Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?

Goshin said:

No, thank you, I think that, as imperfect as it is, I prefer the present status quo to letting government get it's foot in that door.

Click to expand...

You do realize that for the most part, the government's foot is already in that door?

The Mark said:

The student and his parents.

Click to expand...

Precedent shows that this is not true. People in this country simply do not take responsibility for their actions.

Why? It's not like any reasonable school offering such a class would be training their students on how best to shoot someone. How to safely handle and use a firearm, yes.

Click to expand...

Semantics.

I do not agree.

Click to expand...

Good for you.

This is something that would be up to the parents, period.

I would have no problem however if it was offered as an elective, with parental approval.

Dav said:

Moral issues. There are people who think that guns are evil and wrong and that nobody should be trained to use them, their children included. You can disagree with them, but the fact is that they are entitled to their opinion, and the school has no place trying to usurp it.

Same reason why sex ed usually isn't required until later years, if at all.

Click to expand...

But...sex ed IS required in almost all school disctricts in the land, regardless of what the damn prudish parents think about it.

So why shouldn't gun training be mandatory, regardless of what the damn pants wetting liberal weenie whiny parents think about that?

Hmmm?

Isn't a gun more immediately dangerous than a dick, and thus shouldn't that training be more urgent?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Everything.

You made the moronic comment that gun training is more likely to be useful in "rural areas", because you're a bigot that thinks only the hicks and the rednecks in "flyover country" have guns.

Click to expand...

I didn't say anything about flyover country, what the hell are you talking about. How is it bigoted? It is a fact that people in cities don't have or want guns as much as people in rural areas. If the kids in cities aren't as likely to use guns, what is the point of wasting their time?

Ethereal said:

The most likely people to negligently discharge a firearm are ignorant little urbanites/suburbanites who mimic action movies.

Click to expand...

Do you have some statistics on this? Particularly accidental firearm use by children?

Kandahar said:

I didn't say anything about flyover country, what the hell are you talking about.

Click to expand...

Of course you didn't.

You just used the word "rural" and want to pretend you have control of your premises.

Well, you don't.

In fact, you don't seem to have any clue about this discussion and you should retire silently until you find some.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Of course you didn't.

You just used the word "rural"

Click to expand...

"Rural" is a pejorative term now?

Are you disputing that what I said is true? That people living in rural environments are more likely to own guns than people living in urban environments? Really, dude? Really?

Kandahar said:

"Rural" is a pejorative term now?

Are you disputing that what I said is true? That people living in rural environments are more likely to own guns than people living in urban environments? Really, dude? Really?

Click to expand...

You didn't have time to get a clue.

Read my last post fully.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

But...sex ed IS required in almost all school disctricts in the land, regardless of what the damn prudish parents think about it.

So why shouldn't gun training be mandatory, regardless of what the damn pants wetting liberal weenie whiny parents think about that?

Hmmm?

Isn't a gun more immediately dangerous than a dick, and thus shouldn't that training be more urgent?

Click to expand...

A lot of people in urban environments grow up in homes where there are no guns, thus making firearm training a waste of time. On the contrary, almost everyone is likely to have sex at some point in their lives (with the exception of embittered trolls such as yourself)...and there is a very good chance they'll do so before they finish school.

While I would not like to own a gun myself I see no problem in hunters and marksmen having guns, provided they store and use them responsibly.

I am sympathetic to the idea of teaching gun safety in the schools, especially in a society that insists on having guns everywhere. However I also see some problems with this. Adding a new subject to the curriculum will take away time and money from other subjects. In the current financial and economic crisis adding a new economic burden on schools or taking time away from other subjects might not be the best idea. Furthermore many people will never feel the desire to own a gun.

But gun safety is too important to leave to people themselves to find out along the way. I think a more fair approach would be requiring passing a test in gun safety before you could legally own a firearm. It would be no different from having to pass a test to be allowed to drive a car. And just like we demand a driver's license in order to avoid irresponsible drivers we should demand a gun license in order to to avoid irresponsible gun owners.

