Could someone explain why so many of those who advocate mandatory training for gun owners . . .

[guntard]

. . . seem so dead-set against firearms training in high school?

[derby378]

1. Hey, I'd support it

High school isn't such a bad time to introduce teens to long guns if they've never handled them before, because as long as the instructors do their jobs, you can isolate kids who have too much swagger or bravado, kids who have problems with attention to detail, and kids who are just plain reckless. This way, instructors could intervene to negate behavioral problems so that even if these kids don't take up arms later on in life, maybe they'll use a little more forethought and care when making decisions in life.

[tburnsten]

28. And knowing enough basics to be able to safely unload common firearms

Could have some nice safety dividends for the students in the future.

[bowens43]

2. because it's a damn stupid idea. nt

[ProgressiveProfessor]

5. Why, if its voluntary after school kind of thing?

Remember that Obama's high school had a rifle team...

[guntard]

12. Surely it would save lives

Isn't that what this is all about? Saving lives?

[tburnsten]

32. That's a damn stupid thing to say

[SteveM]

71. Why is it a stupid idea?...

Nearly 50 years ago I took my Remington shotgun to homeroom and showed how the firearm worked, how to take it down, the safe manner in which to handle it. The school officials trusted us 14-year-olds, the teachers trusted us, we trusted each other.

Do you not trust 14-year-olds to seriously approach the topic of firearms? Why?

[derby378]

3. self-delete

[Donnachaidh]

4. you mean this kind of training?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mhIJOVD8hwY

[spin]

30. You have to admit that the kids learned how dangerous guns are. (n/t)

[Hangingon]

6. I think it is agood idea.

[MineralMan]

7. I think firearms education is a great idea for HS students.

P.E. class would be the ideal setting for this, IMO. A one-week segment on firearms safety would be a good thing, with classroom training done on campus and live fire at a local range. At the range, firearms pros would be in charge, for safety's sake. Plenty of adult supervision, too...like one adult per firing station. I would restrict this to long arms, but include sidearms in the classroom training segment. I'd repeat the course for all four years of high school.

I'd make this mandatory for both male and female students.

I don't understand the objections.

[RaleighNCDUer]

10. Mandatory firearms training in HS?

Are you fucking insane?

1) Many, many, many people have religious objections to firearms. You going to introduce yet another church/state argument into schools?

2) Many, many, many people want nothing to do with firearms. They are just tools. Do we make shop class mandatory, with compulsory training in Skil saws?

3) What's the point? Will training EVER prevent a school shooting?

I could go on...

There may be valid arguments for having shooting clubs, and supervised firearms training in HS, but MANDATORY? That's just nuts.

[slackmaster]

13. The point would be to reduce accidents that happen when people encounter unsecured weapons

If a kid knows how to unload a weapon that was not properly stored, it's less likely that he or she is going to do what untrained people (particularly young ones) usually do - Point it at something and pull the trigger.

Another benefit would be the ability to recognize and avoid situations in which people are handling firearms irresponsibly.

Of course there would be an option to decline the training.

[iverglas]

41. it's for the children!!11!!1!1!!

Aren't accidental child shooting deaths about as rare as, oh, rifle homicides?

[MineralMan]

14. No, I'm not "fucking insane."

But, hey, thanks for asking...

[tburnsten]

34. What people have "religious" objections to firearms?

What do you mean? Objections to their use, objections to their existence, what?


And who the hell said anything about school shootings? a class on gun safety couldn't possibly prevent school shootings, but what kind of person would expect it to? That isn't the goal, why would you use that as a reason why it is bad?

[SteveM]

72. Geez, I should have raised a religious objection to compulsory math (nt)

[tburnsten]

75. Tried it. Almost flew.

[aikoaiko]

63. Out of curiosity, which religions prohibit use of firearms?

I had never heard of a religious sanction against them.

[AtheistCrusader]

83. Well, they made home ec mandatory in mine.

Buuut I agree, probably not a great idea here. My high school used to have a rifle team, not ROTC, about 30 years ago. They never had a single accident. It was a good thing to have around, and it was totally elective. Too bad it wasn't an option when I went through the system.

[jeepnstein]

8. I'm firmly opposed to it.

Not everyone in a High School comes from a background that has exposure to firearms. Some of those kids will go their entire lives and never see a real one unless it's strapped to a police officer.

It's up to gun owners and parents to seek out and provide relevant safety training. I'm a firm believer in the "Don't touch it, call for someone who knows what the heck they're doing." school of thought for most folks.

