• 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!

Newest NRA campaign idea, make learning to shoot mandatory in school

The NRA mandatory school shooting plan? Good idea or not a good idea?

  • yes, no passing shooting grade and the child may not advance to the next grade

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • no, shooting lessons I totally support but it should not determine passing to the next grade

    Votes: 18 45.0%

  • the NRA has completely/partly lost the plot

    Votes: 4 10.0%

  • the NRA should get the Nobel peace prize for this idea

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • No, I am going to teach my kid myself how to shoot

    Votes: 4 10.0%

  • No, shooting lessons have no place at schools

    Votes: 16 40.0%

  • teaching potential young gangbangers better schooting skills is not a good idea

    Votes: 4 10.0%

  • I have no kids

    Votes: 2 5.0%

  • I do not care one way or another

    Votes: 1 2.5%

  • other ........... (please explain

    Votes: 5 12.5%
  • Total voters
    40
Jerry said:
People said the same thing about sex-ed. Thing is, not every parent teaches their child about guns just as many parents avoid ever adressing birth control. Therefore the school needs to pick up a basic gun saftey coarse to do what many parents won't.
Click to expand...

Except that sex education is part of biology lessons. And there are plenty of people who home school so that their children do not have to get some subjects taught on schools or so that they can add their subjective view on those subjects to these subjects.

Virtually everybody is going to have sex at some time in their life, learning the birds and the bees stuff is nothing more than logical.

A lot of people will never own or handle a firearm. In fact more and more households are gun free (compared to a few decades ago). And it is not that I am against people learning to shoot guns, especially in areas of the country where they will most likely at some time have to fire weapons (to protect themselves from dangerous animals) but that is the duty of the parents to teach their children, not the school system.

In most discussion conservatives want to limit the influence of government on their lives but when it comes to their "opinions" all of that against government/big government is thrown out the window. Just like this issue, it is for the parents of the individuals to decide whether or not a child comes in contact with weapons. Not the NRA, not the government or the Republican party/conservatives.

I would not even have a problem if the government subsidizes safe gun classes for teenagers but not at schools. That at least is my opinion.
 
American said:
You tried to deny the bias, when I pointed it out. I've never stated that I have no bias.
Click to expand...

I stated that my poll was not biased. I never said I was not biased.

My poll gives all kinds of options, the first one is totally in accordance with the view of the NRA, the second one says that it is OK to have shooting lessons at school but should not have any negative effect on passing or not, then I have the option "no, I am going to teach my kids myself".

Those are very pro-gun biased opinions, but there are also anti-gun options and "other opinions". That is how opinion polls work.
 
Jerry said:
I have to agree here. I am likewise biased, thoe in favor of guns. There is nothing wrong with being biased yourself. The problem is only when a source is biased. You yourself are more than welcome to be biased, having made up your mind on an issue and argue from a position.

Without biased people this whole website would be boring.
Click to expand...

And that is why, I gave people who agree with shooting/the NRA or this plan options to vote in this poll according to their views. It would have been wrong to only give answers I like in this poll.
 
Peter King said:
Except that sex education is part of biology lessons.
Click to expand...
I would like to see a 'life skills' class covering driving, first aid, personal finance, basic cooking, using a gun, using a fire extinguisher, etc. The gun thing would just be a small part of that class.

Peter King said:
And there are plenty of people who home school so that their children do not have to get some subjects taught on schools or so that they can add their subjective view on those subjects to these subjects.
Click to expand...
Yup, and thats fine. Home school isn't public school. Totaly diferent subject.

Peter King said:
A lot of people will never own or handle a firearm. In fact more and more households are gun free (compared to a few decades ago). And it is not that I am against people learning to shoot guns, especially in areas of the country where they will most likely at some time have to fire weapons (to protect themselves from dangerous animals) but that is the duty of the parents to teach their children, not the school system.
Click to expand...
We have no way of knowing who will and who won't, therefore we should educate everyone.

You know, I have never needed to know anything about the French revolution, nor have I ever used algeba, so I guess you would say we should remove world history and algebra from the manditory curriculum.

Peter King said:
In most discussion conservatives want to limit the influence of government on their lives but when it comes to their "opinions" all of that against government/big government is thrown out the window. Just like this issue, it is for the parents of the individuals to decide whether or not a child comes in contact with weapons. Not the NRA, not the government or the Republican party/conservatives.
Click to expand...
You're talking to someone who would very much like the Department of Education abolished, or at least highschool replaced with vo-tech. Reality is that's not going to happen. So, a nice middle-ground compromise is to have a more Conservative curriculum.

Peter King said:
I would not even have a problem if the government subsidizes safe gun classes for teenagers but not at schools. That at least is my opinion.
Click to expand...
Schools are institutions of learning, so schools are the perfect place to have any kind of class, including guns. Many schools have a gun as their mascot and fire it at events. Many school track coaches use a pistol to start races. Some schools have gun clubs where students bring their gun on campus. Some states already allow reguler people to carry their personal loaded sidearm onto campus.

Its just not a big deal to have guns or gun education in the school.
 
Kal'Stang said:
No, shooting classes should be mandatory. However I do think it would be a good idea to make a class that taught how to handle guns SAFELY should be mandatory. Don't need to use real guns if an object is actually needed for such. Could be a toy gun (in fact I'd prefer it). This could help prevent many accidental shootings that happen.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you.
 
American said:
Now you contradict yourself. Face it, you've lost the debate.
Click to expand...

I have not contradicted myself. I am against shooting guns at school. Teaching children about gun safety is not the issue. Firing guns is what I have an issue with as I have said several times in this thread.

And just so that you do not miss it, teaching kids about being safe around guns is perfectly fine, shooting guns with actual bullets is not.
 
Peter King said:
I have not contradicted myself. I am against shooting guns at school. Teaching children about gun safety is not the issue. Firing guns is what I have an issue with as I have said several times in this thread.

And just so that you do not miss it, teaching kids about being safe around guns is perfectly fine, shooting guns with actual bullets is not.
Click to expand...
They won't learn **** with wooden guns.
 
Jerry said:
Then you agree that a gun saftey class should be manditory.
Click to expand...

He is talking about gun safety classes without the use of actual guns or shooting guns. That is what I would think is the only way this thing should be done.
 
Peter King said:
I have not contradicted myself. I am against shooting guns at school. Teaching children about gun safety is not the issue. Firing guns is what I have an issue with as I have said several times in this thread.

And just so that you do not miss it, teaching kids about being safe around guns is perfectly fine, shooting guns with actual bullets is not.
Click to expand...
You don't fire the gun at a school. You fire it at a range. Likewise the driver's ed class doesn't drive the car at the school, they start out at a lot for the basic skills training and then move on to the road. The fire department doesn't deminstrate the extinguisher on a fire at the school, they bring the kids out to their smoke house.

At no point is any student firing a gun on school property. I don't see the problem.
 
Last edited:
American said:
They won't learn **** with wooden guns.
Click to expand...

Well, it is that way or not IMHO. I agree with mandatory gun safety lessons without firing of guns. If parents want to teach their children to actually fire guns they should teach them themselves or go to an organization that teaches responsible gun use.
 
Jerry said:
You don't fire the gun at a school. You fire it at a range. Likewise the driver's ed class doesn't drive the car at the school, they start out at a lot for the basic skills training and then move on to the road. The fire department doesn't deminstrate the extinguisher on a fire at the school, they bring the kids out to their smoke house.
Click to expand...

And that is what I do not think should happen. Gun safety is about being safe around guns, not teaching them how to safely use guns. That is purely down to the parents, not the government/school or NRA.
 
Peter King said:
Well, it is that way or not IMHO. I agree with mandatory gun safety lessons without firing of guns. If parents want to teach their children to actually fire guns they should teach them themselves or go to an organization that teaches responsible gun use.
Click to expand...
The problem is the parents who don't want teach the children themselves or go to an organisation. Those are the parents such a class would exist to make up for. Every kid should fire a real gun under controlled conditions, rather their parents want them to or not.
 
Peter King said:
And that is what I do not think should happen. Gun safety is about being safe around guns, not teaching them how to safely use guns. That is purely down to the parents, not the government/school or NRA.
Click to expand...
Safe around = safe use.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
There's only so much you can learn using toy guns. At some point, the training would have to involve real guns (as in firearms, that use exploding gunpowder to propel the bullet) in order to be entirely valid.
Click to expand...
True. I did a report about people interested in owning a gun(s) started out with soft air to learn the basic mechanics, safety, etc..before moving on 'real' weapons.

Airsoft. It’s Not Just For Kids: Using Airsoft in Your Firearms Training | The Art of Manliness
 
Jerry said:
The problem is the parents who don't want teach the children themselves or go to an organisation. Those are the parents such a class would exist to make up for. Every kid should fire a real gun under controlled conditions, rather their parents want them to or not.
Click to expand...

But it is not the position or right of the government to decide how parents should raise their children when it comes to guns.

It is the right to bear arms, it says nothing about mandating every child to shoot a weapon (even if they or their parents are against it).
 
Jerry said:
Safe around = safe use.
Click to expand...

That is your opinion but that opinion should not be mandated by the government or forced upon children by schools/the government.
 
Peter King said:
But it is not the position or right of the government to decide how parents should raise their children when it comes to guns.
Click to expand...
Sure but firing a gun a few times on a field trip hardly qualifies as 'raising'. Its just a short class, not a way of life.
Peter King said:
It is the right to bear arms, it says nothing about mandating every child to shoot a weapon (even if they or their parents are against it).
Click to expand...
Nah this is just basic saftey.
 
Jerry said:
Yes it should.
Click to expand...

That is where you and I disagree.

I think forcing that upon people might also be unconstitutional. It is not the duty of the government to force gun use or gun teaching upon the population.
 
Peter King said:
That is where you and I disagree.

I think forcing that upon people might also be unconstitutional. It is not the duty of the government to force gun use or gun teaching upon the population.
Click to expand...
Article 1 Section 8, Congress has the obligation to train the militia. This can be a basic gun saftey class in highschool since most of those kids would have to register with Selective Service soon anyway.
 
Jerry said:
Article 1 Section 8, Congress has the obligation to train the militia. This can be a basic gun saftey class in highschool since most of those kids would have to register with Selective Service soon anyway.
Click to expand...

Train the militia, aka the army as it is known now. Forcing children is not training the militia.
 
As far as I am concerned...the NRA national leadership generally service the gun/ammo manufacturers.

Almost nothing the national NRA leadership says means anything to me.


You disagree with me...I don't much care.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom