• 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

Peter King

Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Monthly Donator
Joined
Feb 19, 2012
Messages
29,957
Reaction score
14,680
Location
Netherlands
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Moderate
Make shooting lessons mandatory at schools, this is what Bill Johnson has said in a video from NRA News.

He said that kids are learning how to read and write and that these are deemed necessary skills, but if it were up to him (and I would assume the NRA or they would not have made this clip/released it) shooting would also be a skill that was learned at school from now on.

But he goes one step further to thumb the NRA nose at parents who will not allow guns in the house or who are anti-guns, learning to shoot guns at school would become mandatory if a child wishes to advance to the next grade. In other words, if your kid (even though you are vehemently against guns) wants to go to the next grade at school he will have to complete a gun shooting course or he will be held back.

I was aware that the second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but now the NRA wants to force guns and shooting even upon children and parents who do not want to bear arms or to shoot arms.

So the question is, how desirable is it to have mandatory gun lessons at school in order to advance to the next grade?

I read this story on the website of a Dutch newspaper but an English version of this story can be found here NRA
 
Last edited:
I think they could fit it in on the days they aren't learning to put a condom on a banana.
 
Classes in shooting guns should NOT be mandatory. This is purely a political move by a group which has seen firearm ownership drop as a share of the American population and is desperate to get it up again. The NRA became a increasingly political organization after the 1977 Cincinnati revolt with a sharp turn to the right. They are concerned about their political power and see this as a step to protect it.

When I taught government for three decades, I always made it a part of the lesson on the Second Amendment to urge any student interested in owning a gun to take advantage of the NRA classes in firearms ownership and use. And many did. But this should be voluntary and outside of the normal school system.
 
He said that kids are learning how to read and write and that these are deemed necessary skills, but if it were up to him (and I would assume the NRA or they would not have made this clip/released it) shooting would also be a skill that was learned at school from now on.

the disclaimer on the video says "The following video contains the opinion of an NRA News commentator and does not necessarily reflect the views of other individuals or organizations" had you bothered actually watching the video

Way to use the opinion of one nutjob to demonize an entire group
 
I'm fine with schools offering shooting lessons. I don't see that as any different than offering home economics, shop, or driving lessons. They should not be mandatory though, and should have no impact on a student's ability to progress to the next grade.
 
the disclaimer on the video says "The following video contains the opinion of an NRA News commentator and does not necessarily reflect the views of other individuals or organizations" had you bothered actually watching the video

Way to use the opinion of one nutjob to demonize an entire group

Well, this Nutjob is promoting his views on an NRA website/news source. I also said, I would assume they agree with him even if they do not say it out load (not necessarily reflect does not mean we do not agree with him).

And you may be of the opinion I "demonized someone" but I do not agree with you on that one.
 
Well, this Nutjob is promoting his views on an NRA website/news source. I also said, I would assume they agree with him even if they do not say it out load (not necessarily reflect does not mean we do not agree with him).

And you may be of the opinion I "demonized someone" but I do not agree with you on that one.

Your poll option about gangbangers gave your bias away.
 
Your poll option about gangbangers gave your bias away.

How on earth can anyone think that the "gangbangers" comment was meant seriously? Maybe that is your bias showing, not mine.

It seems that some people are absolutely unable to view anything without being in "outrage" mode.
 
How on earth can anyone think that the "gangbangers" comment was meant seriously? Maybe that is your bias showing, not mine.

It seems that some people are absolutely unable to view anything without being in "outrage" mode.

You could have just as easily posted an option that it teaches young people responsibility and not to fear fire arms, but you didn't.
 
You could have just as easily posted an option that it teaches young people responsibility and not to fear fire arms, but you didn't.

Then you and I have a very different opinion about the option "other .............. (please explain)

You only have 10 options so I decided to put down these options and leave one open for people with other opinions.
 
I'd rather have PE mandatory as that is far more important to the Nation's overall well being than 'shooting skills'.

I'da thought the 'bangers' reference would give some CONs pause in considering the unintended consequences of a hair brained idea. I'd MUCH rather these kids learn how to use a condom and not be parents before they are old enough to vote than shooters.

A political stunt to appeal to the CON sheeple, stir the pot and pander to the mouth breathers on the right.
 