Kandahar said:

Do you have some statistics on this? Particularly accidental firearm use by children?

Click to expand...

No, but it's a rational assumption. People who are not familiarized with firearms are more likely to negligently discharge them.

Kandahar said:

Almost everyone is likely to have sex at some point in their lives...and there is a very good chance they'll do so before they finish school. A lot of people in urban environments grow up in homes where there are no guns, thus making firearm training a waste of time.

Click to expand...

Almost all real Americans handle guns at some time in their lives.

What's your point? That because some unAmerican people won't see guns doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught gun safety?

Explain, in detail, how your system KNOWS who will and who will not encounter an unattended firearm at some point in their lives.

This has gotta be good. We're waiting.

Ethereal said:

No, but it's a rational assumption. People who are not familiarized with firearms are more likely to negligently discharge them.

Click to expand...

Absolutely...I just don't see how that translates into urban kids being more likely to negligently discharge them than rural kids. It depends entirely on the numbers you assume for what percentage of kids in each environment are exposed to firearms, what percentage are adequately trained, what percentage of those who aren't trained will accidentally discharge them, and what percentage of those who are trained will accidentally discharge them.

While it's a rational assumption that untrained people are more likely to be negligent with the firearms they have, it's quite a logical leap to then say that urban kids are more likely to be negligent around firearms than rural kids.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Almost all real Americans handle guns at some time in their lives.

What's your point? That because some unAmerican people won't see guns doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught gun safety?

Click to expand...

OK, you're obviously just a troll. No real person can possibly be this stupid. Are you a left-winger trying to parody conservative views a la Stephen Colbert? I'm done with you. I'd rather discuss the issue with people who actually have a brain. :2wave:

Regicollis said:

I am sympathetic to the idea of teaching gun safety in the schools, especially in a society that insists on having guns everywhere.

Click to expand...

No, the United States does not insist on having guns everywhere.

However I also see some problems with this. Adding a new subject to the curriculum will take away time and money from other subjects. In the current financial and economic crisis adding a new economic burden on schools or taking time away from other subjects might not be the best idea.

Click to expand...

It would literally take five hours to teach them. Probably less. It's like teaching them how to handle a power tool.

Regicollis said:

While I would not like to own a gun myself I see no problem in hunters and marksmen having guns, provided they store and use them responsibly.

I am sympathetic to the idea of teaching gun safety in the schools, especially in a society that insists on having guns everywhere. However I also see some problems with this. Adding a new subject to the curriculum will take away time and money from other subjects.

Click to expand...

Oh, that's easy.

The word is "gym". No one needs gym as much ...l.****, the revisionists are calling it "physical education" as a sop the lowly gym teachers, aren't they? Train those fairly useless sob's as gun safety instructors and set part of that almost completely pointless curriculum into something both usefull and interesting, firearms training.

However, as a pre-requisite, only law abiding US citizens and legal residents should be trained in proper gun use. Invaders and criminals can shoot themselves to ribbons, it's okay by me.

Regicollis said:

I think a more fair approach would be requiring passing a test in gun safety before you could legally own a firearm.

Click to expand...

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

So much for that prior-restraint bull****.

Regicollis said:

It would be no different from having to pass a test to be allowed to drive a car.

Click to expand...

Driving a car is a privilege, not a Constitutionally protected right.

Regicollis said:

And just like we demand a driver's license in order to avoid irresponsible drivers we should demand a gun license in order to to avoid irresponsible gun owners.

Click to expand...

Naw, bull****.

You weed out the "irresponsible" gun owners by imposing stringent criminal penalties for using the damn things unsafely and unwisely.

If you enter your house to see a crew of masked thugs ransacking it, you're perfetly authorized to haul your peice out and kill them.

If they're exiting the structure and running away, you're not.

It's really pretty much that simple. Don't place too much emphasis on what side of the body the bullet enters, a man can turn in the time it takes the impulse to squeeze the trigger to travel down the arm and mechanically move the trigger.

