• 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
I think they could fit it in on the days they aren't learning to put a condom on a banana.
Those kids are doing that about as much as they're being forced to learn to shoot guns right now, American. :roll:
 
Train the militia, aka the army as it is known now. Forcing children is not training the militia.

The Army is not the militia. See Title32 USC.

Schools are already forcing children to learn all sorts of things, so it's to late to try to argue that.
 
As far as I am concerned...the NRA national leadership generally service the gun/ammo manufacturers.
Those manufacturers make a product I would like to keep perfectly legal for everyone to own & carry, so I'm ok with that.
 
The Army is not the militia. See Title32 USC.

Schools are already forcing children to learn all sorts of things, so it's to late to try to argue that.

Learning all sorts of things does not have to include the shooting of guns. That at least is my opinion. It is purely the rights of parents to decide about that issue, not the government.

And now I am going to have to be silent because there is a minute of silence in progress.
 
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

A number of countries (especially those where military service is considered to be mandatory), already do this. Switzerland is probably the best example of them.

While I don't think this is "necessary" per se, I really wouldn't see the harm either. Shooting can be a very useful skill. :shrug:
 
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.

As usual, Haymarket, I agree with you about 99% . Classes in shooting and proper use of firearms MUST be outside the school ..Maybe tied in with the Boy Scouts . My daughter, like .. 90% I guess, was bought up in a gun free zone ..but NOTHING was ever said , positive or negative ...This is the way I think things should be ..
 
I would assume that gun ownership in that time was much more prevalent in the USA, even though the number of guns and the caliber of guns used would have been much lower.
And in that time people would not think about using guns even though their parents might own a gun, children in that time listened to their parents a lot better. There is a multitude of reasons youths these days think using firearms in fights is OK, but it has nothing to do with political correctness or kids not being taught to shoot at schools.

And I am not saying that kids should not learn gun safety, I just do not think that schools are the appropriate place for it as part of the school curriculum or that the shooting itself may take place at the schools. I think that would best be done as an extra curricular activity off campus and not on school property.

Back during the day, the caliber of rifles and handguns that most Americans preferred were larger. Full power 30-06 rifle cartridge and .45 ACP or .45 Long Colt for handguns. It wasn't until recently that Americans dumbed down to pantywaist intermediate rifle cartridges like the 5.56 or the Europeans pea shooter 9 mm.

In many American cities that are in blue states, the BB gun has been outlawed. Just about every boy during my generation owned a Daisy Red Ryder BB rifle during his pre teen years.

Som liberal cities have outlawed toy guns. Even little one inch toy soldiers are banned from being sold in toy stores in some progressive municpalities.

This NRA program has been very sucessfull in the schools.

Eddie Eagle GunSafe

What is The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program?

The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program teaches children in pre-K through third grade four important steps to take if they find a gun. These steps are presented by the program's mascot, Eddie Eagle, in an easy-to-remember format consisting of the following simple rules:

If you see a gun:

STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.


Begun in 1988, The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program has reached more than 26 million children - in all 50 states. This program was developed through the combined efforts of such qualified professionals as clinical psychologists, reading specialists, teachers, curriculum specialists, urban housing safety officials, and law enforcement personnel.

Anyone may teach The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program, and NRA membership is not required. The program may be readily incorporated into existing school curriculum, taught in a one- to five-day format, and used to reach both levels or simply one or two grades. Materials available through this program are: student workbooks, 7-minute animated DVD, instructor guides, brochures, and student reward stickers. Program materials are also available in Spanish.

The NRA is committed to helping keep America's young children safe. In efforts to do so, we offer our program at a nominal fee. Schools, law enforcement agencies, hospitals, daycare centers, and libraries may be eligible to receive grant funding to defray program costs. Grant funding is available in many states to these groups to cover the cost of all program curriculum materials.

The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn't to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program makes no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms are ever used in the program. Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they're treated simply as a fact of everyday life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it's a stance that makes sense.

Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention - ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members. The NRA does not receive any appropriations from Congress, nor is it a trade organization. It is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.