I have no problem with mandatory training for anyone obtaining a concealed carry permit. That training should be carried out in an appropriate facility and not a public school.

[MineralMan]

9. Hmm...why, exactly?

When I enlisted in the USAF back in 1965, we had firearms training, of course. My previous training in using firearms (firearms classes at high school, plus training by my father) enabled me to score at Expert Marksman level, while many around me took several tries just to qualify.

[jeepnstein]

23. I'm opposed to compulsory training.

A lot of the JROTC programs I remember from back in the day included a firearms component, nothing wrong with that at all. I just can't see it being taught to every kid in the school. Mostly because it would get dumbed down to the point where it would be pretty meaningless. I have no idea how you'd arrange live fire time at the range for most high schools or who would foot the bill.

If a kid shows an interest there are appropriate ways to safely teach them about firearms. I just don't see it as a useful function of the public schools.

We used to take our shotguns to school with us in the morning, check them into the principal's office, and then retrieve them at the end of the day for squirrel hunting before going home. Those days are long gone and never coming back.

[slackmaster]

25. I think you have made a bad assumption here

That the training would involve actually firing weapons.

My stepfather made me learn the safety rules so that I could recite them without hesitation, long before he allowed me to handle a weapon.

Perhaps the OP can clarify what he meant.

[slackmaster]

11. There could be an opt-out provision as there is with sex education, etc.

Having schools provide it would ensure some kind of quality control and accountability. Out in the non-regulated world, any hack could claim to be a firearms safety instructor and do a bad job of it.

[yodoobo]

15. Training in High Schools would put more guns on the street

... in the long run

As it would introduce innocent kids to guns that would not otherwise be exposed to them. Without a doubt some kids would embrace the gun culture as a result.

Mandatory training for gun owners, only affects those that have already made the decision to pursue gun ownership. Plus it serves two positive purposes 1) Provides an important educational component, 2) Serves as a deterrent to gun ownership.

Perhaps I should ask:

Could someone explain why so many who advocate firearms training in high school, are dead set against mandatory training for gun owners.

[MineralMan]

18. Exposed to guns?

Have you not watched television? I cannot imagine a kid who has not been exposed to firearms.

[yodoobo]

19. look, I'm not naive. I do own a television.

Of course they are exposed in the media and in video games. Constantly.

But there is a real tangible difference between playing Doom, and handling and shooting a live weapon.

In fact, I constantly see pro-gun people telling anti-gun people "Just go to the range and see whats its like", with the implication being that if they just go and do some shooting, they'll change their mind about gun ownership.

[MineralMan]

20. See, the thing is that watching the casual use of

firearms on television really, really sends the wrong message.

Learning firearm operation and safety in real life, with real firearms actually teaches something. For one thing, it teaches you not to be phobic about firearms. Next, it teaches you just how destructive firearms can be. Then, it teaches you how to safely handle firearms.

It's sorta like teaching sex education, you know. You don't have to use firearms, or your genitals, but it's good to understand how both work.

I also gave the example of enlisting in the military, as I did, with knowledge of firearms before you join. It gives you a leg up, and that's the truth.

[slackmaster]

22. Training does not have to involve handling or shooting live weapons

The most basic firearms training, as practiced in the US military and by professional istructors everywhere, is safe handling, i.e. avoiding accidents.

I am not sure what the OP had in mind, but whenever I have written about firearms training in public schools it's always been with the assumption that no live weapons would be involved.

Shooting live weapons would have to be an extracurricular activity, at the expense of the students who participate.

[RaleighNCDUer]

27. Now that makes sense.

Others, however, see it differently (ref. post #7 above). I guess that is what separates the gun enthusiasts from the gun nuts.

[MineralMan]

42. Interesting that you see me as a

I'm nothing of the sort. I do own a couple of firearms, but that's about it.

I am in favor of firearms training at the high school level, in order to familiarize teenagers with firearms, so they know what they are, what they can do, and how to handle them safely.

Yes, I'm in favor of including live fire in that training. Why? Because it's a very good way to learn exactly what a firearm can do. I'm fond of the exercize of shooting a water-filled plastic milk bottle or, in the case of using a .22 caliber rifle, a smallish water bottle full and capped.

Do you know what happens in that situation? If not, then that's why I like the example. It's dramatic.

Nobody's harmed in any way by firearms training. Many are helped. It's a win-win situation.

