• 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
Tsunami said:
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.
Click to expand...

I still go to school in Virginia. It is not mandatory until 8th grade or so, I believe.
 
I don't think mandatory is a good idea, as it's not really a core subject. However, I support and endorse school sponsored gun safety classes. I had the option of taking one when I was 14(I think).
 
Kandahar said:
And this has what to do with firearm safety classes in schools?
Click to expand...

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.

Kandahar said:
Perhaps instead of incoherently ranting against "The Left" like a moron,
Click to expand...

I don't rant like you.

Kandahar said:
you'd care to actually address the subject of the thread for once.
Click to expand...

I did, that's why you're resorting to your usual waste of time personal attacks.
 
Last edited:
Who takes responsibility when a well trained "student" uses a gun to kill his classmates? No. A class like this would pose a legal nightmare the minute a school shooting happens and one of the shooters is found to have taken the class. Regardless of how much some here think this would be a good idea, not a single school, reasonable teacher or person working in education would get involved with something like this.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Who takes responsibility when a well trained "student" uses a gun to kill his classmates?
Click to expand...
The student and his parents.
Hatuey said:
A class like this would pose a legal nightmare the minute a school shooting happens and one of the shooters is found to have taken the class.
Click to expand...
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.
Hatuey said:
Regardless of how much some here think this would be a good idea, not a single school, reasonable teacher or person working in education would get involved with something like this.
Click to expand...
I do not agree.
 
Kandahar said:
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.
Click to expand...

The most likely people to negligently discharge a firearm are ignorant little urbanites/suburbanites who mimic action movies.
 
Yes, it should be offered as a class in school, and you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun unles you've passed.
 
Why not make it required? The gross amount of time spent on educating people about firearm safety would be like five hours, if that.

Here's the core curriculum:

1. Treat every weapon as if it were loaded.
2. Never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot.
3. Keep your finger straight and off the trigger until you are ready to fire.
4. Keep the weapon on safe until you intend to fire.
5. Know your target and what's behind it.
 
Ethereal said:
Why not make it required?
Click to expand...

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.
 
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...

True enough. Sad state of affairs.
 
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...

So, make it mandatory, but with exceptions for such cases.
 
The Mark said:
So, make it mandatory, but with exceptions for such cases.
Click to expand...

Actually, that is what many districts do with sex ed. The default is, you take it...unless your parents sign a paper saying they will not allow it, in which case you're stuck in study hall or something during the class.

I have forgotten whether it was Goobie or Scarecrow that brought it up... we make sex ed mandatory or "standard" part of education, because of the risks that ignorance brings... why not apply the same standard to firearms education?

The far right doesn't want sex-ed, the far left doesn't want gun-ed. :mrgreen: Both address societal health and safety concerns.
 
molten_dragon said:
Yes, it should be offered as a class in school, and you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun unles you've passed.
Click to expand...

I disagree with that part. You do not need to ask the government permission to exercise rights.
 
Originally Posted by molten_dragon
Yes, it should be offered as a class in school, and you shouldn't be allowed to buy a gun unles you've passed.
Click to expand...

jamesrage said:
I disagree with that part. You do not need to ask the government permission to exercise rights.
Click to expand...


In theory, I wouldn't mind too much, requiring someone to pass a class or exam on basic firearms safety and/or marksmanship before they were allowed to independently possess firearms. Educated/trained and safe gun owners are clearly a benefit to society.

In practice, the problem is this: once you allow gov't to set the standards under which you may exercise a right, gov't is free to raise the bar irrationally high until no one (or at least, no one without "friends in high places") can pass the standard... and the right becomes an unattainable privilege. We've seen how this works with some states having "discretionary issue" concealed-carry licenses...and it being nearly impossible to get one unless you play golf with someone named Kennedy. :mrgreen:

On the whole, thumbs down to the idea.
 
Last edited:
Goshin said:
In theory, I wouldn't mind too much, requiring someone to pass a class or exam on basic firearms safety and/or marksmanship before they were allowed to independently possess firearms. Educated/trained and safe gun owners are clearly a benefit to society.

In practice, the problem is this: once you allow gov't to set the standards under which you may exercise a right, gov't is free to raise the bar irrationally high until no one (or at least, no one without "friends in high places") can pass the standard... and the right becomes an unattainable privilege. We've seen how this works with some states having "discretionary issue" concealed-carry licenses...and it being nearly impossible to get one unless you play golf with someone named Kennedy. :mrgreen:

On the whole, thumbs down to the idea.
Click to expand...


This is why I think making it a required subject in school a good compromise. It ensures that future generations are more fire arm safety conscience and know how to use a firearm while at the same time the government doesn't get to say you must jump this hoop and this hoop to exercise a constitutional right.
 
jamesrage said:
I disagree with that part. You do not need to ask the government permission to exercise rights.
Click to expand...

That's not entirely true. And in this case it would be a fairly moot point. The classes would be offered before people would be old enough to purchase a firearm. As far as passing it goes, should we really be offering guns up to people who have proven they can't handle them safely?
 
molten_dragon said:
That's not entirely true. And in this case it would be a fairly moot point. The classes would be offered before people would be old enough to purchase a firearm. As far as passing it goes, should we really be offering guns up to people who have proven they can't handle them safely?
Click to expand...

Well, as to that, i'm sure they could aquire one, regardless of any "offering up".

I suppose some gunshops could require a passing grade in a standard test given to those who took such a class. But that would be up to them.
 
molten_dragon said:
As far as passing it goes, should we really be offering guns up to people who have proven they can't handle them safely?
Click to expand...

The thing about rights is that you do not need to prove **** to the government to exercise them. Should we make people take "speech classes" and "get licenses from the government before they can join political forums to discuss politics? Who knows you might revel government secrets or slander someone.
 
molten_dragon said:
That's not entirely true. And in this case it would be a fairly moot point. The classes would be offered before people would be old enough to purchase a firearm. As far as passing it goes, should we really be offering guns up to people who have proven they can't handle them safely?
Click to expand...

That doesn't address my point, that letting government set the standards to exercise a right, allows them to raise the bar so high no one can meet it. I cited examples of how this has already been done.
 
jamesrage said:
The thing about rights is that you do not need to prove **** to the government to exercise them. Should we make people take "speech classes" and "get licenses from the government before they can join political forums to discuss politics? Who knows you might revel government secrets or slander someone.
Click to expand...

We do have to get licenses to exercise our right to free speech in some situations.
 
Goshin said:
That doesn't address my point, that letting government set the standards to exercise a right, allows them to raise the bar so high no one can meet it. I cited examples of how this has already been done.
Click to expand...

Slippery slope fallacy. Yes, it would allow them to do so, but that doesn't mean that they will. If the government is setting the standards too high, vote for someone who'll set them lower.
 
molten_dragon said:
Slippery slope fallacy. Yes, it would allow them to do so, but that doesn't mean that they will. If the government is setting the standards too high, vote for someone who'll set them lower.
Click to expand...

From what I’ve seen, if we let our government gain power, it is extremely hard to get them to release it.

Basically, I don't trust them.

So IMO, not allowing any even vague infringement (even if it seems it would make us safer, perhaps) is the best route.
 
molten_dragon said:
Slippery slope fallacy. Yes, it would allow them to do so, but that doesn't mean that they will. If the government is setting the standards too high, vote for someone who'll set them lower.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom