I certainly understand bolt's point but either it isn't true or the US is breaking lots of Intl laws. The latter seems more likely. My kids have weapons training in TKD and boy scouts also does weapons.

 

I'd love to know what they want you to call it instead. I don't think I could follow that rule and would have to leave.

[Laurie4b]

I agree with seasider that at the least, you need an explanation from this organization as to why they were asking you. Does not calling it a weapon interfere with what you need to teach? Would you be leaving because the organization embarrassed you by calling it to your attention in an obnoxious way?

[Laurie4b]

Bolt, can you post a quote the actual document?

 

If it's the Convention on the Rights of a Child, the US never ratified that.

[bolt.]

I don't quite know how the treaty/laws apply to private clubs or businesses -- and I now remember that the US has a more complex relationship with such treaties, conventions, etc. than Canada. I should have done more research, but I thought the child-soldier context of the word needed to be out there before we all got carried away thinking of it as silly semantics.

 

I think it is the 'rights of s child' document, because the timing of the changes in the Canadian cadet programs is consistant with that treaty.

 

Even with all the complexities, surely you can all see that "provides weapons training to minors" and "does not provide weapons training to minors" is an important thing that an organization might decide as a whole, as a part of its mission, identity and-such? Even if the whole country isn't quite on the same page as the international community?

 

I don't see this as an "instructors choice of vocab should be fine" issue, nor an issue if PC language gone wild.

 

Organizations are not self-identified as to whether they talk about butts or tushies... But weapons training is a big issue.

 

Does the org maybe have other components in other countries that could have influenced this policy?

[ChristineP]

In fencing, your instrument is called a weapon. And I don't know of anyone threatening anyone else with an epee recently.  These people need to chill.

[alef]

I don't quite know how the treaty/laws apply to private clubs or businesses -- and I now remember that the US has a more complex relationship with such treaties, conventions, etc. than Canada. I should have done more research, but I thought the child-soldier context of the word needed to be out there before we all got carried away thinking of it as silly semantics.

 

I think it is the 'rights of s child' document, because the timing of the changes in the Canadian cadet programs is consistant with that treaty.

 

Even with all the complexities, surely you can all see that "provides weapons training to minors" and "does not provide weapons training to minors" is an important thing that an organization might decide as a whole, as a part of its mission, identity and-such? Even if the whole country isn't quite on the same page as the international community?

 

I don't see this as an "instructors choice of vocab should be fine" issue, nor an issue if PC language gone wild.

 

Organizations are not self-identified as to whether they talk about butts or tushies... But weapons training is a big issue.

 

Does the org maybe have other components in other countries that could have influenced this policy?

Training child soldiers is a big issue. Teaching kids to shoot a bow and arrow properly in appropriate circumstances is not a big issue. If international law really is the concern, I would say this is an example of why some people are so vehemently opposed to ratifying international treaties like the rights of the child one. This issue seems pretty minor to me, but I see no good reason to not call a weapon a weapon because someone on the other side of the world is training children for war. There is something to be said for local decisions about what is appropriate and what is not within a community. I can't see how changing the designation of an item used in a youth program in the US is going to help child soldiers. Perhaps they will follow suit and start calling their rifles non-weapons as well?

[Library Momma]

Was this actually the organization's stance or an overzealous administrator?

[regentrude]

I committed the unpardonable sin of referring to a bow and arrow as a weapon. The youngest child involved was 10yo.

 

Huh? Of course these are weapons. People use them to kill things. Mostly animals, but I would absolutely teach a child that they are dealing with a weapon that has the potential to inflict lethal injuries on a fellow human and that they have to treat it as such.

[Bambam]

I'm curious too, whether you are a paid worker or a volunteer. 

Is the youth organization local, state-wide, county-wide, world-wide?  I'm seeing signs of this shift from child to money/numbers in an organization we are involved in as well. I'm wondering if this is becoming more common.

[itsheresomewhere]

If this is the same organization that has green for a color, I got lectured for that too. The reason I was given is that weapons kill. My child is not part of that particular area due to several things but the word weapon was the final straw. That also combined that weapon was in their words a cuss word and I should play them the cuss word fee. A man who was a police officer said it was absurd their rule on the word weapon and pulled his kid also.

[bolt.]

Sometimes the "letter of the law" makes more sense in some contexts than it does in others, but (in my opinion) the willingness of civilized nations to avoid the appearance/terminology of weapons training for youth very much helps child soldiers in other countries.

 

It avoids the sense that conflict-torn nations are being held to a "stricter" standard than (currently) peaceable nations.

 

It eliminates the loophole that a true child-soldier organization could claim "we're only training them with weapons for good youthy reasons, like your Boy Scouts -- Gee, they are actually killing? Well, it's just a coincidence that they were well trained in that role. They are obviously just being violent on their own time. Isolated incidents."

 

It avoids the possibility that any (currently) peaceable nation should/could at any time descend into war: civil or otherwise... And at that point would (largely accidentally) have youth in the population capable of warfare... A resource they might or might not exploit... But most do tend to exploit it eventually.

[8circles]

Sometimes the "letter of the law" makes more sense in some contexts than it does in others, but (in my opinion) the willingness of civilized nations to avoid the appearance/terminology of weapons training for youth very much helps child soldiers in other countries.

 

It avoids the sense that conflict-torn nations are being held to a "stricter" standard than (currently) peaceable nations.

 

It eliminates the loophole that a true child-soldier organization could claim "we're only training them with weapons for good youthy reasons, like your Boy Scouts -- Gee, they are actually killing? Well, it's just a coincidence that they were well trained in that role. They are obviously just being violent on their own time. Isolated incidents."

 

It avoids the possibility that any (currently) peaceable nation should/could at any time descend into war: civil or otherwise... And at that point would (largely accidentally) have youth in the population capable of warfare... A resource they might or might not exploit... But most do tend to exploit it eventually.

I get your point.  child-soldiers are a big problem.  I don't want to contribute to that in any way.

 

But.  My kids are in scouts and will/are learn(ing) to use weapons.  My kids are in TKD and are learning to use weapons.  They aren't child-soldiers in any way, shape, or form.  But they are being instructed in how to use weapons (and in some cases hurt people) and you can't avoid talking about that in order to teach them responsibly.  I'm not really sure how to get around that.

[alef]

If this is the same organization that has green for a color, I got lectured for that too. The reason I was given is that weapons kill. My child is not part of that particular area due to several things but the word weapon was the final straw. That also combined that weapon was in their words a cuss word and I should play them the cuss word fee. A man who was a police officer said it was absurd their rule on the word weapon and pulled his kid also.

 

See, in my mind that fact that a weapon can kill is precisely the reason I would use the term. I would emphasize to kids that a bow and arrow is a dangerous weapon and that all safety rules must be followed with precision. If we downplay the potential risk involved and the need for caution we are doing the kids no favors. I tell kids, for example, that we never, ever point a weapon at another person and they understand because weapons are dangerous things, weapons can kill. If kids are taught to see bows and arrows as fun recreational non-weapons, they may not take the very real risks as seriously.

 

OP, if I were in your situation I would want to find out what exactly is behind the policy and if possible make the argument from a safety standpoint that under-emphasizing the potential lethality of a bow and arrow by refusing to label it as a weapon could backfire in serious ways. I don't think though that I would leave an organization over this issue alone.

[ktgrok]

Sometimes the "letter of the law" makes more sense in some contexts than it does in others, but (in my opinion) the willingness of civilized nations to avoid the appearance/terminology of weapons training for youth very much helps child soldiers in other countries.

 

It avoids the sense that conflict-torn nations are being held to a "stricter" standard than (currently) peaceable nations.

 

It eliminates the loophole that a true child-soldier organization could claim "we're only training them with weapons for good youthy reasons, like your Boy Scouts -- Gee, they are actually killing? Well, it's just a coincidence that they were well trained in that role. They are obviously just being violent on their own time. Isolated incidents."

 

It avoids the possibility that any (currently) peaceable nation should/could at any time descend into war: civil or otherwise... And at that point would (largely accidentally) have youth in the population capable of warfare... A resource they might or might not exploit... But most do tend to exploit it eventually.

 

All of that would be a reason not to train children with weapons. But in this case the kids are still using the weapons, they just want to call them something else. Your arguments don't really address that. 

[Tammyla]

I would want more information or I just might decide to die on this hill.  Hopefully you can let us know how this turns out.

 

If someone was injured by the thing, calling it something other than a weapon feels wrong to me. 

[bolt.]

It's because some "items" are both weapons and something-else... Generally, kids are trained in only the non-weapon uses, which is why it's complicated to address the issue.

 

One of the attempts to address the complexity is to avoid using "weapon" as a category noun, and use just-what-it-is (multi purposes included) as the most accurate word.

 

Which is why it's a real issue, not a case of "PC gone overboard".

[Jean in Newcastle]

It's because some "items" are both weapons and something-else... Generally, kids are trained in only the non-weapon uses, which is why it's complicated to address the issue.

