Why NOT have firearm education in school?

[spin]

Wednesday, October 7, 2009

State legislator proposes gun education for youth

At a time when more youth are falling victim to gunfire, one state legislator is proposing gun education classes for youth to curb violence.

State Rep. Annazette Collins, D-10th Dist., whose district covers portions of the West Side, has long advocated for schools to provide gun education classes just as they do sex education.

“A long time ago I can remember when there were gun competitions held at Chicago Public Schools,” Collins told the Defender. “When I was growing up children used to start getting trained (on) how to use a gun for hunting purposes at age 5.”

***snip***

If you take away the mystery of guns from kids they are less likely to go purchase a gun,” she explained. “Downstate kids do not shoot each other up because they learned about guns growing up. So they know how to clean guns, how to properly load guns and how to safely store them. Our kids are not taught this so they go learn on their own and the end result is Black-on-Black crime.”

In Chicago it is illegal to own a handgun but gun advocates have appealed the city’s ordinance and the measure is expected to go before the U.S. Supreme Court soon. Collins suggested the legal age to purchase a handgun in Illinois should be lowered to 18 from 21.

“The right to bare arms is protected by the U.S. Constitution,” Collins said. “I am not saying it is okay for anyone to own a gun or we should allow our youth to purchase guns. But if we educate our youth about guns then it could curtail the senseless killings taking place.”


http://www.chicagodefender.com/article-6542-state-legislator-proposes-gun-education-for-youth.html

[no limit]

1. Hmm...let me get this straight. Not educating kids on guns causes black on black violance?

get the fuck outta here.

[slackmaster]

12. It certainly doesn't do anything to prevent black-on-black violence

How could a school imparting knowledge to students possibly be a bad thing?

[no limit]

18. Me typing this message doesn't do anything to prevent black on black violance

that clearly means by posting this I am causing black on black violance. Right? Again, get the fuck outta here.

Education is important. And if you want to argue that teaching kids about guns is important you have a right to do that; but atleast stick to the facts. Don't come up with absolutely insane arguments not based in any kind of reality, you end up looking silly.

[SteveM]

27. Punkin' out so early? (nt)

[no limit]

37. huh?

[SteveM]

40. Showin' a lot of 'tude over a simple posting. (nt)

[no limit]

41. I don't like race being used as an argument for teching guns in schools, call me crazy.

[slackmaster]

42. The main topic here isn't "teaching guns in schools"

It's teaching firearm safety.

[no limit]

43. Jesus christ, you got me. I meant " teaching firearm safety"

[slackmaster]

44. OK, you're crazy. But I agree that race isn't a good reason to teach it.

All kids deserve the opportunity to learn basic firearm safety. Most parents are not qualified to teach it.

I'm happy to comply with your request.

[SteveM]

52. Race has been used as an argument for teaching a lot of stuff in school...

As I mentioned in another post to this OP, the legislator probably has come to grips with the nature of the violent shootings in her area: a lot (probably most) are black-on-black. I rather suspect this is the case in most cities. As tiresome as it is to use "race," many bills, legislation, policies are framed in a racial context; it seems to be a "selling point" for progressives. I'm not sure how her use of race for teaching about safe gun use is any worse than others who propose inner-city jobs programs, magnet schools, 24-hour basketball courts, or affirmative action. Frankly, knowledge about guns has been placed in a "smutty" category where discussion (save official prohibitionist pronouncements) is discouraged. Sex, smoking and drugs come to mind.

I hope we can continue the discussion.

[slackmaster]

33. No, your post probably doesn't change the incidence of any kind of violence in any way

If you disagree with Annazette Collins, please take that up with her.

Education is important. And if you want to argue that teaching kids about guns is important you have a right to do that; but atleast stick to the facts.

I'm glad we agree on something.

[iverglas]

35. wtf?

If you disagree with Annazette Collins, please take that up with her.

Well, you be sure to tell that to everybody next time somebody quotes, oh, Sarah Brady in an OP, and some posters here express disagreement with her.

What a bizarre thing to say.

[no limit]

38. Apparently we dont agree on this. Because I point out how absurd her assertion was

and you told me to take it up with her. If she had posted this here I would agree with you, but she didn't post this, the op did.

