• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

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


  • Total voters
    49

jamesrage

DP Veteran
Joined
Jul 31, 2005
Messages
36,705
Reaction score
17,867
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Conservative
Should firearm use and safety be a required subject in school?


I think it would be a good idea. It should be a required subject just like math, English/grammar,science or some other subject is required. There could be different classes that taught safety(which could be taught with dummy weapons) ,how to aim (which could be taught with dummy weapons) and shooting practice(at first with pellet or paint ball and then maybe something with rubber bullets or other training rounds) and more advance extra curricular classes on reflexive/point fire.
 
Last edited:
I have often voiced my view, that everything we do in our daily lives, should be taught at school. And to only focus on books and reading about what other people think, makes for an incomplete education.---schools should teach how to do a wide variety of everyday things, from filling out Income tax forms, to changing a tire. to repairing a toilet. There is much more to an education, than just memorizing a bunch of information, and then to be quizzed on how well you remember.---and gun saftey is very important.
 
I wouldn't have a problem with it in a rural area where people are likely to use guns...but as a general policy, I'd say no. There wouldn't really be much use for such a course in the heart of a big city, where people don't typically grow up using guns on a regular basis.
 
I don't know if you can make it required, but I do think it would be good to offer the class.
 
As an elective course - sure. But required - probably not.
 
Basic firearms safety should be taight in every public school, at several different grade levels, to a degree approproate to the age of the students in question.

Doing so will save lives.
 
And passing grade is required for a HS diploma, yes.

Subjects should include gun safety, marksmanship, proper defensive shooting, history of guns and American freedom, a bazillion examples of where lack of guns allowed criminals to get away with their crime.

People who are such losers that they're afraid of a peice of hardware don't deserve a high school diploma or the right to vote.
 
As an elective course - sure. But required - probably not.

People keep babbling that schools, not parents, absolutely MUST teach students about sex because, among other things, the deadly diseases the perverts have introduced into the species.

Since guns are by their very design very deadly objects indeed, isn't it incumbent on a society with a Constitutional guarantee of uninfringed gun ownsership to ensure that all citizens are familiar with the rudiments of firearms, for their own safety?

Or are you claiming that ignorance about the deadly nature of sex is evil, but ignorance about the deadly nature of guns is sublime?

Well, ignorance is never sublime.

Unfortunately, what the crackpot left is afraid of is that teaching kids the truths about guns will demystify them and create a new generation of citizens who aren't afraid of their own shadows and who want to exercise their gun ownership rights.

That's why the left promotes ignorance in that area.
 
I wouldn't have a problem with it in a rural area where people are likely to use guns...but as a general policy, I'd say no. There wouldn't really be much use for such a course in the heart of a big city, where people don't typically grow up using guns on a regular basis.

yeah.

We all know the US Army didn't train it's field surgeon in the trauma units of Washington DC, but in Russell Kansas, because Russell Kansas was famous for being the gunshot murder capital of the world.

No.

Wait.

Metropolitan DC WAS where the Army trained it's field surgeons because the nation's capital was also the world's murder capital, for the longest time, probably ever since the city imposed those incredibly effective gun bans that made it illegal for criminals to own guns.

The Left is soooo efficient, isn't it? It's policies are amazingly effective, too, right?
 
I took Air Force JROTC when I was in high school, and they taught us about use and safety. We even got to shoot in the summer if we signed up for the cadet officer training program. I do not think it should be required though, but if any students are interested in learning they should have options like I did.
 
I think it should be taught in schools, but as an elective course.

I think parents who own firearms would be wise to make sure their children are proficient in firearms safety, whether they get that info through school or other avenues.
 
I think it should be taught in schools, but as an elective course.

I think parents who own firearms would be wise to make sure their children are proficient in firearms safety, whether they get that info through school or other avenues.

I think parents that don't own firearms should make damn sure their child isn't ignorant about firearm safety, so they won't get themselves shot by someone playing with a loaded gun, like themselves.

After all, we don't want ignorant kids, do we? Especially not dead ones.
 
I think parents that don't own firearms should make damn sure their child isn't ignorant about firearm safety, so they won't get themselves shot by someone playing with a loaded gun, like themselves.

After all, we don't want ignorant kids, do we? Especially not dead ones.

What's wrong with dead ignorant kids? I find the live ones much more terrifying.
 
No. If we allowed this then whats next? Interactive sex classes? Hand to Hand combat?

The only things that should be taught in schools are science, history, math, reading.
 
It shouldn't be required like math. It should be optional like sex education.
 
Basic firearms safety should be taight in every public school, at several different grade levels, to a degree approproate to the age of the students in question.

Doing so will save lives.

The NRA's "Eddie Eagle" gun safety program for young children has been very effective, where it has been implemented, in reducing firearm-related accidents. That would be a good example of a program suitable for elementary-school kids.

"Back in the day" it was nothing for H.S. students to have a .22 rifle, deer rifle or shotgun in their vehicle, if they intended to go hunting or target shooting after school, and no issue was made of it. Guys a little older than me have told me of bringing their rifles INTO school and locking them in the gym equipment locker for the day, so they could go hunting after school. And yet there was no rash of gun accidents, and no Columbines. I think safety and basic marksmanship with .22 rifles at middle school level would be fine, high schoolers in JROTC could learn to shoot M4's.