But if some jack ass is using a gun to rob a store, and a single shot is fired by anyone is his entire posse, ALL those people spend fifteen years in jail. If Anyone is killed by that single shot, ALL those people are executed, and they're feeding worms before the anniversary of their conviction.

That's how you take care of "careless" gun owners.

Kandahar said:

OK, you're obviously just a troll. No real person can possibly be this stupid. Are you a left-winger trying to parody conservative views a la Stephen Colbert? I'm done with you. I'd rather discuss the issue with people who actually have a brain. :2wave:

Click to expand...

You're absolutely right.

I am not stupid.

That's why I'm not wasting my time playing your game.

Kandahar said:

Absolutely...I just don't see how that translates into urban kids being more likely to negligently discharge them than rural kids. It depends entirely on the numbers you assume for what percentage of kids are exposed to firearms, what percentage are adequately trained, what percentage of those who aren't trained will accidentally discharge them, and what percentage of those who are trained will accidentally discharge them.

While it's a rational assumption that untrained people are more likely to be negligent with the firearms they have, it's quite a logical leap to then say that urban kids are more likely to be negligent around firearms than rural kids.

Click to expand...

You're right that it's purely speculative, but gun-ownership and responsibility seems to be more ingrained with rural cultures than with urban and suburban cultures.

I knew a lot of "Southern" people in the Marines, and just about everyone of them were familiar with firearms whereas most the "big city" types were clueless. It was a pretty large sample size, by the way, so it's not entirely unscientific.

Anyway, before joining the Marine Corps, I had never even touched a firearm in my life. I had no idea how to handle one responsibly. I think it's totally rational to assume that other suburbanites are equally ignorant of firearm safety.

I shot expert, by the way...:2razz:

Kandahar said:

Absolutely...I just don't see how that translates into urban kids being more likely to negligently discharge them than rural kids.

Click to expand...

"Washington DC, Murder Capital of the World"

That ring a bell yet?

Don't you live there?

Hmmmm?

When I lived in the country, the biggest problem was moron kids running down my mailbox with their cars. I fixed that probem by mounting the box on top of the stub of a full diameter telephone pole.

In Washington DC, South Central LA, Chicago, and other gang infested urban areas, it's comman for people to put their kids to bed in BATHTUBS for fear of stray bullets.

I've NEVER heard of rural kids sleeping in bathtubs out of fear of gang warfare in their barnyards. It doesn't even happen in suburban areas.

So, quit making **** up, go find some clues.

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

Oh, that's easy.

The word is "gym". No one needs gym as much ...l.****, the revisionists are calling it "physical education" as a sop the lowly gym teachers, aren't they? Train those fairly useless sob's as gun safety instructors and set part of that almost completely pointless curriculum into something both usefull and interesting, firearms training.

Click to expand...

I have no problems with having marksmanship as a part of the gym curriculum if the school and the teachers chooses to do so.

However, as a pre-requisite, only law abiding US citizens and legal residents should be trained in proper gun use. Invaders and criminals can shoot themselves to ribbons, it's okay by me.

Click to expand...

Irresponsible gun owners don't just shoot up each other... they shoot who ever is standing nearby...

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

So much for that prior-restraint bull****.

Driving a car is a privilege, not a Constitutionally protected right.

Click to expand...

Can you tell me why owning a lethal firearm should be a constitutionally protected right, while driving a car should not?

Naw, bull****.

You weed out the "irresponsible" gun owners by imposing stringent criminal penalties for using the damn things unsafely and unwisely.

Click to expand...

So we should not do anything to stop irresponsible gun owners before they shoot some innocent guy up?

I don't believe punishment would be a sufficient deterrent even if we were to let a group of drunken conservatives dream up the most barbaric punishment they could. Even the death penalty don't deter people from murdering each other.

If you enter your house to see a crew of masked thugs ransacking it, you're perfetly authorized to haul your peice out and kill them.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is insane. Blood for property.

Regicollis said:

I have no problems with having marksmanship as a part of the gym curriculum if the school and the teachers chooses to do so.

Click to expand...

That's weird.

My math teachers were required to teach trigonometry and calculus.