[slackmaster]

39. I'm not entirely sure that spin agrees with her assertion either. The OP asks "Why NOT..."

It looks to me like spin's position is that gun safety education would be beneficial whether or not it would reduce any particular kind of crime, which happens to be how I feel about it. If it reduces accidental shootings, it would be a good thing.

spin, please correct me if I'm mistaken.

[spin]

59. I had a difficult time finding a source that wasn't anti-liberal...

to use for link.

The original idea for the post came from a reply by iverglas that pointed out a study by Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research which surveyed 1,200 respondents and found that 20.3% thought that a pistol could not be discharged after the magazine was removed, 14.5% did not know, and 0.2% refused to answer.

I did find this article, but the tone was so anti-liberal that I rejected it.

Sex and Guns
by Gerard Valentino

…When it comes to guns, liberals and anti-gun groups, are unwilling to discuss how educating children can lead to a decrease in these very type of accidents….

United States --(AmmoLand.com)- When abstinence is floated as a way to keep teenagers from having unwanted pregnancies the left is openly scornful of the idea. Liberals claim that sex-education and familiarity with contraception are the only viable ways to teach teenagers to practice safe sex.

They argue that kids are going to have sex so it is important to teach them how to avoid the pitfalls involved with irresponsible behavior.

Liberals preach education as the answer for a host of other social ills as well, including discrimination, sexism and environmental issues.

Funny, however, that the only problem liberals refuse to attack with so-called education are accidental gun deaths among children. When it comes to guns, liberals and anti-gun groups, are unwilling to discuss how educating children can lead to a decrease in these very type of accidents.

Several times in the recent past, Ohio has considered a bill that would offer gun safety training as part of the high school curriculum. While pro-gun groups are quick to praise such a move as a way to decrease gun accidents through education, anti-gun leftists are already using their tired propaganda in opposition of the bill.

They claim that teaching gun-safety in schools will push a pro-gun culture on unsuspecting students. Yet, at the same time liberals claim that teaching sex-education with mentioning abstinence won’t teach a culture of promiscuity among high-school students.
http://www.ammoland.com/2009/12/11/sex-and-guns/

State Rep. Annazette Collins has her opinions on the value of firearm education to reduce Black on Black crime. She may be right, but as you suggested I feel that gun safety education would be valuable if for no other reason than to reduce tragic accidents.

Children who have been taught gun safety by their parents at an early age and have been exposed to shooting are generally safer around firearms then those who have only seen firearms in the movies and TV.

edited for HTML error

[tburnsten]

73. I see what you mean, at the same time...

if the shoe fits...

[Euromutt]

62. That's not exactly what she said

What she said was: "Our kids are not taught this so they go learn on their own and the end result is Black-on-Black crime."
Emphasis mine. Rep. Collins is allowing for several more stages in the process than "1. we don't educate kids about firearms; therefore 2. they shoot each other." And her reasoning isn't off the wall.

Let's construct an analogy: sex ed. The standard conservative canard is that we shouldn't educate kids about sex, or they might (horrors!) go out and do it. The fact is, of course, that they very frequently do anyway, but because their knowledge is limited to what they get from the media and their peers, they're ill-equipped to avoid getting pregnant and/or contracting STDs. What the actual evidence suggests is that education level is far more correlated to waiting longer before having sex, and being more cautious about it when sex is had. Speaking for myself, I didn't have full-on sex until I was 19, partly because I had been made aware of the risks of pregnancy and STDs.

Similarly, I didn't handle an actual firearm until I was drafted (I'm originally from the Netherlands), and my platoon's basic training instructors did such a good job of demystifying the weapons by having us strip, clean and reassemble them, practice loading drills, discouraging horseplay and especially drilling us on firearm safety, and making us march long distances carrying the things, that by the time we took them out on exercises or to the range, there wasn't anything cool about them any more. Within two weeks, our rifles had become thing 12-pound liability you had to lug around and clean a lot.

With good education, you can demystify an object or an activity, and in particular high-lighting the possible drawbacks and hazards will make most students be more cautious about engaging in risky behavior, and many who might otherwise have been attracted by the mystery may simply lose interest.

[tburnsten]

74. I know what you mean

In Basic you really start to view the rifle more as a liability than anything else, it's a real pain dealing with lugging it around everywhere. For us (US Servicemembers) we get pretty harshly drilled for even the most minor offense involving our rifle, the worst is when someone loses track of theirs or is caught doing anything unsafe. During the convoy live-fire exercises a member of my platoon charged his rifle while jumping off the back of the truck, and very narrowly avoided being flattened by range cadre, and I believe he got some corrective training afterwards as well. Guns aren't fun anymore when you have to carry them everywhere you go, strip them down all the time, and get punished if they aren't taken care of or handled safely.

[dflprincess]

2. Most school districts can't even afford drivers' ed anymore

and more kids come in contact with cars than they do with guns.

[AtheistCrusader]

9. The police used to come in and do it.

There's some pretty awesome Time Life photos of it, so old it was black and white.

When I was a kid, there were no firearms demonstrations, but we did get to go on a 'high speed' ridealong, and some other cool stuff with the police, things that aren't done now. Things that at least de-mystified the citizen-peace officer relationship.

[joecool65]

15. Not a bad idea in the broad sense

But, who would actually teach it? Would they need special certifications? Criminal clearances? What grade(s)? What part of the curriculum? There would be many specific questions that would need to be answered.

[AtheistCrusader]

21. In the Old Days(TM)

It was done by beat police officers. Just regular Officers. Seems to me like that would work today, the basics have not changed at all.

[PavePusher]

70. The NRA has such programs already set up.

It's one of their best efforts. They are the bench-mark for general firearms safety and use training.

[slackmaster]

16. There was a brief gun safety lesson in Health and Safety class when I was in high school

A sheriff's deputy came in and talked about the dangers of unsecured firearms. He showed how to unload a revolver, then proceeded to demonstrate his fast draw skills with blanks.

Most of the kids thought it was pretty cool.

[paulsby]

84. ride-alongs

i am a firm believer that ride-alongs are a good thing. and they have been readily available where i work

1) they demystify the REAL world that police deal with, and how they do it - vs. tv fantasy land
2) they promote the idea of open government, police being... a part of govt.
3) they inspire some people to become police officers, who might otherwise not be inclined. for me, a ride along i did was key in my making this choice of career. best decision i ever made. although if i was to become a rock star, maybe not :)
4) they help to reinforce the bond between law abiding citizens and cops. most people in the US (the vast majority) as poll after poll shows - respect police. however, the #'s can always be improved by exposing people to police doing their job.
5) for police officers, they reinforce the idea that most citizens are with us, not against us. when working a busy district and dealing with scum (criminals) all the time, that can be muted.

i'm setting up a ride along with my neighbors kid. in fact, just talked to him about it. kid wants to become a state trooper! (god forbid), so maybe i can also show him why it's better to be a real cop and not a concrete commando (i keeed. i keeed)

[GreenStormCloud]

85. Our comunity recenlty stopped the ride-alongs.

The problem was liability insurance. I thought the program was great. All of our local officers spoke well of the program.

[paulsby]

86. lol not surprising

it's astounding to me how many good things we don't do because of liability concerns.

we don't help citizens with lockouts for example, slim jim stuff, for that reason.

i used to work an agency where (this boggles my mind) we didn't have patrol k-9's because dogs that bite people are "a liability"

um....

i also know an agency that got rid of the workout room at the precinct because of liability concerns. we can carry a gun, handcuffs, pepper spray, tasers, make arrests, etc. but it's too much liability to allow officers to WORK OUT at the precinct.

lol

my old dept. didn't do ride alongs for the same reason. liability. that kind of crap drives me crazy.

[spin]

54. Drivers ed is a long course ...

basic gun safety could be taught in a day.

The local police department firearms instructor or a NRA firearms instructor could teach the course.

The course could even be offered on the internet.

Basic firearm safety is NOT rocket science.

[PavePusher]

69. Teaching firearm safety would be...

a lot less expensive than teaching driving skills.

Probably save a lot more public money in the long run, too.

[Cronus Protagonist]

3. "the result is black on black crime"

I wonder why the race of the criminals and victims is important. Would it be better if it were more heterogeneous?

[SteveM]

28. It is possible that this legislator has looked at violent crime...

in her area and has concluded that most is black-on-black. Since many of our social policies have been geared toward discriminated groups, this may be the light in which she sees this problem.

[DeeCee]

4. Logic 101

I don't think this legislator passed that class (and if she wrote "bare arms", rather than whoever quoted her, she might not have done so well in English either). Do I understand her right, that he reason some communities have more gun violence is that they weren't shown how to maintain their weapons? Is she smoking hash?
It's mindboggling that so many people actually believe the solution to gun violence is "more guns."
Their logic is based on an erroneous premise, that our Framers were giving the go-ahead to unregulated, non-militial weapon ownership. Of course, blindly following the Framers on questions like this is also basewd on faulty premises, such as the idea that they were so wise they could foresee American societal needs 200 years in the future. The "godlike" Framers were hopelessly racist, sexist eltists by modern standards, so why are they elevated to godhead on issues like this?

[eqfan592]

8. I don't think the number of people....

who think the solution to gun violence is "more guns" is as large as you think. At least not on these forums. It's more about the solution NOT being more restrictions on law abiding citizens, and attacking the roots of violence in general, which most agree are poverty, poor education systems, gentrification, etc.

Firearm ownership is an effective means of personal protection and some crime prevention, but it's not the ultimate solution to the problem of violent crime IMHO.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. If you only read the news and watch TV, you might be under the impression that a AK-47

is a death ray that will kill everything in a 50 foot raidus without even aiming.

Getting a chance to get actual hands-on experience with a firearm de-mystifies it. Or in the case of many firearms, de-deifies it.

[TheWraith]

23. I suggest you double-check your assumptions.

"Do I understand her right, that he reason some communities have more gun violence is that they weren't shown how to maintain their weapons?"

You clearly don't. She's saying that demystifying guns makes kids less likely to covet them, less likely to play with them if they find one, and less likely to look at guns as some kind of epitome of cool. If kids are taught that it's just an object like any other, then maybe they won't be at the same risk for accidents, and be less likely to be recruited into a gang for the aura of power there.

"Their logic is based on an erroneous premise, that our Framers were giving the go-ahead to unregulated, non-militial weapon ownership."

That's EXACTLY what the framers were doing, a fact which has been repeatedly backed up by their own writings, the derivatives of their work, and the SCOTUS.

[SteveM]

29. So, you are against educating kids in the use of firearms? (nt)

[tburnsten]

58. Who is advocating giving more guns to gang types in Chicago?

I didn't notice anyone claiming that giving guns to gangs or high school students would help anything, nor is private firearms ownership an approach to preventing crime in society.

I don't think you read what she said very well, she didn't say that she supports firearms maintenance classes, she supports familiarization and most importantly safety classes so that the mystique of guns is diminished and so that young people can understand a little more clearly the great importance of safe handling.

[PavePusher]

71. Way to miss the forest for the trees.

Your vision would be less occluded if you removed that beam from thine eye.

[Taitertots]

82. You might need logic 301

Should we pursue this policy?
Will this result in less people accidentally being shot? Yes. Will it increase the number of people intentionally being shot? No.
We should pursue this policy, because it will be a net benefit to society.


Should we have access to firearms in general? Can you show a positive relationship between availability of firearms are firearms crime?

No, the data indicates no correlation between gun availability and gun crime. Places like Switzerland and North Dakota have access to guns and very low gun crime. Places like Mexico have strict gun laws and pandemic crime. It is apparent that exogenous factors are much more important. The number of guns is sky rocketing and gun crime is decreasing.

Who bases their logic for firearms policy solely on the founding fathers? You are the one with erroneous logic! You have created a straw man. The Constitution isn't important because it was the opinions of bigots from 200 years ago, it is important because it is the current foundation of our system of jurisprudence and governance.

