Skip to comments.Gun Safety 101 Sparks Debate (in Arizona Schools)
Posted on 05/24/2005 10:42:04 PM PDT by FairOpinion
Arizona schools have added a fourth "R" to reading, writing and arithmetic rifles.
Students who choose to enroll in this new course learn the safe way to handle a gun and earn one credit the equivalent to ceramics or photography electives. Critics are gunning the debate; they say handing teenagers loaded weapons equals trouble.
We learn life skills, like when we miss [a shot], not to get mad. You learn a lot of cooperation with your team members, said student Kim Peters.
And many parents argue they would rather their children learn how to handle a gun and be safe, than be sorry.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
Excellent. Teach it in conjunction with American History and Civics.
I am ABSOLUTELY opposed to this! I cannot rely on govmint schools to teach my child math, how can I allow them to teach my child gun safety? Just like Character Education, this is a waste of my son's time.
I learned at a very young age. I started shooting at around 7 or 8 years old. I'm a total nazi when it comes to gun safety. I really lay down the law when i bring people to the range with me just like my father did when i was young. He is a retired Drill Instructor during Vietnam... you can imagine he taught me gun safety... :)
Relax, it will be taught by qualified instructors.
"Arizona's State Game and Fish Department said it will dispatch qualified, trained instructors to every school that signs up."
That's what they said about the math teachers.
Gun safety being taught in govmint schools ... whatcha think?
And do you think a govmint instructor will do likewise? Like your father did, like my father and grandfather did, and like I'm doing, it's up to parents to teach their children some things, and gun safety is one of those things.
Yes and SEX education too!!! Now look at the moral filth they are teaching them!!
Exactly my point. We're told that some children aren't taught these things at home, and therefore it should be taught in the schools. Sex ed, character ed, drivers ed, and now, apparently, gun safety ed.
But then, through the courts, some Michael Nudow comes along and says his rights are somehow infringed because of the way (fill in the blank) is being taught. So the majority of the parents lose to a minority thanks to the courts, and next thing you know they're teaching the kids gun safety courses without telling them what a gun is or why you should be safe around it. Don't want to upset little Johnny and Suzie by telling them it might kill someone if you put it in the hands of an idiot.
Maybe it's an unrealistic scenario, but some things need to be kept at the house and out of the schools, and I'm tired of seeing the schools attempt to usurp my authority over my children at every turn. And that's what this looks like to me.
"The one weapon every man, soldier, sailor, or airman should be able to use effectively is the rifle."
-President Dwight D. Eisenhower
You should like this then:
Fascinating. I've only had time to browse, but this is very similar to what I've said on these boards many times - we're losing the Cold War because we are confused (today) about what we are fighting. We weren't fighting the Soviets, as many seem to think. We are fighting the ideas of communism, and when the Berlin Wall came tumbling down, it unleashed a flood of socialism and communism that has swept Europe and threatens to soak the United States.
I look forward to reading this tomorrow evening when I'm not supposed to be working. Thank you.
If you think it's a good idea to allow your children to learn gun training from your local govmint school system, have fun with that and let me know how it turns out.
It's possible that not all government schools are staffed by moonbat leftists or zero-tolerance nitwits.
Are you certain this is the position you want to take?
Two more things to add to my list of things that shouldn't be left to the school systems to teach.
I'm not trying to pick fights tonight, but it is so obvious to me that this is exactly opposite of excellent. I hope you'll give some serious consideration to how much authority and responsibility for our children we have already (as a society) turned over to our government run schools and reconsider your position on this.
Which would you rather have them taught in government schools.
My State Rep was one of the co-sponsors on the bill, I had the opportunity to thank him in person this evening.
And it also reduces the "curiosity factor", which entices kids who've never been around guns to handle one when they encounter it.
Before my three kids ever fired their first shot, they had demonstrated the ability to field-strip, clean, and re-assemble any weapon in which they showed an interest. That did wonders to satisfy curiosity...
Would you say the same thing about character education? Afterall, don't we want our children to have the integrity character education is supposedly giving them? But what is the curriculum? Do you actually consider the things being taught to coincide with your value system?
The fact that a school system would even consider allowing a gun safety course should be your first clue that the school system is stepping into an arena where it has no business going. Why, in the name of all that's good and holy, would it be necessary for schools to offer gun safety as an elective?
What about behavior problem kids? Are they going to be allowed into the class? How, in today's world of inclusion, will you prevent them from being in the class?
The schools, the laws that govern the schools, the administrators and curriculum developers on college campuses - they are not on your side. Their goal, whether intentional or simply unconscious but institutionalized, is to strip you of authority over your children and replace you as the primary caregiver/rolemodel/disciplinarian ... parent ... in your child's life.
Military schools, like private schools or Catholic schools or auto mechanic schools are different because they have different goals. To compare military schools to government run public schools is comparing apples to the Citadel. One is a fruit, the other is a military school.
We handled different types of guns and learned the safety features of each. It was mandatory, and taught for half the semester...the other half was state history. At the time, all of my friends in neighboring school districts had the same program.
I also went to Bible camp where we had rifle and archery shooting matches. Not one parent complained in either instance.