Gym teachers can be exempted from a basic curriculum requirement?

When did the rats begin to steer the stable? Gun safety and marksmanship should be made mandatory, and teachers who choose to not teach that part of the course can demonstrate this decision by resigning.

That's how it works when the public, not the employees, are in charge of the schools.

Regicollis said:

Irresponsible gun owners don't just shoot up each other... they shoot who ever is standing nearby...

Click to expand...

That's why you lock them in jail forever and forget to feed them.

Their existence is not justification for prior restraint, just as the New York Times isn't justification for suspending the First Amendment.

Regicollis said:

Can you tell me why owning a lethal firearm should be a constitutionally protected right, while driving a car should not?

Click to expand...

Want me to explain why you can't fly without an airplane, while we're at it?

Because that's the way it is in the United States.

Don't like?

Don't live here.

It's that simple.

Regicollis said:

So we should not do anything to stop irresponsible gun owners before they shoot some innocent guy up?

Click to expand...

What part of prior restraint did you fail to understand?

If you find someone leaving their guns unattended on the front seat of an unlocked car, yeah, they can be charged with some kind of negligence. But history has solidly proven one essential fact about people:

You can't outlaw idiocy.

Regicollis said:

I don't believe punishment would be a sufficient deterrent even if we were to let a group of drunken conservatives dream up the most barbaric punishment they could. Even the death penalty don't deter people from murdering each other.

Click to expand...

The proper exercise of the death penalty not only deters capital crime, it successfully eliminates recidivism.

When the elimination of the human right to own firearms is taken off the table, what do you propose to do to cure the human race of idiocy?

Regicollis said:

Yes, it is insane. Blood for property.

Click to expand...

No, violent enemies are in your home. Their choice to commit aggression, your choice to respond appropriately. There's absolutely no reason why a man should be forced to flee from his home merely because someone else has decided thug blood is worth more than his TV.

My TV is worth a dozen thugs, easily.

That's how you deter crime. You kill criminals and scare the living **** out of them with bullets and buckshot. And you deny those that happen to live access to the civil courts to sue their would be victim.

Their body, their choice. They choose to put their body in a someone's home where he has the right to defend himself with deadly force. If their bodies get injured or killed, it was their choice.

It's that simple.

Americans should not be forced to be simpering cowards merely because soft headed do gooders are worried about the lives of the damned criminals.

What's wrong with you people?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:

That's weird.

My math teachers were required to teach trigonometry and calculus.

Gym teachers can be exempted from a basic curriculum requirement?

When did the rats begin to steer the stable? Gun safety and marksmanship should be made mandatory, and teachers who choose to not teach that part of the course can demonstrate this decision by resigning.

That's how it works when the public, not the employees, are in charge of the schools.

Click to expand...

As far as I know the curriculum is not so rigid that gym teachers can't decide whether to teach football or tennis.

That's why you lock them in jail forever and forget to feed them.

Click to expand...

Too bad they have to hurt somebody before you want to do anything about it.

Their existence is not justification for prior restraint, just as the New York Times isn't justification for suspending the First Amendment.

Click to expand...

If somebody writes an editorial you don't like, all that happens is that you get angry for a while. When somebody does something stupid with a gun, an airplane or a car you die. See the difference?

Want me to explain why you can't fly without an airplane, while we're at it?

Click to expand...

I understand why untrained people are not allowed to fly airplanes. What I don't understand is why untrained people are allowed to own lethal weapons.

Because that's the way it is in the United States.

Don't like?

Don't live here.

It's that simple.

Click to expand...

Come on. That isn't even an argument. Can't you come up with something better than that; something that actually gives a good reason why things should be as they are?

What part of prior restraint did you fail to understand?

If you find someone leaving their guns unattended on the front seat of an unlocked car, yeah, they can be charged with some kind of negligence. But history has solidly proven one essential fact about people:

You can't outlaw idiocy.

Click to expand...

You're totally right. You can't outlaw idiocy and that is why we should make sure idiots are not allowed to have guns in the first place.

The proper exercise of the death penalty not only deters capital crime, it successfully eliminates recidivism.