Firearms are a fact of life. They exist, and most people have some contact with them in their lives at some point or another. We teach kids to swim. We teach kids to drive. We teach them pedestrian safety. We teach them drug safety. We teach them prevention from STDs. There's no difference, frankly. It's a safety issue.

It's fine with me if you want to opt your kid out of the training.

[tburnsten]

36. Because most of the time people who shoot for the first time DO change their prior opinions.

[slackmaster]

44. That's for sure

I have yet to see someone walk away from a first shooting experience with a less favorable attitude toward firearms.

The Dirty Little Secret(TM) is that shooting is fun.

[iverglas]

43. heh, good one

In fact, I constantly see pro-gun people telling anti-gun people "Just go to the range and see whats its like", with the implication being that if they just go and do some shooting, they'll change their mind about gun ownership.

Hidden agenda, do you suppose? ;)

[guntard]

24. Sex ed in High Schools would mean more teens would have sex!

Where have I heard that before?

Am I on the right website? Is this really Democratic Underground?

[yodoobo]

26. ahem. you wrote that

If it doesn't belong on DU, I kindly suggest that you not write it here.

Besides, I thought you fellas took offense when people equated guns with sex.

[tburnsten]

35. Could you please explain how you came to that conclusion?

Doesn't make sense to me at all. Not even a tiny bit.

[yodoobo]

50. I thought I explained it in the post

At least enough for a conversation started.

If none of that makes any sense whatsoever to you, that's fine.

I don't expect everyone to agree.

[tburnsten]

76. It just didn't make much sense to me

I was hoping you could explain how you came to that conclusion.

[jmg257]

54. Nothing wrong with the gun-culture (or gun ownership). It is a violent culture we need to avoid.

And the one doesn't necessarily lead to the other, quite often it doesn't.

[Statistical]

56. Good thing we have no sex ed in school.... could expose kids to sex.

I am opposed to any time of mandatory program though. A voluntary program for safety does make sense though.

[gorfle]

64. On mandatory training.

I do not advocate mandatory training. I do think training programs, such as the NRA's Eddie Eagle program, which espouses "Don't touch, go tell an adult" when a child finds a firearm, are a good idea. I remember when I was a kid they sent dental hygienists, policeman, fireman, and electrical line technicians in from time to time to give safety demonstrations. I would favor something like that that did nothing to train in actual firearm use but rather encouraged kids who encounter a firearm to not touch, leave the area, and tell an adult.

That said, I will address some of the things you said:

Without a doubt some kids would embrace the gun culture as a result.

To me, the "gun culture" is about solemn responsibility, safety, family tradition, and Constitutional awareness. In my opinion, we would be better off if more kids embraced this kind of culture.

Mandatory training for gun owners, only affects those that have already made the decision to pursue gun ownership. Plus it serves two positive purposes 1) Provides an important educational component, 2) Serves as a deterrent to gun ownership

Deterring interest and participation in a Constitutionally enumerated right does not seem to me to be a positive.

Could someone explain why so many who advocate firearms training in high school, are dead set against mandatory training for gun owners.

My problem with mandatory training only for gun owners is that there is no way to accomplish it without knowing who the gun owners are, which means mandatory registration. I believe anonymous firearm ownership is essential to upholding the Constitutional intent to keeping and bearing arms and thus I oppose any attempt to register firearms and/or firearm owners.

That said, as I recall Georgia required passing a hunter safety course before you could get a hunting license. I got a 100% on the test. It was all common sense information my father had taught me since I was at most 9 years old. Of course, there are far more firearm owners than hunters.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

69. Same as the arguments against sex ed.

[SteveM]

73. Do you have any evidence to support this?...

In the long run or otherwise? "Innocent kids" exposed to guns doesn't equal the loss of innocence (which by any stretch of the imagination will happen to kids regardless). "Gun culture"? What do you mean by this? Please list in detail what your notion of a "gun culture" is.

"Mandatory training for gun owners": This is appropriate for concealed weapons permits as a person who is packing will be in surroundings other than his/her home, and may encounter situations which won't be found in the home. But for home protection, it is not always a good idea. True, training is important; but you have placed the devil directly into the details when you say such training "serves as a deterrent to gun ownership." That is NOT what the training is about, and to use training as a deterrent is subterfuge, much like the "literacy tests" used by Southern governments to "deter" voting by blacks (prior to 1965). Both are/would be unconstitutional.