Eddie Eagle GunSafe|Eddie Eagle GunSafe
 
Back during the day, the caliber of rifles and handguns that most Americans preferred were larger. Full power 30-06 rifle cartridge and .45 ACP or .45 Long Colt for handguns. It wasn't until recently that Americans dumbed down to pantywaist intermediate rifle cartridges like the 5.56 or the Europeans pea shooter 9 mm.

In many American cities that are in blue states, the BB gun has been outlawed. Just about every boy during my generation owned a Daisy Red Ryder BB rifle during his pre teen years.

Som liberal cities have outlawed toy guns. Even little one inch toy soldiers are banned from being sold in toy stores in some progressive municpalities.

This NRA program has been very sucessfull in the schools.

Eddie Eagle GunSafe

What is The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program?

The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program teaches children in pre-K through third grade four important steps to take if they find a gun. These steps are presented by the program's mascot, Eddie Eagle, in an easy-to-remember format consisting of the following simple rules:

If you see a gun:

STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.


Begun in 1988, The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program has reached more than 26 million children - in all 50 states. This program was developed through the combined efforts of such qualified professionals as clinical psychologists, reading specialists, teachers, curriculum specialists, urban housing safety officials, and law enforcement personnel.

Anyone may teach The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program, and NRA membership is not required. The program may be readily incorporated into existing school curriculum, taught in a one- to five-day format, and used to reach both levels or simply one or two grades. Materials available through this program are: student workbooks, 7-minute animated DVD, instructor guides, brochures, and student reward stickers. Program materials are also available in Spanish.

The NRA is committed to helping keep America's young children safe. In efforts to do so, we offer our program at a nominal fee. Schools, law enforcement agencies, hospitals, daycare centers, and libraries may be eligible to receive grant funding to defray program costs. Grant funding is available in many states to these groups to cover the cost of all program curriculum materials.

The purpose of the Eddie Eagle Program isn't to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children. The program makes no value judgments about firearms, and no firearms are ever used in the program. Like swimming pools, electrical outlets, matchbooks and household poison, they're treated simply as a fact of everyday life. With firearms found in about half of all American households, it's a stance that makes sense.

Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention - ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members. The NRA does not receive any appropriations from Congress, nor is it a trade organization. It is not affiliated with any firearm or ammunition manufacturers or with any businesses that deal in guns and ammunition.

Eddie Eagle GunSafe|Eddie Eagle GunSafe

But in that time when kids were allowed to have BB guns times were a lot more simple. The police today is first going to shoot when they see someone with a gun like "weapon" and a BB gun looks somewhat like a gun.

Schools have also changed, young adults/children have a lot more stress on schools in this day and age. Computers, mobile phones have also changed the lives of children completely. Schools have to concentrate on teaching kids the things the are going to need to succeed in their academic career and shooting guns does not seem like a good addition to the school curriculum.

That at least is my opinion.

And I was not saying that gun safety and learning to use guns safely is a bad thing. I even think it is a good thing and who knows it should maybe even be a mandatory thing. But the second amendment does not mean that schools need to start giving those kinds of gun lessons.
 
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

Next they will propose mandatory surgical implants of a gun in our hands, anything to sell more guns. It's the American way and it is killing us.

The United States has the highest gun ownership rate in the world and the highest per capita rate of firearm-related murders of all developed countries

Gun homicides and gun ownership by country - The Washington Post
 
But in that time when kids were allowed to have BB guns times were a lot more simple. The police today is first going to shoot when they see someone with a gun like "weapon" and a BB gun looks somewhat like a gun.

Schools have also changed, young adults/children have a lot more stress on schools in this day and age. Computers, mobile phones have also changed the lives of children completely. Schools have to concentrate on teaching kids the things the are going to need to succeed in their academic career and shooting guns does not seem like a good addition to the school curriculum.

That at least is my opinion.

And I was not saying that gun safety and learning to use guns safely is a bad thing. I even think it is a good thing and who knows it should maybe even be a mandatory thing. But the second amendment does not mean that schools need to start giving those kinds of gun lessons.

Actually back during those days life wasn't that simple. As children we had to use our imagination on how to preoccupy our time. Boy or girl we didn't sit in front of a TV after school but were always outside doing something. When we out grew the Mattel Fanner Fifty we moved on to more lethal toys, designing and making guns that fired strips of tire inner tubes, a large rubber band gun. Or we blew up the garage with our chemistry sets. You get caught with one of those chemistry sets today, DHS would send in SWATT and they would label you a terrorist and off to GITMO.
 
Learning all sorts of things does not have to include the shooting of guns.
No, but it should, because children have a right to information which can help keep them safe. If even 1 parent won't teach their child about guns then that by itself is a mandate to put such a class in the curriculum.
 
No, but it should, because children have a right to information which can help keep them safe. If even 1 parent won't teach their child about guns then that by itself is a mandate to put such a class in the curriculum.

How is that going to work without becoming a "nanny state" which is what republicans always claim to be against?
 
How is that going to work without becoming a "nanny state" which is what republicans always claim to be against?
Putting a 2-day class into the school year does not make a nanny-state regardles of what the class is about.

I never took you as a republican, but I don't realy care what you or the rest of the GOP is peranoid about, only that you stop being afraid of everything.
 
Those kids are doing that about as much as they're being forced to learn to shoot guns right now, American. :roll:

What, and here I heard it was part of the curriculum.
 
There are about 115 million households in America, and about 60 million of those households have guns... roughly half, or a bit more than half.


Basic gun safety would benefit everyone, even those opposed to gun ownership. If their kid ever came across a gun elsewhere... the Eddie Eagle gun safety program for elementary school children has shown positive results in those districts that have tried it.
Treat it kind of like sex education, automatic enrollment unless the parents sign an opt out waiver. That way parents who object are protected and those who like the idea have the option. School kids though should not have their future determined by either taking or passing the class though.
 
I would assume that gun ownership in that time was much more prevalent in the USA, even though the number of guns and the caliber of guns used would have been much lower.
You do realize that caliber sizes have gone up and down through the years right? Many of the ball ammunition types from the Revolutionary days were actually larger than most modern calibers, it wasn't unheard of for many black powder rifles to fire .54 and .60 caliber rounds. The .40 caliber is a relatively new round and smaller than the .45ACP or .44 magnum rounds. The 9mm and .357 magnum are among the most popular rounds currently with the former being close in dimensions to the .38.

And in that time people would not think about using guns even though their parents might own a gun, children in that time listened to their parents a lot better. There is a multitude of reasons youths these days think using firearms in fights is OK, but it has nothing to do with political correctness or kids not being taught to shoot at schools.
This is just not correct, accidental shootings are at an all time low. It has also been pointed out a lot of the "children" involved in these "shoot first" examples were in gangs and were between the ages of approx. 18-25.
And I am not saying that kids should not learn gun safety, I just do not think that schools are the appropriate place for it as part of the school curriculum or that the shooting itself may take place at the schools. I think that would best be done as an extra curricular activity off campus and not on school property.
So where is the line? Should schools teach driving and sex education? Should schools invite motivational speakers or other folks that a message may or may not comply with what parents feel is right for their child?
 
You do realize that caliber sizes have gone up and down through the years right? Many of the ball ammunition types from the Revolutionary days were actually larger than most modern calibers, it wasn't unheard of for many black powder rifles to fire .54 and .60 caliber rounds. The .40 caliber is a relatively new round and smaller than the .45ACP or .44 magnum rounds. The 9mm and .357 magnum are among the most popular rounds currently with the former being close in dimensions to the .38.

But I was not talking about the revolutionary wars, I was discussing the weapons most prevalent in the 50's/60's where there were not a whole of of semi automatic uzi's and weapons of that caliber around.

This is just not correct, accidental shootings are at an all time low. It has also been pointed out a lot of the "children" involved in these "shoot first" examples were in gangs and were between the ages of approx. 18-25.

I do not know what you are talking about. I was at least not talking about accidental shootings but that "youths" in the time I was talking about with Apacherat would never think about using the gun from their house in a regular fight whereas youths these days think the use of guns in fights is totally acceptable.