You continue your erroneous thought pattern with this gem. "so many people actually believe the solution to gun violence is "more guns."". Quote one person who has ever said the solution to gun violence is more guns. You can't because it is another straw man. Everyone knows the obvious solution to crime is ending poverty, increasing education, ending the drug war, and effective law enforcement.

Your whole position is based on your hallucinating what other people believe.

[GreenStormCloud]

87. The Constitution can be amended.

The Framers understood that many things could change, so they built into the Constitution an amendment process. If you don't like the 2nd then you can try to get it removed by amendment. Until then, IT IS THE LAW. As is the rest of the Bill of Rights.

Perhaps you should read a bit more history. The Framers did indeed intend "unregulated, non-militial weapon ownership." That is easy to prove, and is regularly proven in this forum. We often post dozens of quotes from the Framers showing that they actually did intend for everybody to have guns.

Gun ownership by the law-abiding public does indeed cut down on violent crime. For example, since Atlanta's MARTA began allowing CCW holders to be armed when riding the system, violent crime had dropped by about 20%. The British have all but outlawed guns, and they have a violent crime rate much higher than ours.

However, we advocate having guns, NOT as a general solution to crime, but to give the individual the ability to fight back effectively when attacked. That it does happen to lower the crime rate is a side benefit.

[eqfan592]

5. As for this putting an end to "black on black" crime...

...I'm not entirely sold on it. But I think firearms education in general would be a good thing and would reduce the number of accidents.

Another poster commented on how schools are having a hard time funding drivers ed, much less programs like this, as though that is a good counter argument. It is not. I say to you that we should better fund our schools.

[tburnsten]

75. Well I don't think she ever said it would put an end to it

just alleviate it some, and a little bit of safety training for young people makes them a hell of a lot less likely to shoot someone just watch him die, as Johnny Cash sang, and less likely to be attracted to criminal gun misuse by the mystique of firearms that isn't really present once you have spent some time with one.

[liberal N proud]

6. Brilliant idea

Teach all the kids how to shoot a gun.






That way they will either be ready for the street or the military. Gun training 101.

[eqfan592]

10. You should take a firearms safety class sometime.

Because I don't think you really have a clear idea of what's involved.

I will agree, though, that this is not an effect means of putting an end to firearms violence. But it will reduce the number of firearm related accidents.

[slackmaster]

13. You should also go back and re-read the OP

It doesn't say anything about teaching kids how to shoot guns.

[SteveM]

30. Glad you agree with her...

When I was 13-years-old, I gave my 8th grade homeroom instruction on the safe use of a pump shotgun. The teacher thought it was a good idea, some kids asked questions about the shotgun. Last I checked, there was no upturn in street crime; as for military training, for the most part modern armed forces do not use shotguns.

"Gun training 101" is actually a good idea, though the title is a little pithy.

[PavePusher]

72. Actually, shotties are making a comeback in a variety of CQ situations. n/t

[enlightenment]

7. Because it's a personal choice - like religion.

Not a constitutional mandate.

And while we're on the subject of rights . . . "The right to bare arms" ??

Spell-check failure makes Ms. Collins look sort of silly. Shame on the person who typed this article.

[slackmaster]

14. The manner in which a person drives, sexual activity, and taking drugs or not are personal choices

Ignorance of any of those subjects clearly can lead to harm.

[enlightenment]

22. The presumption you are making is that

all people will own - or desire to own - and use a gun at some point in their lives. That simply isn't the case, so yes, it is a personal choice.

People are more likely to own/use power tools than guns, and those tools can (and do) harm many who don't know how to use them. I'd be more inclined to suggest we require 'power tool safety' classes than 'gun safety' classes, if your logic is what we're using to decide.

Or perhaps 'safe stove operation' classes.
Or 'safe lawn-mower operation' classes.
Or 'safe shower operation' classes.

Your other examples are also personal choices.

Your argument would have more force if you found a more valid way of presenting it.

edited for word change

[slackmaster]

32. No, that is not correct

I am also presuming that people who never own a gun will occasionally encounter one that has not been properly secured. By teaching most or all children what to do and what not to do in that situation, accidental shootings should become less likely.

And for those who do choose to own guns, an awareness of the importance of properly storing weapons will also reduce the likelihood of an unauthorized person encountering an unsecured one.