Click to expand...

The death penalty certainly did not prevent the inmates on death row from doing the crimes that got them there.

When the elimination of the human right to own firearms is taken off the table, what do you propose to do to cure the human race of idiocy?

Click to expand...

Americans are virtually alone in thinking gun ownership for untrained idiots is a human right.

No, violent enemies are in your home. Their choice to commit aggression, your choice to respond appropriately. There's absolutely no reason why a man should be forced to flee from his home merely because someone else has decided thug blood is worth more than his TV.

Click to expand...

It is extremely rare that burglars become violent, whether it is in societies with guns everywhere or in societies with responsible gun laws.

My TV is worth a dozen thugs, easily.

That's how you deter crime. You kill criminals and scare the living **** out of them with bullets and buckshot. And you deny those that happen to live access to the civil courts to sue their would be victim.

Their body, their choice. They choose to put their body in a someone's home where he has the right to defend himself with deadly force. If their bodies get injured or killed, it was their choice.

It's that simple.

Click to expand...

That is a very callous way to think about human lives.

Americans should not be forced to be simpering cowards merely because soft headed do gooders are worried about the lives of the damned criminals.

Click to expand...

Neither should Americans live in a society with a ready supply of guns for criminals, psychopaths and idiots. They deserve more safety.

Regicollis said:

As far as I know the curriculum is not so rigid that gym teachers can't decide whether to teach football or tennis.

Click to expand...

Why isn't it?

Generally it's the school boards that make those decisions.

Regicollis said:

Too bad they have to hurt somebody before you want to do anything about it.

Click to expand...

You are not forced to live in a free country.

It's your privilege.

Because it's a free country, we won't stop you from going to some asinine place like England, where they've even outlawed decent cutlery.

Regicollis said:

If somebody writes an editorial you don't like, all that happens is that you get angry for a while. When somebody does something stupid with a gun, an airplane or a car you die. See the difference?

Click to expand...

Yes.

Both the editorial and the gun ownership are protected by the bill of rights. No difference at all. Libelous editorials cause harm and can be punished by law. No prior restraint is allowed. Improper gun use can cause harm and is punished by law...unless you're a Black Panther preventing white people from going to a polling place on Obama's election day....and can't be subject to prior restraint.

You don't have to live in a free country if you don't like it.

Regicollis said:

I understand why untrained people are not allowed to fly airplanes. What I don't understand is why untrained people are allowed to own lethal weapons.

Click to expand...

Damn, some people can't figure out that their examples are just parrots of themselves.

Am I required to inform these ignorant types of people that their example of car driving (a privilege) already dismissed, covers their parallel example of aircraft piloting? Are we going to have to suffer some fool then bringing in train conducting? Truck driving, since trucks aren't cars? Hot air ballooning next? The Space Shuttle? When will this ignorant person figure out that we already dismissed all his parallel little flawed arguments?

Hmmm?

Regicollis said:

Come on. That isn't even an argument. Can't you come up with something better than that; something that actually gives a good reason why things should be as they are?

Click to expand...

I'm clearly not required to generate new arguments when you're recycling old crap.

And, I'm explaining to you your options, since you seem to be densely unaware of what you can do when you don't like living in a free country.

Why don't you move to Mother Russia? They still have strict gun control over there.

Of course, the Russians have the highest per capita murder rate of any industrialized nations, but hell, if they're not killed with those evil guns, it's fine, right?

Regicollis said:

You're totally right.

Click to expand...

Something I've always known.

Being God is a good thing.

Regicollis said:

You can't outlaw idiocy and that is why we should make sure idiots are not allowed to have guns in the first place.

Click to expand...

I think we just need to urge the people afraid of freedom towards the door.

Most of America's problems will be solved when the nervous nellies either leave or get laid.

Regicollis said:

The death penalty certainly did not prevent the inmates on death row from doing the crimes that got them there.

Click to expand...

That's because it's not enforced.

Welcome to the real world. When criminals are convicted, then executed, rapidly and messily, others pondering similar crimes get queasy.

But we've got your ideal society now. Criminals do whatever they want, they go to jail, they get out, they commit more crimes, they go back to jail, and sometimes they get out again.

You people have a really effective system, if your goal is maintenance of prison guard unions and police force payrolls.

It's not very good if you want the citizens to be safe.

Why don't you try a little experiment.

Put a huge sign in front of your house advertising Handgun Control Inc. Get all your like feeling neighbors to do the same. Put an advertisement on TV touting your neighborhood as a gun-free zone, so that everyone knows how safe you people really are.

Maybe festoon your homes with the red international strike-circle over the image of a pistol, to make sure everyone knows what you mean and can be proud of your efforts, that should do it. Call yourselves the Gun Busters. Be creative, okay?

Do that and let us know how well it works.

Regicollis said:

Americans are virtually alone in thinking gun ownership for untrained idiots is a human right.

Click to expand...

You think this is some kind of logical point?

Besides proving people who aren't Americans have their heads up their asses, what have you done?

Seriously, it's clear you do not live in the country you were intended to be in and you need to re-locate, soon, so you can be happy.

Regicollis said:

It is extremely rare that burglars become violent, whether it is in societies with guns everywhere or in societies with responsible gun laws.

Click to expand...

It's even rarer when the burglars think the homeowner might have a gun.

Burglars burgle elsewhere when they get that notion.

And they don't care if the hand holding the gun is "trained" or not, if the gun is trained in their direction.

Naturally, your silly failed arguments aside, almost every adult who buys a gun willingly gets training on that instrument, since most adults aren't the idiots the gun control freaks are...er assume them to be.

Regicollis said:

That is a very callous way to think about human lives.

Click to expand...

Callouses....come from hard work.

Thinking is hard work.

Try it some time. Never too late to start for you, you know.

Try to do it before you find yourself in the position of wishing that cop was there when you needed him.

Regicollis said:

Neither should Americans live in a society with a ready supply of guns for criminals, psychopaths and idiots. They deserve more safety.

Click to expand...

They deserve the unrestricted freedom to arm themselves so the threats presented by psycopaths, idiots, criminals, and politicians can be mitigated readily.

Oh, gee, did you bother to mention that Virginia Tech was a gun free zone?

Did you notice the killer there didn't pay attention to the rules forbidding guns there?

Gee. A psychopath who didn't obey the law, massacring nearly two dozen men and women who were stupid enough to believe that idiot laws like that protected them.

Luby's Cafeteria in Killeen Texas....a dining room full of well trained law abiding Texans, killed by a lone psychopath gunman...becuase they obeyed the law forbidding them from bringing their own weapons into public places.

Glad to see they were protected by the law.

Columbine High School....two psychopaths went on an uninterrupted rampage shooting students in the school while the po-leece, you know, the guys who not only had the traing, who not only had the guns, but who were specifically hired to protect the innocent, waited patiently outside the school to see what was up.

ONE Virginia Tech Student, ONE Luby's Cafteria diner, to break the law forbidding access to self-defense or ONE cop with balls to screw departmental procedure to do his real job, could have turned each of those situations around.

Those situations are YOUR world at work, not mine.

Your world is a failure.

Goshin said:

No, thank you, I think that, as imperfect as it is, I prefer the present status quo to letting government get it's foot in that door. Especially since firearm accidents have been on the decline for a long time anyway.

The "slippery slope fallacy" does not apply if the slope is greased and you're being pushed.

At any rate, if it is a "fallacy", there are a number of states already practicing that fallacy in the way they handle concealed carry permits under their "discretionary issue" policy.

Click to expand...

Hmm, let me ask you something. Why is it that certain restrictions on gun ownership are viewed as 'okay' by people on the right, but others aren't? The two most common cases being age restrictions and restrictions on gun ownership by convicted felons. These clauses clearly violate a 'no restrictions on gun ownership at all' policy, yet few on the right bring them up as something that should be changed. It seems like the government's foot is already in the door to me, and few of you are interested in getting it out (or at least you aren't vocal about it).