So where is the line? Should schools teach driving and sex education? Should schools invite motivational speakers or other folks that a message may or may not comply with what parents feel is right for their child?

Of course children should be taught traffic rules, driving is not something I think is the duty of the schools but most youths will be driving at some time in their youth and almost certainly most if not all kids will be having sex and preventing unwanted teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is a good thing. A lot of people will not shot guns in their lives and if parents want their children to learn that they should do that outside of school.
 
I've taught children as young as 4 the basics of safe gunhandling and marksmanship; I've also declined to teach some kids that were not, IMO, ready for it, even though they were a bit older.

The Eddie Eagle NRA program is suitable for all ages and enhances safety; however most districts refuse to implement it due to hate for the NRA.

Any youth who isn't fit (mature) to learn basic marksmanship by age 16 or 17 is a sad sack indeed, and the parents ought to be slapped. A car is more dangerous than a gun.
 
But I was not talking about the revolutionary wars, I was discussing the weapons most prevalent in the 50's/60's where there were not a whole of of semi automatic uzi's and weapons of that caliber around.
You said explicitly that calibers are getting larger, that is absolutely false. First, the 9mm round has been around since 1902, invented by Luger and it is the same round used in the Uzi(first uses IDF, 1954). The .50 caliber round has been in use for over two centuries.

I do not know what you are talking about. I was at least not talking about accidental shootings but that "youths" in the time I was talking about with Apacherat would never think about using the gun from their house in a regular fight whereas youths these days think the use of guns in fights is totally acceptable.
Yes, that is also not the case, most kids are not killing each other with guns but in some areas yes it does happen. Most of the "kids" used in statistics are legal adults.



Of course children should be taught traffic rules, driving is not something I think is the duty of the schools but most youths will be driving at some time in their youth and almost certainly most if not all kids will be having sex and preventing unwanted teen pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases is a good thing. A lot of people will not shot guns in their lives and if parents want their children to learn that they should do that outside of school.
So that is the school's responsibility? But teaching general firearms safety is not? Consistency?
 
If the NRA is pushing any agenda, gun supporters on the right will be pressured to fall in line. If they don't, they risk political fall out and looking weak/soft on guns.

The NRA knows it holds political power and such legislation will benefit them, gun manufactures, and the overall industry.

My personal opinion is that I don't support the concept, nor do I see a benefit. I don't want my seven year old niece firing a gun and being responsible for a weapon. She can't even wash her hands properly. If kids are going to learn about firearms, it should involve parental supervision.

Furthermore, putting guns in the.hands of some kids at some of.the city schools I went to, would be a horrible and stupid idea. I knew a girl who stabbed another girl in art class with a drafting compass.

And the obvious question is, are any of these kids going to screened for mental illness, depression, or social issues before a teacher puts a gun in their hand?




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
 
If the NRA is pushing any agenda, gun supporters on the right will be pressured to fall in line. If they don't, they risk political fall out and looking weak/soft on guns.

The NRA knows it holds political power and such legislation will benefit them, gun manufactures, and the overall industry.

My personal opinion is that I don't support the concept, nor do I see a benefit. I don't want my seven year old niece firing a gun and being responsible for a weapon. She can't even wash her hands properly. If kids are going to learn about firearms, it should involve parental supervision.

Furthermore, putting guns in the.hands of some kids at some of.the city schools I went to, would be a horrible and stupid idea. I knew a girl who stabbed another girl in art class with a drafting compass.

And the obvious question is, are any of these kids going to screened for mental illness, depression, or social issues before a teacher puts a gun in their hand?
If a 7 y/o can't even wash her hads, that's a whole other set of problems.
 
This is worse than a bad idea. This is an insult to civilization. We shouldn't be teaching children to kill.

Really? Not even to survive? Lost in the wild? Eat bark till you die. Intruder? Comply and hope he only rapes you. Charging animal? Talk gently to it. Social unrest? On your knees and pray.
 
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

Well, that's actually a pretty stupid idea. There used to be rifle teams though; I as on one in high school. I'm for competition shooting as another sporting activity. There used to archery too, but I think they're both all gone now.
 
Back
Top Bottom