 

One of the attempts to address the complexity is to avoid using "weapon" as a category noun, and use just-what-it-is (multi purposes included) as the most accurate word.

 

Which is why it's a real issue, not a case of "PC gone overboard".

The only difference between using a bow and arrow as a weapon and not, is what you aim it at.  That isn't quite true for a cleaver or a hammer.  There is technique in using those as tools.  You train someone in the kitchen to chop/cut safely to avoid injury but you don't have to train them not to stab someone (at least in any cooking class I've attended).  This isn't true for a bow and arrow - it isn't just a matter of keeping your fingers out of the way of the string and shaft, it's a matter of where you aim it so that you don't hurt someone else with it as a weapon.  So I still vote for PC gone overboard.  

[Guest submarines]

It's because some "items" are both weapons and something-else... Generally, kids are trained in only the non-weapon uses, which is why it's complicated to address the issue.

 

One of the attempts to address the complexity is to avoid using "weapon" as a category noun, and use just-what-it-is (multi purposes included) as the most accurate word.

 

Which is why it's a real issue, not a case of "PC gone overboard".

 

It is absolutely PC gone overboard.

 

[Mimm]

How is it weapons training if you are, say, teaching a history class and talking about a war in which bows and arrows were used as weapons to kill people. At that point, calling it a "hunting tool" or something else other than what it is (a weapon) would be dishonest and confusing.

[SquirrellyMama]

Maybe you could call it "Cupid's implement of looooove".

 

:tongue_smilie:

 

Kelly

[bolt.]

If the items aren't present and they are not being trained to use them as weapons -- nor will be trained to use them as weapons, I think it's fair to be able to subscribe them historically as weapons.

 

But I (myself) would probably err on the side of "unnecessarily controversial words" and just call them "bows and arrows". There is no loss of clarity in the teaching if you just use the actual term instead of a vaguer term.

 

"PC gone wild" is for issues if wording that don't really matter. If there are international treaties on the topic, it obviously matters quite a lot -- to a lot of people. I think it's fine to abide by it in this case.

[Guest submarines]

I'm really curious about a little more context. Was it in the context of learning about archery? Actually learning archery? Learning history? A child bringing "the tool" to the program? Casual discussion?

 

 

 

 

 

[thewaka]

I just skimmed through the UN's Convention on the Rights of the Child until I found the relevant section. If there is another section that applies, I missed it.

 

Article 38

1. States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child.

2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.

3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavour to give priority to those who are oldest.

4. In accordance with their obligations under international humanitarian law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts, States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict.

 

I don't see that this addresses weapon training. However, I think what bolt might be misunderstanding is that groups like Boy/Girl Scouts, NRA groups and the like have no government sanctioning ("officially sanctioned"), they are private groups. The US government does possibly offer weapon training to those under the age of 18 through ROTC (Reserve Officers' Training Corps). I am not familiar with other government avenues to under-18 weapon training.

 

If someone (bolt?) knows of an international treaty/law that directly references weapon training for those under 18, please let me know. I'd be interested to read it. Just skimming the UN treaty was interesting and now I want to read it through several times so that when I get emails talking about it, I will know exactly what it actually says for myself.

[ssavings]

The local police department here has a program that involves some sort of shooting/marksmanship training for students in middle school... 

 

[Kathryn]

I'm sorry, bolt, but I think you're way out in left field on this one. And you still can't point to this supposed international law that you claim prohibits youth being trained to use "weapons." As others have pointed out, words don't make weapons into weapons; they serve the same purposes no matter what you call them. Failing to use accepted terminology to describe items as weapons in an American organization does not in any way protect a child in a developing nation from being recruited to engage in armed conflict.

[ktgrok]

If the items aren't present and they are not being trained to use them as weapons -- nor will be trained to use them as weapons, I think it's fair to be able to subscribe them historically as weapons.

 

But I (myself) would probably err on the side of "unnecessarily controversial words" and just call them "bows and arrows". There is no loss of clarity in the teaching if you just use the actual term instead of a vaguer term.

 

"PC gone wild" is for issues if wording that don't really matter. If there are international treaties on the topic, it obviously matters quite a lot -- to a lot of people. I think it's fine to abide by it in this case.

 

But the treaty would be about the training, the actual THING happening, not the terms USED for the thing. So changing what you call it doesn't make it any more or less in accordance with any treaty. If they are, in fact, giving them training in a weapon (gun, bow and arrow, etc) it doesn't all of a sudden become compliant with said treaty if you call it "equipment" rather than a weapon. 

[regentrude]

It's because some "items" are both weapons and something-else... Generally, kids are trained in only the non-weapon uses, which is why it's complicated to address the issue.

 

Now I am thoroughly confused. There is only one use for bow and arrow: to shoot the arrow and hit your intended target, and that's what kids are trained to. The action they are trained to perform is exactly the same, whether the target is paper, an animal, or a person.

[regentrude]

If this is a officially sanctioned youth organization of any kind, it is against more than one set of international laws/treaties for youth to recieve any kind of weapons training.

 

I believe country can be suspended from membership for nationally sanctioning an organization that appears to provide weapons training to minors.

 

The laws against child soldiers apply to everyone, no matter how senseless they seem in a civilized nation.

 

So how does Junior ROTC and rifle marksmanship training fit in here???

[redsquirrel]

Did you ask why it needed to change? Even saying something like "I'm confused why I can't call a bow and arrow a weapon when it is a weapon. Can you explain it to me, please?"

That might give you some insight into their process.

 

Even if they did explain, it sounds like you are still unclear, because you say you think it it is due to their change in focus, but you don't know. So telling them you are confused will make them want to expand a bit.

[justasque]

Some public schools have a zero-tolerance policy for weapons.  Perhaps the OP's activity organization is trying to protect their ability to use space in schools that have such policies, so they are trying to be "under the radar" to avoid anyone seeing a problem with it?

I am familiar with an *amazing* unit studies-type public school gifted pull-out program, which took kids who were studying the Middle Ages on a field trip to an archery range each year.  A few years back the administration powers-that-be kind of had a "Hey, wait a minute... You're doing WHAT?  Bows and arrows are WEAPONS!" moment, and put the kabosh on the trips (which had been wildly popular with both students and parents, and without incident for *years*).  

Which is why I have, in the past, referred to razor blades as "balsa cutters" when building model airplanes with third graders.  I would much rather the kids get the chance to do real work, with real tools (and very serious safety rules), even if it means I need to be careful with my words.

 

 OP, before leaving your position, please consider that sometimes it's necessary to fly under the radar, even if it's silly, for the sake of the kids.

ETA:  If this is the scenario, it's unlikely you'll be able to get someone to spell it out for you.  You'll have to read between the lines.

[My3girls]

Wow! I'd much rather it be called a weapon so that it gets the respect it deserves. My daughter is learning archery and riflery with the Girl Scouts. I would think that's weapon training. If this is not a paid job, I would probably leave.

[hillfarm]

I will be going to a meeting tomorrow to find out what words I can use. I am a volunteer. We are teaching actual use of the "equipment"  and bows and arrows are present,however, we are using paper and foam targets with concentric circles on them. We are not teaching military tactics nor are we creating child soldiers.

 

I am being intentionally vague because I do like this organization. We have had many happy years with it. But this latest pronouncement has really given me pause and I am trying to decide whether I am overreacting, underreacting, or doing the right thing.

[justasque]

I will be going to a meeting tomorrow to find out what words I can use. I am a volunteer. We are teaching actual use of the "equipment"  and bows and arrows are present,however, we are using paper and foam targets with concentric circles on them. We are not teaching military tactics nor are we creating child soldiers.

 

I am being intentionally vague because I do like this organization. We have had many happy years with it. But this latest pronouncement has really given me pause and I am trying to decide whether I am overreacting, underreacting, or doing the right thing.

 

 

As you think it through, consider whether you are there for the organization, or for the kids.  If you can put up with whatever hoops the organization is finding necessary for whatever reason (insurance, use of facilities, fundraising, not rocking the boat in a no-tolerance-for-weapons setting), the kids will clearly benefit from your participation.  Sometimes, it's worth playing the game, even when the game makes no sense.  :-)

[bolt.]

I think I overstated things in terms of "multiple treaties" and what things are actually "forbidden" -- I should have fact-checked instead of going off the cuff from my vague memories.

 

The main thrust of what I am trying to say is that (given the international complexities) one of the ways that organizations might choose to "affirm" that they are "only" teaching non-combat uses of "weapons-that-are-also-used-for-hunting-and-sporting-purposes" would be to intentionally use non-weapon terminology around those topics.

 

Not that they "must" avoid it by law -- although I think I probably did say that...

 

More just that it is a "real issue" that organizations are justifiably interested in. Unlike some of the issues of PC semantics that run around quite unreasonably. I don't think this one is unreasonable.

 

Just for info on how I made the mistake:

 

My context of learning about how child-soldier laws affect civilized nations was (a) Canadian -- where we have ratified the treaty, and ( b ) As a Cadet officer, which is much nearer to the grey area around child-soldiers. The result in *that* context was the complete cessation of all training with real weapons, and a strong caution that air-rifles must never be called "weapons" -- lest we also loose our freedom to train with those.

 

Based on that experience I made assumptions and extrapolated the "level of forbiddenness" inaccurately into other situations.

 

I think my main thought stands: "weapons" language is an actual issue for organizations. It goes beyond being a namby-pamby PC over-reaction at a local level.

[Word Nerd]

I agree that it's stupid to prohibit the word "weapon," but again, how is calling a thing by its actual name "PC gone overboard"?

[Jean in Newcastle]

I agree that it's stupid to prohibit the word "weapon," but again, how is calling a thing by its actual name "PC gone overboard"?

No one is saying that she can't call it a bow and arrow.  We're just saying that she can also call it a weapon - because. . . it is.   I could see this esp. important in the context of a safety talk where I actually think it is important for kids to realize that it is a weapon as well as sporting equipment and needs the respect and care that such equipment deserves.  If it is the context of a random comment like "Put down your weapons now" then I agree that a bit of extra care to say "Put down your bows and arrows" would be more accurate and worth the couple of extra words.  (I would still reserve the right for an internal eye roll though at anyone protesting such a small detail.)  

[Kevin'sMom]

I think that anyone age 10 or older has played enough video/computer games and watched enough TV to be able to handle such a reference without being traumatized. This reminds me of the kindergartener suspended for bringing a spork to school. It is pretending to protect from something while ignoring the real threats.

 

If bows and arrows don't come up too often, I would hang in there, maybe, but it sounds pretty irritating to me.

[Cammie]

I really think, the more I think about it, that this is a liability issue.  Has that been addressed by the op yet?  I haven't seen it if so.

 

If it is a liability issue than all this other discussion about pc/non pc, whether it is a "weapon" or not is really moot.

 

It is just about whether or not they are able to do "weapons" training in that space or under their insurance policy.  If they are not, then tip-toeing around the word "weapon" would be advised even though, as everyone has acknowledged, it is in fact a weapon.  This is part of the reality of our litigious culture (and I don't say it as if it was a bad thing.)  Believe me, after living in a country where the judicial system is completely broken, where no one sues and everyone avoids the courts...the American way is better!

[Butter]

I think my main thought stands: "weapons" language is an actual issue for organizations. It goes beyond being a namby-pamby PC over-reaction at a local level.

 

But it kinda is exactly that: a namby-pamby PC over-reaction at a local level in the US.  We didn't ratify the treaty.  And the equipment is still weapons.  Truly, the weapon (mostly gun) culture in the US is quite different from Canada.  After Sandy Hook a Canadian friend of mine posted on Facebook "It's like people in the US think they have the right to use guns!"  I responded "Well, that's because we do..."  It never occurred to her, as a Canadian, that many people in the US view guns (and other weapons) completely and totally differently.

 

(And I must say, I really enjoy my weapons training in taekwondo... I have a little trouble with the board breaks and look like a fool doing the forms, but I excel at weapons.  Even though we call them weapons and that it is weapons training, it is always clear that unless absolutely necessary, you NEVER use them on another person, just like you never use your hands and feet unless necessary.  I'd bet as a 4th degree black belt my instructor probably has some pretty lethal hands and feet.)

[hillfarm]

Okay, back from the meeting.

 

I am not allowed to use the words "weapon" or "fighting", so I may not say things like, "Please always keep your weapons pointed down range.", or "Tribes were fighting with bows and arrows during this time period."

 

I am expected to substitute the words "equipment", "skills", or "techniques", or name the specific items, such as "compound bow", "recurve bow", etc.

 

The only reason I was given for the ban was concern about possible negative public opinion. They had no idea about any UN treaties and I didn't educate them.

 

Thanks, everyone, for the input. I knew I could go to one of my favorite sites and get 100% support for one extreme and go to another and get nearly 100% support for the other. I wanted to bring this here for a more balanced view. Again, sorry to be so vague, but I didn't want to stir up trouble with or for the group unless I had no other choices. Thanks again.

[Jean in Newcastle]

Are you going to tell us if you're going to stay or go?   :bigear:

[hillfarm]

I am planning to stay, because the whole reason I am bothering to do this is for the kids. It is totally voluntary on their part and if they didn't want to do it, I wouldn't bother trying to convince them. While I don't like the ban, I think I can still teach in an honest manner.

 

I made it extremely clear that I think this is a very bad policy. So it is possible that if they could find a replacement for me in the future, they will. And if that is the case, then so be it.