You have some reasons not to have mandatory training for in-home firearm owners. I don't support mandatory training in firearms usage in school, but such training has some possible good outcomes, even for those who would never own or use a gun:
(1) safe gun-handling, esp. with regards pointing the weapon;
(2) safe gun-handling, esp. with regards finding a gun;
(3) identifying the differences between guns; i.e., bolt-action, single-shot, double-barrel, semi-auto, revolver. If these differences were widely-known, then when some psychopath starts shooting folks in a mall with a pump action shotgun, then would-be victims would know that within 3-5 shots, the crim would have to re-load -- time enough to perhaps overpower the shooter.

[HarveyBrooks]

16. High school?

Hell, why not start with grade school? In fact, how about Pre-school? The younger that kids are taught that guns are just a wonderful, normal thing the better, right? Just think of how many school shootings could be avoided if all the students were required to bring a gun to class!

[slackmaster]

17. You're unclear on the concept

What are you thinking, that people are better off being ignorant and untrained?

[MineralMan]

21. Let's not teach high-schoolers about sex and reproduction, either.

How does that sound to you? Information is good. Teaching firearms safety, including firing a live firearm doesn't mean that the students must own one or use one. Teaching kids about sex and reproduction doesn't mean they have to boink each other, either.

Information is good.

[HarveyBrooks]

31. Teaching sex-ed is fine...

Bringing hookers to school and having the students take turns and instructing them on their technique? Not so much.

[MineralMan]

38. No need for that...

The kids can work it out for themselves, I'd think...

[HarveyBrooks]

45. But...

they can't figure out how to pull a trigger by themselves?

Somehow I don't think teaching how to shoot guns in school has nearly as much to do with safety as it does with indoctrinating kids into your gun culture.

[tburnsten]

46. I don't think you understand what entry-level gun safety classes entail

It isn't just teaching people to shoot, and actually usually has nothing to do with shooting at all. It's just a class on safe handling procedures, which will benefit everyone who will ever wind up with a gun in their hands or near them, whether they expect to be in that situation or not, and will not negatively affect anyone.

[MineralMan]

48. I believe that poster is talking about my suggestion

that live fire training also be included. I'm in favor of that so that the teens who get it actually understand the powerful and destructive nature of firearms. Right now, a lot of teens see firearms as the cool stuff they see in video games and movies. It's hard to maintain that casual attitude once you've seen a gallon milk bottle full of water explode when hit.

I think that firearms safety training should be a minimum. I'd add live fire training.

[HarveyBrooks]

55. Yea

...live fire training also be included. I'm in favor of that so that the teens who get it actually understand the powerful and destructive nature of firearms.

Or they could just watch the 6:00 news.

Right now, a lot of teens see firearms as the cool stuff they see in video games and movies. It's hard to maintain that casual attitude once you've seen a gallon milk bottle full of water explode when hit.

Yea - exploding milk bottles aint cool at all!

[tburnsten]

77. I wouldn't, for expense and time reasons mostly

schools already have enough extraneous material to teach.

[jeepnstein]

79. Entry level?

Just teach them not to touch it and call for someone who knows what they're doing. That's not even a guarantee. Experts shoot themselves all the time much to their embarrassment.

I nearly shot myself with a HK P7 the other day fumbling around trying to get the magazine out. The owner of the pistol was greatly amused by my hard-headed refusal to admit I didn't know what the heck I was doing with it. I guess there's a lesson in there somewhere...

Training needs to be firearm-specific. I'd be all in favor of teaching the use and care of an AR15. It could be a phys-ed class, or health, or government.

Personally, I'd rather spend the time teaching them about the Bill of Rights.

J.

[tburnsten]

85. PSP or P7M8?

Or do you know a lucky devil with a P7M13?


There are only a couple of places to put the magazine release on an auto, and about the same number of places to put a cylinder relase latch on a revolver. All they need to learn is to remove the magazine or open the cylinder, rack the slide if an auto is found, and then put it down and get assistance.

More Bill of Rights focus in schools would be fantastic.

[jeepnstein]

86. P7 M8.

It's nice but I find the controls more cumbersome than I really care to learn. The magazine doesn't drop freely and that's a major fail in my world. He's kind of sniffing around about my S&W 940 but no deal.

His working pistol is a gorgeous custom 1911 that made the cover of some gun magazine a few years back. It's a work of the gunsmith's art. The bright chrome finish is too flashy for my taste but it suits him well.

I've known quite a few "experienced" police officers who have accidentally fired an unfamiliar weapon while "making it safe". There's no way I'd start teaching every kid in High School to try it. "Leave it alone and make it the Police's problem", is a more workable plan. Criminals tend to used jacked-up pieces of junk that don't necessarily work the way John Moses Browning intended. With few exceptions I would probably make the call if I were to happen on a discarded gun since it's location and condition as found may be very important. If you've ever inadvertently destroyed evidence you'd know what I mean.

[tburnsten]

87. You've got a 940?

Well if you ever do decide you don't want it anymore and there aren't any more personal friends who want it, I'm game. thought it might have been a PSP with a heel release. That would throw me off at first as well.

And I think I am coming around to your position on clearing. It does make the most sense to just let a policeman deal with it.

[jeepnstein]

88. Yes

I've had a 940 as my backup/off-duty weapon since the late eighties. It's a great little revolver. They were quite popular locally when I bought mine. Happiness is never messing with a speed loader again.

I'm quite serious about teaching everyone about handling an AR15. It's the modern day musket, if you know what I mean. I see no reason why it shouldn't be something that every citizen know at least a little bit about.

[tburnsten]

89. And the AR is the definition of the modern rifle

Everything about it is to some extent being adapted by new rifles, especially the safety lever and the magazine release. Highly ergonomic.

Charter is coming out with a set of revolvers in 9mm, .40, and .45 on their Bulldog frame, apparently they have a new extractor to allow the rimless cartridges to work without additional equipment. Hopefully it can still take moon clips though. I am really interested in them, especially the 9/40 versions.

[jeepnstein]

90. I traded a Charter...

for part of the price of the 940. It was a good gun.

The whole attraction of using the 9mm in the J frame was allowing the use of moon clips. Reloads are fast and effortless. I can shoot our qualifying course in ridiculously fast times with a few moon clips. I'm a big fan of the 9mm even though it's not the flavor of the day with the gun magazines.

If it's on a Bulldog frame just get it in .45 and never look back. A five-shot .45 snub would be very handy. Their .44 special is also interesting even though Son of Sam gave it a bad name.

[MineralMan]

47. "your gun culture?" What are you talking about?

I have no gun culture. I own one shotgun and one hunting rifle. I no longer hunt, so the rifle is superfluous. The shotgun is purely for defending my home.

You've mistaken me for someone else, apparently.

I do support firearms training, and I've explained the reasons I support it. You disagree. There it is.

[HarveyBrooks]

57. "your gun culture"

You seem to believe that guns should be presented to children as a normal, ordinary everyday thing that most people own.

Teach your kids whatever you want - I just dont think thats an attitude that the government should be promoting in our public schools.

[jeepnstein]

59. They are "ordinary everyday things"

I consider my guns themselves no more important than any of my other tools. My Constitutional Right to own those particular tools is not up for discussion, however. I'd be willing to settle for teaching what our Rights are to High School students. Many of them have no clue what it means to be a citizen or how THEIR government works.

The schools have their work cut out for them without teaching gun safety.

[jmg257]

91. It would definitely conflict with their gun-free school zone policy! With

around 1/3 of the households in the US having almost 300 million guns, use by the military, the police, the popularity of guns in entertainment, etc., their prominence in the constitution and in history, they are pretty ordinary, and certainly should be considered normal to own.

[MineralMan]

49. One final note:

If you check, you'll see that I have not posted in the gun forum except for this thread.

[Raskolnik]

33. I don't think mandatory firearms instruction for students is wise or possible, but

you clearly don't know what most firearms training for children consists of.

Most firearms instruction teaches kids how to be safe around guns, what not to do, and tries to impart a respect for how powerful guns are. Those aren't bad things.

[rrneck]

29. There is a difference between

theory and practice. The logistics and associated costs of providing even non functioning firearms to high school students and the training them in their use is well beyond the means of almost every school system in the country, with the possible exception of Beverly Hills 90210.

But firearms theory, now you're onto something. Add an understanding of the uses and dangers to that type of technology to an understanding of living in an industrialized society and how we as a people deal with it and you would have - civics class. Something that has been lacking in school curricula for a long time. Schools wouldn't have to tool up much for it by way of the addition of equipment or personnel, they'd be doing what schools do best. And that training could be applied to a much broader spectrum of kids and the experiences and responsibilities they will face as adults.

But using public schools to train kids in the use of a single type of technology? Nah, schools have bigger fish to fry.

[valhalla]

37. This used to be the norm.

Before the gun-phobic took over the education system, most high schools had firearms courses, and even competitive shooting teams. I do not think the rise in violent crime that followed the elimination of these programs was a total coincidence.

[spin]

39. I remember talking to a high school girl...

who was describing how she and a bunch of her male friends were just hanging around. The guys were busy playing with a semi-auto handgun they had acquired somewhere. She just sat there and watched and from her description, she sounded like she felt their actions was cool.

I attempted to give her a short lesson in safe firearm handling. I also advised her that when she found herself in a room with a bunch of untrained idiots and a firearm, to find an excuse to leave the house ASAP. Of course she was a teenager, so she probably considered her gang friends much smarter than some old fart who had been handling firearms for 40 years.

A high school class on firearms would be a good idea. True, it might interest a few in firearms. But many people develop an interest in firearms without ever being exposed to them. Safe firearm handling is not overly complected and has simple rules like:

1. ALWAYS keep the gun pointed in a safe direction.

2. ALWAYS keep your finger off the trigger until ready to shoot.

3. ALWAYS keep the gun unloaded until ready to use.
http://www.floridadefenseacademy.com/nra-rules-for-safe-gun-handling.html

I know our high schools have a difficult time teaching anything, but firearm safety is so simple that the average phys ed teacher should be able to handle it. Just to be on the safe side, I would not recommend any real firearms be used in the process.

[iverglas]

40. I can think of two reasons

1. Why should the public pay for something that is of interest to only a minority of individuals?

I gather that schools in the US provide some sort of driver education. It can be argued that an overwhelming majority of individuals will drive at some point, many as soon as they are legally able to do so. This is a distinction.

The possession and use of firearms is a personal choice that serves no public interest. Arguably, it is in the public interest, as things now stand, that individuals be able to drive; otherwise, many businesses would fail for lack of access to workers, just fr instance. There is no public interest whatsoever in individuals possessing and using firearms.


2. Why should the schools be involved in training in an activity that many members of the public reject?

I gather that an analogy to sex education is being advanced. Once again, the overwhelming majority of individuals will engage in sexual activity, many while they are still minors / schoolchildren. This is a need that they have at the time the information is dispensed, particularly since sex education is not actually a how-to course.

Hmm. Maybe training in how to avoid peer pressure to use guns would help. How to avoid death if you play with guns? Look how sex and guns just aren't quite the same. Unless one does believe that there is an innate, species-wide drive to play with guns ...

[SteveM]

74. Advanced calculus "is of interest to only a minority of individuals." (nt)

[iverglas]

81. and if you can't see the difference

between "advanced calculus" and "how to shoot a gun", well, it would explain much.

I believe advanced calculus is generally optional in any event. It was when I was in school. I missed out on the advanced maths because I dropped out of high school to go to university ... one of my regrets, that I didn't get those maths ...

[Taitertots]

51. Devil in details

My proposal:
Every semester for one week from first to graduation. No firearms in class, only simulated(plastic) arms. The students are graded on how well they exercise firearms safety protocol. Violations of safe action protocol resulting in detention. After middle school they have to watch a video similar to the ones filled will crash victims for drivers safety. The basics of firearms safety and operation would be covered. Students who excel being offered range time.

We need to get rid of the retardation perpetuated through the media about firearms. Watch any movie and see if they don't violate every safety rule. They muzzle sweep each other with fingers on the trigger. They never check to see if a gun is loaded when the pick it up. If we don't teach the next generation about firearms safety this is all they learn. When people know and follow the safety rules no one gets hurt.

"Indoctrinate them into gun culture"
It has more to do with once people stop having irrational fear of guns and see they are fun to use, they start to support gun rights.

[Wickerman]

52. Why not, DARE has worked oh so well n/t

[benEzra]

61. D.A.R.E. is the opposite approach...

e.g., scaremongering. "Pot is deadly poison" and such transparent baloney.

A D.A.R.E.-like approach would be like the schools teaching "guns are 100% bad, a gun in the home will probably kill you, no one should ever own or use a gun", rather than safety training.

[jmg257]

53. I think i would have to be an "all or none" approach...and not mandatory.

I would worry that a "little bit" of training would be worse then none - it could teach kids just enough to make them really dangerous. Without extensive hands-on experience in handling (wouldn't even have to include shooting) numerous types and models, the kids are likely to think they know more then they do - making them less safe. Like anything else alot of practice is necessary, and a short discussion of general common sense safety would be better then some 1/2-hearted attempt at more serious "training".

[Taitertots]

58. Anything is better

than the awful portrayal of firearms safety in media. We can't expect to hide it from them and only show them the worst safety protocol. All those children are going to be adults, and access to firearms is going to be almost unobstructed. One week a year with accurate plastic representations is only going to make everyone safer. Fear and ignorance can't make anyone safer.

[jody]

60. Why? Answer: ignorance and/or stupidity. n/t

[5shot]

62. The Failure of Police Firearms Training

Hello to all, and I hope this won't be to long of a first post.

(Just found this interesting site.)

I just finished an article: Unsafe At Any Distance - The Failure Of Police Firearms Training. It is based in part on a RAND study of the NYPD that was commissioned by the NYPD.

The main point of the article, is that the training is a failure because the function of a gun is to shoot something or somebody, and the miss rate by NYPD officers involved in gunfights is less than 20%.

I will post a link to the article in a separate thread when allowed to do that, as bringing up the topic is akin to throwing rocks at hornets nests. :):)

It would be best to first get a consensus in the gun world as to what training works and what doesn't. And good luck with that, since those folks have been going round and round on that since at least 1835 per an old book I ran across on the web that was digitalized by Google.

And did you know that the consumer protection agency does not deal with guns or their usage? The charter specifically excludes firearms. At least it did the last time I checked on that.

So, if you bought a gun or have a gun and think you will be able to use it effectively in a real life threat situation, to save you or a loved one, think again.

In those situations your instinctive fight or flight response will kick-in automatically, and you will lose your fine motor skills necessary to squeeze a trigger, and you also will lose your near vision so you will not be able to see the sights, among other things.

Why do you think police miss as they do?

I am sure they don't plan to.

IMHO, it's because they usually are trained to use their sights, which they won't be able to use in close quarters combat where they (or anyone like you for instance) is most likely to be shot or killed. The only saving grace is that the "bad party" will also be in the same state and miss U 2.

If your a "seal" or supper trained operator, you may be able to handle the situation, but most mortals won't, unless they are trained to shoot using a method that is effective in life threat / high stress situations.

And Yes, there are shooting methods that are effective under conditions of extreme stress. So why aren't they used? Well go back up to the top of this response and read it again.

[rrneck]

66. Welcome aboard

and don't forget your asbestos underwear.

[5shot]

68. Thank YOU

Thank you for the how do you do.

[Taitertots]

65. Training doesn't work

is your thesis?

Just because the NYPD are made of fail doesn't mean you can't protect yourself with a firearm.

[5shot]

67. Bad Training is BAD TRAINING - Don't BLAME the students

NO!

Used to be that officers were blamed for being shot and/or killed because they did not practice enough. Was a crock then, and still is.

What "proved in combat" shooting training does the NRA reccommend for the avg gunowner?

What proved in combat shooting method does any gun manufacturer recommend for use in close quarters gun play (gun play - that's an oxymoron of the first order)?

One pocket pistol manufacturer (whose pistols come without sites), recommends a method of point shooting.

I support all forms of point shooting for use in self defense, hence the name of my site pointshooting.com.

A method used in 1835 and recommended by a former and long time lead firearms instructor for the Vermont State Patrol, is my favorite. I was told to use if back in 1954 by a WWII Sgt when firing my grease gun from the hip. Here's a link to a pic taken way back then :

..........

You not a "traditionalist sight shooting" or of a similar bent for use in close quarters pistol combat/self defense, are you??

[Taitertots]

70. Could it be

that a general lack of gun culture in NYC contributes to this. It doesn't seem like an area too friendly to sport shooting and hunting. How many of them spend years hunting and sport shooting like many americans outside NYC? How many of them go regularly to the range and shoot through hundreds of rounds? I think these NYPD officers are not accepting that they have to shoot a lot and regularly on their own. People who have grown up shooting at squirrels and rabbits with pistols are probably better marksmen than city boy NYPD officers and gang members.

As far as point shooting, the most important factor is at what distances and conditions aim based shooting is better. Which is something you don't learn from one training class but years of shooting regularly.

[5shot]

78. Yes, but

but marksmanship does not relate directly to performance in close combat.

Per the NYPD's SOP 9 study, (See http://www.pointshooting.com/sop9.htm ), an attempt was made to relate an officer's ability to strike a target in a combat situation to his range qualification scores. After making over 200 such comparisons, no firm conclusion was reached.

To my mind, the study result establishes that there is indeed a disconnect between the two.