Classes in shooting guns should NOT be mandatory. This is purely a political move by a group which has seen firearm ownership drop as a share of the American population and is desperate to get it up again. The NRA became a increasingly political organization after the 1977 Cincinnati revolt with a sharp turn to the right. They are concerned about their political power and see this as a step to protect it.

When I taught government for three decades, I always made it a part of the lesson on the Second Amendment to urge any student interested in owning a gun to take advantage of the NRA classes in firearms ownership and use. And many did. But this should be voluntary and outside of the normal school system.

I agree and would add that shooting classes should also not be required to attain (retain?) full 2A rights. If these classes are required to get/keep the right to keep and bear arms then they should be offered at no cost to any that wish to take them.
 
I agree and would add that shooting classes should also not be required to attain (retain?) full 2A rights. If these classes are required to get/keep the right to keep and bear arms then they should be offered at no cost to any that wish to take them.

Good point. There are lots of classes that people could take that could be very beneficial including firearms safety and operations, child care and parenting, personal health management and other things. But we certainly cannot make them mandatory saying that you cannot have kids until you pass parenting class even though there would be some obvious upside. The downside of interfering with peoples private decisions is just to invasive.
 
Don't think it should be mandatory, but I have no problem with schools offering it voluntarily.
 
I think they could fit it in on the days they aren't learning to put a condom on a banana.

The schools would likely use some sort of air or soft air weapons so, it wouldn't be like a student could go berserk and start killing people.

We teach our children gun responsibility but, having the school reinforce is a bonus.
 
The NRA has offered shooting safety classes to schools for years. Nothing new. It would be a great idea. But the left will shout it down like it always does.
 
The video wouldn't play on my phone, however the article stated the guy thinks people should get free ammo and guns paid for by the government.

:lol:
 
I think they could fit it in on the days they aren't learning to put a condom on a banana.

Is that everything you learned at school?

No maths? geography? physics? history? chemestry? biology?

Did you flunk out at 13?
 
Last edited:
Make shooting lessons mandatory at schools, this is what Bill Johnson has said in a video from NRA News.

He said that kids are learning how to read and write and that these are deemed necessary skills, but if it were up to him (and I would assume the NRA or they would not have made this clip/released it) shooting would also be a skill that was learned at school from now on.

But he goes one step further to thumb the NRA nose at parents who will not allow guns in the house or who are anti-guns, learning to shoot guns at school would become mandatory if a child wishes to advance to the next grade. In other words, if your kid (even though you are vehemently against guns) wants to go to the next grade at school he will have to complete a gun shooting course or he will be held back.

I was aware that the second Amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but now the NRA wants to force guns and shooting even upon children and parents who do not want to bear arms or to shoot arms.

So the question is, how desirable is it to have mandatory gun lessons at school in order to advance to the next grade?

I read this story on the website of a Dutch newspaper but an English version of this story can be found here NRA

*slams head into desk*

I normally like Bill Johnson.

Now, look. I watched the video to be absolutely fair. And I expected the article to be histrionic, because Bill Johnson is normally good -- as I said, I like him.

I have been saying for years I think handling and safety gun classes should be a required part of the highschool curriculum, with an encouraged but optional shooting component.

But this makes me bang my head into a wall. It's the typical American blindness to the real issue, which has been replaced with a fabricated one.

To me, the issue is that we live in a society which has gun use and ownership as part of its culture. Everyone should be prepared for that at the very least in terms of being able to make sensible decisions when they are around guns, and having respect for weaponry. Looking at countries who do things like this shows they do have a better gun culture of safety. Those who do learn to shoot, which I think would be embraced by quite a few parents, would also help streamline the process of, say, a carry license when they are older.

And I am not even necessarily riled by the idea of everyone owning a gun. I think it's kind of an ironic thing to require something that is supposedly a freedom -- a choice. But it's not that concept that bugs me.

It's the complete absence of any mention of how to have a better gun culture, rather than how to just have more guns and more people who shoot.

The point, to him, does not seem to be about teaching responsible gun culture, or making sure all adults are prepared to make wise choices in situations involving guns, or to simplify our gun ownership pathways and regulations.

It seems to be purely a political move that says nothing but "shooting good!" and conformity rather than choice. "Gun required area"? Really?