One of the big mistakes that people make, when they have guns and children in the same home, is trying to keep the kids away from the guns and ignorant of them. This makes them taboo, therefore facinating... and tempting, and ignorance + facination makes a bad combination. The thing to do is teach them, and start young.

My son's education in firearms started at a very early age. He was scarcely 3 when I demonstrated what a shotgun would do to a 2liter jug of water. I explained to him that a gun had no brain, so whoever was holding it had better have their brain in gear. To satisfy his curiosity and remove the "taboo-facination" factor, I told him he could look at and handle any of my firearms he wanted, as long as it was under my supervision (after being fully unloaded). We went over the three basics of gun safety: all guns are treated as if loaded at all times; finger off the trigger; never point a gun at anyone you don't want to kill or anything you don't want to destroy.

He started shooting .22 rifles and BBguns, under careful supervision, at age 4. I'd started at age 5, and wanted to give him a leg up on his old man. :mrgreen:

Once upon a time the ten commandments were taught in school regularly, along with ethics such as the Golden Rule. In those days school shootings were virtually non-existent, despite the ready availability of firearms. I raised my son accordingly, with a respect for human life. He went hunting with me and saw firsthand what happens when you shoot a live animal with a gun, and how it isn't like most video games and there is no "saved game". Ethics and morals, starting early.

Now he is 14. He has handled and fired every weapon I have, and last year he earned my trust enough to be given the combination to my gun-safe. He has never had an accidental discharge or done anything stupid with a firearm, nor do I believe he will....because he's been taught right.

In principle, I think something like James' idea would be a good thing. In practice, we have too many hoplophobes in this country now for it to be a mandatory program, it would have to be an elective.

Teaching those classes would be a good part-time job for retired Marine Corps Gunnery Sergeants. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
It should be optional like sex education.

I'm not sure about everywhere, but sex ed isn't optional in my state. Although I'm inclined to think it should be an elective, myself.

The same addendum for my firearms statemnt applies, though, except with this slight rewording:

I think parents who own firearms genitals would be wise to make sure their children are proficient in firearms genitalia safety, whether they get that info through school or other avenues.
 
It shouldn't be required like math. It should be optional like sex education.
Sex education is almost always required in public schools - and I say 'almost always' because I have to allow for the possibility that there is -one- where it is not.
 
People keep babbling that schools, not parents, absolutely MUST teach students about sex because, among other things, the deadly diseases the perverts have introduced into the species.

Since guns are by their very design very deadly objects indeed, isn't it incumbent on a society with a Constitutional guarantee of uninfringed gun ownsership to ensure that all citizens are familiar with the rudiments of firearms, for their own safety?

Or are you claiming that ignorance about the deadly nature of sex is evil, but ignorance about the deadly nature of guns is sublime?
Well, ignorance is never sublime.
.


While tact may not be in his lexicon, the man has a point.
 
No. If we allowed this then whats next? Interactive sex classes? Hand to Hand combat?

The only things that should be taught in schools are science, history, math, reading.


What's wrong with teaching Hand to Hand in school? If the little suckers learned to defend themselves, the girls especially, they might be a little safer in a dangerous world.

Boxing used to be part of many school curriculums. Curriculi? :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
I think it should be mandatory for the schools to offer a lot of these safety programs (hand-to-hand, gun-safety, sex-ed) but that the ultimate responsibility for making the child take the classes lies on the parents.
 
No. If we allowed this then whats next? Interactive sex classes? Hand to Hand combat?

The only things that should be taught in schools are science, history, math, reading.

Ballistic science, history of firearms and freedom in the United States, body counting, reading the instruction manual.

Science, history, math, reading.
 
Sex education is almost always required in public schools - and I say 'almost always' because I have to allow for the possibility that there is -one- where it is not.

I'm not sure about everywhere, but sex ed isn't optional in my state. Although I'm inclined to think it should be an elective, myself.

Well, I know my parents were able to keep me out of those classes here in Virginia. But that was 25 years ago, so maybe times have changed since then.
 
yeah.

We all know the US Army didn't train it's field surgeon in the trauma units of Washington DC, but in Russell Kansas, because Russell Kansas was famous for being the gunshot murder capital of the world.

No.

Wait.

Metropolitan DC WAS where the Army trained it's field surgeons because the nation's capital was also the world's murder capital, for the longest time, probably ever since the city imposed those incredibly effective gun bans that made it illegal for criminals to own guns.

And this has what to do with firearm safety classes in schools?

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The Left is soooo efficient, isn't it? It's policies are amazingly effective, too, right?

Perhaps instead of incoherently ranting against "The Left" like a moron, you'd care to actually address the subject of the thread for once. Nah, I know that's asking too much of you. :2wave:
 
Maybe there should just be a general "self-defense" unit in physical education that involves things like martial arts, and also briefly covers gun safety/use.

But the decision whether or not to do so should be made completely locally. There's no need or pressure to even own guns where I live.
 
Back
Top Bottom