If there was a connection between range marksmanship and combat hitsmanship, one would expect the combat hit potential percentages, to be well above the dismal ones reported. That is because the shooting distance was less than 20 feet in 75 percent of the 4000 encounters studied.

The US Army recognizes the disconnect. Its training manual, FM 23-35 Combat Training With Pistols & Revolvers (1988), calls for the use of Point Shooting for combat at less than 15 feet, and when firing at night. It does not call for using standard and traditional range marksmanship techniques.

"The weapon should be held in a two-hand grip and brought up close to the body until it reaches chin level. It is then thrust forward until both arms are straight. As the weapon is thrust forward, the trigger is smoothly squeezed to the rear. The arms and body form a triangle which can be aimed as a unit." For shooting at 5 to 10 yards, a modified version of the technique is used.

As to 2 hands on the gun, one of the findings of the SOP 9, which studied thousands of cases, was that Officers, with an occasional exception, fired with the strong hand. That was the case even when it appeared advantageous to use the weak hand. The value of placing heavy emphasis on weak hand shooting during training and qualification is subject to question.

............

"As far as point shooting, the most important factor is at what distances and conditions aim based shooting is better. Which is something you don't learn from one training class but years of shooting regularly."

Point Shooting is very simple and can be learned with little or no training, and retained with little or no training, and is also effective under high stress situations when traditional Sight Shooting has been documented to fail. See the info on this in my article on the failure of police firearms instruction: http://www.pointshooting.com/randinfo.htm

The type of Point Shooting I advocate is brain dead simple, and effective. How else could i shoot at and hit aerials using it, and also with limited practice?

That Point Shooting must be practiced for years and years, or that it is and advanced skill, is to put it nicely, just not true.

Point Shooting can be used to enhance Sight Shooting, or as an option in place of it: when lighting conditions are such that Sight Shooting can not be used, or if there is no time to use Sight shooting, or your fine motor skills and near vision, both of which are necessary to the use of Sight shooting, have gone bye bye, due to the stress of encountering a life threat, and etc.. Here is a link to an article Target Shooting Ain't Gunfighting: http://www.pointshooting.com/gunfight.htm It address some of these issues.

[jeepnstein]

80. I was taught Point Shooting...

many years back by a hippie who knew a thing or two. He had me up to speed in an afternoon. It took longer to lose my target shooting habits than anything. It works and I'm a believer.

You just stick the gun "in the box" and fire as needed.

[Taitertots]

82. I'm not saying that point shooting is bad

What matters is exposure to shooting. You can't plop someone down who has hardly been exposed to firearms, give them one class and expect them to hit anything in life or death situations. I have practiced point shooting too and it works well, but to say that you can gain any sort of competence without practice or training is incorrect.

Point shooting or not, the real way to become effective firearms shooters is years of dedicated shooting. Every source I have ever heard for survival shooting advocates regularly shooting for years and never stopping.

The qualifications are too low. If I had to fire at stationary targets at ranges to 25 yards if I didn't hit everyone of them I would have gotten laughed out of my old shooting club. It would be a joke, the burns would be so bad they would put me on the rotisserie.

[5shot]

84. P&S is brain dead simple

P&S is fast, natural, accurate, and automatic. It can be learned with little or no training, and maintained with little or no training.

Most all gunfights occur at less than 21 feet.

If you shoot someone beyond that distance, have a good defense attorney on retainer.

The US army used to train recruits how to shoot aerial targets (metal washers), out of the air with a BB gun, berfore they taught them sight shooting.

The hit rate in armed encounters is less than 20%. That's a fact. And it also is a fact that most police are taught Sight Shooting. What happens in a real life threat situation, is that you lose your fine motor skills and vision needed for sight shooting. That's also a fact.

Point Shooting is not precision shooting (quarter or dime sized groups).

4 or 5 in a fist or hand sized group at 12 - 15 feet in a couple of seconds, should be sufficient to stop most mortals. See http://www.pointshooting.com/guntests.htm

And if you are moving, which is a very good idea if you want to stay alive, you won't be able to use your sights anyways. In FOF training, those who stand and deliver, get shot.

Don't learn Point Shooting at your peril.

And don't worry about thems that may snicker at it. Per the literature, target shooting ain't gunfighting.

[Taitertots]

92. Point Shooting is fine

I'm not saying anything against it.

What I am saying is that you are not going to practice for a weekend point shooting and be ready to be a police officer. You need to go and practice regularly over a period of time before you gain any level of competence. Any survival shooting instructor worth listening to will say that.