I'd be more inclined to suggest we require 'power tool safety' classes than 'gun safety' classes, if your logic is what we're using to decide.

I'd support doing both.

We did have power tool safety training when I was in junior high school. The classes were called "Wood Shop" and "Metal Shop".

;-)

[enlightenment]

51. So did I - well, my school did (girls weren't encouraged to take Shop)

so we learned 'gas stove safety' instead. But we weren't required to take Home Ec anymore than the boys' were required to take Shop.

The point I'm trying to make is that all of that is personal choice. I don't disagree that there is more wisdom in knowing how (or how not) to do something than in not knowing - just that gun education shouldn't be required in schools.

[slackmaster]

57. I feel strongly that there should be an option to opt out of elective classes

I think gun safety education should be required to be offered, not required to be taken. Parents and students have always had the option of not taking Home Ec or sex education.

[enlightenment]

60. Then we agree.

Though I do recall that Home Ec was required when I was in middle school - 7th grade - for girls and boys. I learned to make a chocolate souffle, a raspberry jelly roll, and sewed a little apron. My workmate/sorta boyfriend (we were a little young to date) made a better apron than I did . . .

[slackmaster]

65. We had a short Home Ec section in my Spanish class in 10th grade

We learned how to make tortillas from scratch, buñuelos, Mexican hot chocolate, enchiladas, and tamales. It was fun.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

47. Wood Shop, Metal Shop, Home-Ec

We learned about wood tools, machining, welding, how to cook and operate several kitchen appliances... very useful.
I know have a wood shop in my garage, a metal shop in my basement, and an excellent cook (for a young male).

I' not sure I ever learned "lawn mowing" but it's not very complicated. I'm not sure it warrents a dedicated class.
1) Push from behind.
2) Don't wear sandals.
3) Don't fall under the mower.

Same with the shower... unless you're riding the short-bus there's not much harm in it.

[taurus145]

19. I can't wear short sleeves?

Oh! The humanity!

[SteveM]

31. So, would you support a gun safety course? If not, why not? (nt)

[JonQ]

80. What about sex, that's a personal choice right?

To have it that is. It's a choice, not a mandate. So would it be unreasonable to teach safe sex practices in public school?

What about basic sanitation procedures?

[TxRider]

17. Why not? Cost?

But the real issue for inner city crime is drugs and their prohibition, which equals tons of illicit money, which equals gangs and deadly violence.

[TheWraith]

25. True. Though this might still help that.

If guns are demystified for kids, then the gang lifestyle might lose some of it's seductive qualities as well. The gangs are never going to go away as long as the drug war is going on, but it might be worth the effort to depress recruiting.

[RussWorld]

20. Actually, the NRA has a firearm safety program for kids and schools. I believe called

"Eddie the Eagle"

[spin]

61. Welcome to DU. The Eddie the Eagle program is designed for

younger children from pre-K through third grade.

It teaches four basic steps:

If you see a gun:

STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.
http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

I believe it's a worthwhile program, but the gun safety classes I'm thinking of would be more for middle school and high school.

[gorfle]

24. You know what?

I think I could almost support even anti-gun firearm training in schools, so long as they provided firearm training.

In other words, I could almost tolerate training with a negative-bias towards firearm ownership if they would at least teach kids about firearms - don't touch - if you find one tell an adult. The usual Eddie Eagle stuff.

[spin]

63. That is really not a bad idea.

I think the education is the important thing, even if it were anti-gun.

The Brady Center could make a scary little film showing the danger of not knowing how to handle a firearm.

We used to get driver safety films in the service to scare us into driving better. "Signal 30" films were fairly effective at improving my driving, although I still had a lead foot.

I found some at:
http://www.spike.com/video/signal-30/2776527

[proteus_lives]

26. I think we should.

Children could always benefit from safety training.

[iverglas]

34. why not have cliff-jumping safety courses in school?

After all, kids are surrounded by things to jump off, and you know very well they're going to do it, at least some of them some of the time. So the best thing for it is to teach them the precautions they should take if they do decide to do it.

How about tightrope-walking safety classes? Alligator wrestling education? Safe drinking practices -- and I do mean practices? How to inject yourself without getting hurt?

Hell, with all the things kids need to learn how to do safely, we could just do away with that reading and writing stuff. I'll bet you could even get some of the gun militant crowd to volunteer to teach it for free. Think of all the money that would be saved.

[iverglas]

36. on further thought

The best kind of cliff-jumping safety class would probably involve a visit from a quadriplegic 10-yr-old who jumped off a cliff. Alligator wrestling safety might involve a visit from someone missing an arm. Safe drinking practices, well, the old accident scene photos, maybe an impromptu visit to an actual accident scene, and a talk by one of the local shelter residents (by way of show and tell rather than delivery of a message) could be useful.

Firearms education? A couple of trips to the emergency ward, a visit from some siblings of the victims of the black-on-black violence in question, maybe of a two-year-old killed by random gunfire ... for the more advanced a lesson on the costs of firearms violence to their community in terms of economic development ...

I'm coming around.

[spin]

66. Firearm safety education could emphasis tragedy ...

I have no problem with that.

In fact, the Brady Center could make a film showing the results caused by mishandled firearms.

In the service, we were shown a series of films called "Signal 30" designed to scare us into driving more carefully.

I remember I did drive more carefully after watching them. Youtube still has them. This is Part 1:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FZ9zdHsZ4jI

The films weren't anti-car, just anti-bad driving.

[eqfan592]

46. Maybe because the number of gun owners...

...greatly outnumber the number of cliff jumpers and tight rope walkers, so it makes just a TAD more sense to teach firearms safety than those other subjects?

Or is that too rational for you? Please, respond with your usual, insulting bullshit.

[iverglas]

49. what has the number of gun owners got to do with anything?

Let them take personal responsibility for their guns, sez I. Oops, says just about everybody else here. If they don't want children playing with them, they should lock them up. And if they don't, and a kid gets dead or disabled, we should lock them up. The gun owners. That'll fix everything. That's how it works, isn't it?

Very amusing how some people get all hot and bothered about harm prevention when it happens to involve turning kids on to guns. Then and only then.

[eqfan592]

53. Thank you for proving my point.

A rational person understands that we are talking about human beings here, and that all of us, gun owners included, are capable of screwing up, and when that happens, sometimes a dangerous situation can be created.

And that's why the number of gun owners (and guns owned) has something to do with this. Because no group of people is going to have a 100% perfect safety record. It's better to make sure kids know how to deal with this situations when they do occur.


"Very amusing how some people get all hot and bothered about harm prevention when it happens to involve turning kids on to guns. Then and only then."

Care to explain this particular remark? Because on the face of it, it's pretty disingenuous, as you have no clue what other people do and don't care about in terms of " harm prevention." Yet you appear to be claiming that you do. Tell me, do you enjoy making yourself look so stupid? Or do you just enjoy being dishonest?

[iverglas]

55. read some other threads?

Very amusing how some people get all hot and bothered about harm prevention when it happens to involve turning kids on to guns. Then and only then.
Care to explain this particular remark? Because on the face of it, it's pretty disingenuous, as you have no clue what other people do and don't care about in terms of " harm prevention." Yet you appear to be claiming that you do.

I do indeed be claiming that.

Try this one, just an example from these week's crop of threads:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=274726&mesg_id=274726

I was practically quoting verbatim.

[eqfan592]

56. Is there a specific post in that thread you wanted to draw attention to?

Because the thread by itself does NOT prove your point in the least. Just because people on a forum that deals specifically with FIREARMS happen to feel strongly about the issue of firearms safety education is not in and of itself proof that they do not also feel strongly about other "harm prevention" issues as well.

Now it's time for another insulting reply, where you likely question my intelligence at least once, claiming that I totally missed your point. You will also likely change your point to some degree, as you seem incapable of remaining on the same point for more than a couple of posts (especially after being strongly challenged on a point) in an attempt to re-enforce your claim that I missed your point.

And none of this changes the original point that firearms safety training would be far more valuable than tight-rope walking safety training.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

78. So turning kids on to lighters is a bad way to prevent accidental fires? Dead ass wrong again.

That's all that firemen do when they go out and teach fire safety, eh. Just turn kids on to lighters and matches. Pathetic.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

77. So despite the fact that firearms education reduces gun accidents you oppose it. Interesting.

So you really don't give a damn about preventing childhood accidental shootings unless it is accommplished by taking guns away from the law abiding. How very, very telling.

[JonQ]

81. That is one of your less well thought out arguments

an impressive feat that.

[chandler2]

45. The HS where I used to live has a shooting range and I've shot...

a 22 rifle there. That would be Richmond Academy, Augusta, Georgia.

[spin]

64. A .22 rifle or a good pellet rifle provide excellent training on gun safety. (n/t)

[tburnsten]

48. That is the best approach to gun safety

I really hope she succeeds in her quest to bring a common sense and safety-minded approach to gun safety into Chicago public schools.

[spin]

50. Why I started this thread ...

A large number of people believe removing the magazine from a pistol will make it safe. Often, this is not true.

A few pistols have magazine disconnects, many don't. Often people will disable the magazine disconnect on their firearm as they feel it is useless. Sometimes mechanical safety devices fail or are broken.

So tragic accidents happen.

A mandatory safety class in high school that taught the basics of gun safety seems like a good idea to me. In a society where firearms are commonplace, a simple class could reduced accidents.

The NRA has a class for children are in pre-K through third grade. Four important steps are taught:

If you see a gun:

STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.
http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie /

But kids in high school are a different matter.

I remember one time when I was talking to a sixteen year old girl who was an acquaintance of the family. I was cleaning several handguns I had just shot at the range. She told me of an incident that occurred a year before with several of her friends.

They were at another teenagers house. The boy who lived there bought out a handgun, unloaded it and started passing it around.

Of course, I immediately told her that if she found herself in another situation like that to get the hell out. I gave her a quick and dirty course on handguns and how to tell if they were loaded. I did show her a .45 auto and how merely dropping the magazine doesn't make the firearm safe. I let her handle the semi-auto pistol and load and unload it using some dummy rounds I had. She also got a lecture on never pointing a firearm at something you are not willing to destroy and the other gun safety rules.

Now I'm not advocating teaching high school kids how to shoot a weapon at a target or how to be an expert in gun handling. Still, accidents could be averted by just a little knowledge.

For those who would never want their children to be exposed to firearms for any reasons, let me point out that you can't be with your kids 24/7. Kids have a dangerous fascination with firearms.

If these high school courses I'm suggesting would only save a few lives, they would be worth it. I think most people would agree with that statement.

Quite possibly, the local police might have their firearms instructor teach the course for free.

[Katya Mullethov]

67. Ignorance of The Four Rules does NOT contribute to honor killings

Armed robbery , rapes , home invasions , car jackings , drive bys ,trunking , or jaywalking . It is intended to prevent them from shooting their friend or themself with an allegedly "empty" gun . Just a few more catchphrases tossed off by an apparatchik saying what people want to hear .

[PavePusher]

68. The smartest woman in Chicago. God help her... n/t

[rrneck]

76. How about a safety class?

A firearm is one piece of dangerous technology among many. Other posters have made very good points about demystifying firearms by requiring their owners to actually maintain the weapon, which turns it into "something they have to lug around all day" rather than something symbolically cool.

In light of entire industries devoted to selling products to kids an entire course designed to educate them about the dangers of all kinds of stuff would do a lot more than help them be safe around firearms.

Just thought I'd throw that in since we are having so much trouble in Copenhagen.

[JonQ]

79. Because making them seem forbidden

and keeping people in the dark is the best way to ensure responsible behavior.

We've proved that with abstinence only education programs.

[Francis Marion]

83. Education is the answer

A component of the Bill of Rights is suitable for inclusion in the education and civic upbringing of our kids. Further, one might even expect bipartisan support for such a curriculum addition.

Every community has retired cops and veterans, or other persons who would willingly teach for no pay as a service to their community, not to mention a change of pace from retirement doldrums.

I'd like to see marksmanship competition between schools, as with other athletic pursuits.