What are you talking about? My school system decides for me what my child eats for breakfast. My school system decides for me whether or not my child is sick or has to see a doctor. My school system routinely threatens to have parents arrested and seeks warrants for parents. I saw my children's elementary school principal in court seeking warrants against parents just two weeks ago.
I don't want or need my school now teaching something to my child that is my responsibility to teach.
Do you oppose driver education? The two skills are roughly equivalent.
Math on the other hand...
I don't doubt that your congressman may have had good intentions, but I'm very hopeful this doesn't catch on. If your brother's granddaughter isn't learning gun safety at home, then it suits me fine that she's simply afraid of guns and leaves them alone. If your brother wants her to not be afraid of guns, then it should be up to him, not the schools, to teach her how to properly handle a gun.
No. It's definately an unrealistic scenario.
You're pulling hypotheticals out of your hat with no other result but failure as an option.
Schools do manage to occasionally teach a kid to read you know.
In today's world it is unreasonable to expect that everyone doesn't need to know how to drive. It is not unreasonable to expect that some people don't need to own guns. Furthermore, I hope we don't have to become licensed to operate a gun in my state, whereas operating a car you do have to be licensed.
That said, my experience with driver's education was that it was a waste of time. We watched some videos where we pretended to drive and kids in the videos chased balls into the street. Most everyone in my class pretended to hit their excellerator instead of their break. When we actually got on the driving course, the coach who taught driver's ed slept while we fooled around, jerking the wheels back and forth, tagging people's bumpers.
We all passed. If it is available, I will enroll my children in driver's ed to lower their insurance rates, but they will know how to drive safely long before they step into that classroom.
What about inclusion? What happens with the class idiot wants into the gun safety elective?
What about it? Do you need a degree to handle a gun competently?
Thank god for our right-minded conservatives in this state, our only stain is our governor and McStain himself.
We're not talking about your experience... why are you looking for a problem to have? How can total ignorance of the subject be preferable?
I believe that this is a bad idea. I will continue to teach gun safety to my children and not leave it to the schools to do something that is my responsibility. If you choose to not view this as your responsibility and turn over good home training to your wonderful Arizona school systems that reflect your values, then I wish you luck with that.
Awesome....Arizona sound like my kind of state...except for J.M.
And you can continue to frame your opposition as some form of dedicated parenting, but you'd still be wrong.
The choice is not between good instruction and bad instruction, but between some instruction and no instruction.
Kinda puts temporary governor of Washington State Christine Gregoire's mandetory classes for local indian tribes study in perspective......
If you like that, you'd love Florida.
We don't teach gun safety cause around here that'd be like teaching shoe tyin'
What children are getting "no instruction" in gun safety?
Teaching children to be responsible with guns is not "dedicated parenting" it's just parenting.
How about virtually every child being raised by a single mother?
gun safety should be like tying shoelaces...second nature.
If single mothers are not telling their sons and daughters not to play with guns (which is the most basic form of gun safety training) then that is bad parenting. It should not be the role of schools to attempt to make up for bad parenting.
Did your parents or your teachers teach you how to tie your shoes?
Now your just trying to save face.
The whole point is telling kids not to play with guns isn't enough. And it's not the most basic form of gun safety. It's ignoring the natural proclivities of children.
Shoes? What's shoes?
Your concept of the role of government frightens me. Your willingness to turn over to the government your responsibility as a parent should frighten your children.
It is not necessary for everyone in this country to know how to use a gun. Many people get by just fine knowing only the most basic lesson in gun safety - don't play with guns. Yet for some reason, you seem to be under the impression that this is a skill as necessary to modern life as driving a car.
Don't confuse my "concept of the role of government" with what you are imputing to me. I have said nothing about a governmental "role" on this issue. I simply accept the fact that many Americans do not share my interest in firearms, and so have little interest in informing their children on the subject.
You, on the other hand, begin insisting on firearm training "at home," then claim "it's not necessary for everyone."
Well which is it?
There's nothing contradictory about what I've said. Even at the most basic level - teaching children not to play with firearms - it is the parents' responsibility. Some will teach more than that, others won't and don't have to.
I see no difference in this than I do the schools teaching sex ed or character ed or driver's ed. It is not the role of the government to teach my children about sex, about manners or how to drive. And under these circumstances it is certainly not the role of the government to teach my children how to shoot.
I'm with you there, my friend. I grew up around guns, and assumed everyone else had also. I used to show people my guns, and assume that they would treat them as loaded, even though I knew they weren't (didn't want to insult anyone). I quickly realized that most people are clueless about guns, even a lot of guys who grew up in the country.
I reminded my kids of the three basic rules of gun safety EVERY time I took them shooting (there are more, I know, but these are the most important, IMHO):
1) Always treat every gun as if it's loaded
2) Finger off the trigger until you're ready to shoot
3) Always make sure of your target and the backstop.
On a final note, I look like an idiot sometimes, going around exercising good trigger discipline on my cordless drill, but I know I'll never drill anything until I'm ready. :-)
This is the fundamental flaw with your argument. Like proving a negative, you can't teach anyone NOT to do something: only TO do something. You can try to constantly reinforce prohibition, but you can't instruct to prohibit.
With half of all American households containing guns, it is simply irresponsible to consign the children of the non-gun owning homes to total ignorance of the subject.