If you go into teaching kids about guns with that kind of attitude, you are going to fail to teach them the most important aspects of living in an armed society, or using a gun personally.

It's not that the concept of what he's describing bugs me in and of itself. It's the complete lack of emphasis on solving actual problems.

Here is the reality. In every country with high gun ownership and low gun crime, there are two things going on.

Yes, there is some kind of mandatory training.

But there is also a profound emphasis on respect and cohesion and, YES, regarding guns as dangerous because they ARE. I learned this in every kind of weaponry training I have ever done -- none of which are as potentially lethal as guns. Weapons ARE dangerous. You should respect them.

The interesting thing about nearly every culture where guns are common or required that has low crime rates is that it requires the culture to see itself less in terms of fractured citizens defending their own turf, and more in terms of a people with a mutual contract of respect, for themselves, for others, for weaponry. That's the exact opposite of what we have in America, and Johnson's proposal will do absolutely nothing to solve that.

It is not just about learning to shoot. We should never treat guns as simply an accessory. They're NOT. Guns are serious, like all weapons, and to try to downplay that seriousness will not lead to a better and more responsible gun culture.

The deference for weaponry needs to come first -- before ANYTHING else, if we are ever going to solve not only our gun crime rates, but also our uninformed and fractured gun culture.
 
Shooting classes should be offered, perhaps even encouraged, but certainly not mandatory.
 
Is that everything you learned at school?

No maths? geography? physics? history? chemestry? biology?

Did you flunk out at 13?

So you want them to substitute gun training for math, history, geography.....Okay no problemo.
 
The schools would likely use some sort of air or soft air weapons so, it wouldn't be like a student could go berserk and start killing people.

We teach our children gun responsibility but, having the school reinforce is a bonus.

Some parents aren't equipped to do, and may choose to allow the school to teach it.
 
Then you and I have a very different opinion about the option "other .............. (please explain)

You only have 10 options so I decided to put down these options and leave one open for people with other opinions.

And reviewing your 10 options there is bias. Just admit it.
 
And reviewing your 10 options there is bias. Just admit it.

Do I think it is a moronic idea? Yes, quite obviously you can read in every sentence (just about) of my opening statement. And why not, it is not illegal to have a bias against guns. I gave honest options, nobody can say there is not an opinion in there that they can agree to to a great extend.

I just threw in 2 funny meant options too (get a nobel peace price and the gangbanger statement) too because it is (in my opinion) a bit of an insane idea.
 
Make shooting lessons mandatory at schools, this is what Bill Johnson has said in a video from NRA News.

He said that kids are learning how to read and write and that these are deemed necessary skills, but if it were up to him (and I would assume the NRA or they would not have made this clip/released it) shooting would also be a skill that was learned at school from now on.

But he goes one step further to thumb the NRA nose at parents who will not allow guns in the house or who are anti-guns, learning to shoot guns at school would become mandatory if a child wishes to advance to the next grade. In other words, if your kid (even though you are vehemently against guns) wants to go to the next grade at school he will have to complete a gun shooting course or he will be held back.

“To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them” — Richard Henry Lee​

I think that it is an excellent idea to include marksmanship and gun safety training as part of every standard school curriculum. I think that such training should include not only the physical skills of accurately and safely shooting and handling a gun, but the social, legal, and ethical issues surrounding the use of a gun.

I do think the proposal, as described here, goes a bit too far. If parents have a strong enough objection, I think they should be able to withhold their children from such training (though, if that child goes on to be involved in a gun-related tragedy that might have been prevented had the child received this training perhaps the parents should bear some liability). I also do not think one's progression from one grade to the next should be so wholly dependent on mastering any one subject; unless this lack of mastery is likely to seriously hinder that student's ability to learn what he needs to in the next grade. At worst, a student who fails to achieve the desired level of mastery of gun-related skills in one grade, can repeat that class while he is in the next grade. One year should be plenty of time to teach a student all the gun-related skills and knowledge he needs, and the public school system gets thirteen years with each student. I do not see any good reason at all why, if the public school system is intent on providing a decent level of gun training, that they cannot, in thirteen years, educate 99.999999999% of all their students to an acceptable level in this field.
 
Back
Top Bottom