Gun education for high school students?

[Sparta]

Fine, I accept that you are all right. Afterall I don't live there, so I wouldn't know. I suggest you stick to your guns ('scuse the pun) and stick to those rampant crime and fatality figures and your Columbine incidents and all the rest of the gun nastiness that so many non-Americans find so hard 'to appreciate'. I don't really care what is taught in the schools over there quite frankly, that's your business. But clearly your politicans have got it all figured with regard to guns and I just hear more towing of the same old line in these posts.

I also agree that they are quite ubiquitous in American society. You will never get rid of them, of course I realise that, and I thank you all for stretching my words to conclusions and drawing such literal parallels that I would 'naturally' have taken them to. I'm clearly wrong aren't I. So why should I bother sharing with you that so many people around the world, who are not exposed to the ubiquity of guns (I have and also haven't), find it totally abhorent and unacceptable to have such liberal access to them. Wrap it up whichever way you guys want, like I say, it's your business but this incessant excusing of guns in society is one reason why I will never choose to raise a family in the USA. I just hope my ineffectual warblings gave you some impression of what a world apart a gun ridden society is for many people.

I wish you guys luck with it, and in saying that I drop all sarcasm completely.

(I believe) We don’t mean to back you into a corner here, Rambuchan – I hope you don’t feel ganged up on due to the relative scarcity of compatriots on your side of the argument at this point in the thread (note that this is the time of day that we in the western time zones will be wasting work time). I also hope I didn’t unnecessarily stretch your words – I just meant to point out my disagreement with the philosophy that government restrictions can effectively eliminate a black market presence. In my eyes, that leads to the right of the law-abiding to defend against such, but that’s both delving into the topic of gun control as a whole and also possibly just a difference in societal philosophies between the Americas and UK (not that I presume to speak for either).

I guess my main argument for the inclusion of such courses would be that they’d be a monitored, supervised way of electively teaching gun safety. There are already far too many opportunities for the criminally minded to train themselves on guns as weapons to be concerned about adding educational options to the list for average citizens, IMHO.

 

[Sparta]

People say things like this all the time, but they never think about what it entails exactly. If armed MPs show up at your door to take you off to Gitmo, would it help your situation much to open fire on them?

Personally at least, I view that scenario in completely the opposite way. If armed MP’s show up at my door, and I reasonably believe it their goal to be to enforce an act of tyranny of my/your government, I think I should have the right to have the ability to go down firing. And I would. If the iris scan thing ever makes it here, it’ll take a bullet or a knife to pluck one out of my eyes. (Please note I mean no offense to MP's/police; the government/world is (thankfully) a long ways off from such measures. I still agree with eyrei though that it is a good thing to allow citizenry the ability to attempt as much.)

Igloo, this is one issue where you and me could never agree in a million years. If the highschool was offering a course in knife fighting to students, would you think its a good way to teach them how to be responsible?

But the analogous course wouldn’t be on knife-fighting, but rather on the safe handling of knives, including kitchen and hunting knives. That’s one of the disagreements that seems to keep recurring here – I really don’t believe such courses (having taken one) have any real influence whatsoever on ability to use firearms, but rather are focused on the ability to use firearms safely.

 

[Rambuchan]

Well Sparta, yes I felt ganged up on but that's also because I was just firing off (why can't I get away from these puns?) emotional lines based on terrifying childhood experiences. I ganged up with you on myself for my lack of research. I've never really looked into gun policies or debates really, largely because they are pretty much irrelevant to my life. But I have now and, wait for it, I've had an epiphany!

Have a read of these:

Some Frequently Overlooked Facts in Gun Policy Discussions. Talk about shooting myself in the foot by giving this link out! (oops there I go again)

The Failed Experiment. PDF - compares gun restriction policies in UK, USA, Canada and Australia, with violent crime figures from the same.

@ Bugfatty300 the PDF actually doesn't caste Canada in that great a light. And check this, it's quite long but the best of the lot:

CANADIAN GUN CONTROL: SHOULD THE UNITED STATES LOOK NORTH FOR A SOLUTION TO ITS FIREARMS PROBLEM?

Most interesting. I recommend you jump to the conclusion of the last linked article.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Sparta, but why are children allowed to be around guns in the first place?

 

[Rambuchan]

Sparta, but why are children allowed to be around guns in the first place?

Despite all the content I've just read in those links, I have to say I keep returning to that question you ask above.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Ram, yeah, I cant get passed that one either. Ive never heard an argument that could persuade me its a good idea to put guns in the hands of kids.

 

[Sparta]

Holy lotta data, Rambuchan! I'll have to read more of it tonight once I'm not at risk of being busted by the boss. Congrats on the epiphany!

Sparta, but why are children allowed to be around guns in the first place?

Hmmm...

I hate to presume to speak for the pro-class side, but in my personal view the guarding of children against guns (and in turn, the decision of what level of gun-handling is acceptable at a given age in a child-by-child case) should be more a responsibility of the parent than that of society or schools. In my area at least, children under 12 are not supposed to be allowed to be around guns at all, and once you're 12 you are able to (electively, and with parental support and participation) take a gun safety class to qualify yourself as a competent handler of firearms and thereby allow you to acquire hunting permits etc.

I’d like to believe that a child over twelve who has had a course on gun safety and thereby understands (and respects, a major goal of such classes) their potential danger, when supervised by a responsible adult, is within an acceptable risk range for being allowed to hunt. (Anecdotally, there are of course children well over this age that are nowhere near safe enough, just as there are full-grown adults I wouldn’t allow in the woods with a gun if I had my way, and also adults incapable of supervising children at all, let alone children with guns. In my view, society’s responsibility would be finding a reasonable compromise between measures, as it can’t completely safeguard against the small percentage of irresponsible gun users just as it can’t safeguard against the small percentage of irresponsible drivers without negatively impacting the safe drivers that make up the vast majority.)

I'm not precisely sure where we're drawing the line at 'children', but in the case of high-school students I would like to think that between somewhat active parents (a big assumption already I suppose), parental permission slips, and semi-responsible children that the majority of those being exposed to guns through such classes would be doing so out of an interest in safer handling of guns for sport, hunting, etc. By mid-high-school it appeared to me that the more criminally-minded of my classmates weren't bothered by attendance enough for us to worry about them getting to handle a gun if they actually showed up.

I can’t escape the feeling though that I’m not directly addressing what you may have been getting at. If there’s a (sub-) point I’m missing or not responding to let me know and I’ll try my best to respond after lunch. A lunch which will not involve cold spaghettios, or even Pizza Al Yesterday .

 

[Bozo Erectus]

Sparta I think if you cant trust kids with alcohol until theyre 21, it cant be a good idea to give them guns either.

 

[IglooDame]

Sparta, but why are children allowed to be around guns in the first place?

The responsible parent/gun-owner generally does the following:

When the kids are born, all firearms go out of sight under lock and key, if they aren't so already.

When the kids are three, four, five-ish, the kids are shown one or two representative guns, with very serious admonition that they are never to touch the guns, and if they see one around they are to leave it be and get an adult immediately.

When the kids are seven, eight, nine-ish, the kids are brought to the range and see/hear (with hearing/eye protection, obviously) guns being fired. At this point if they're inclined to do so, they may shoot a single-shot .22 rifle under extremely close supervision with emphasis on safety and basic marksmanship. The theme gets hammered home again that this is not a toy, is something only used under adult supervision at a range and not touched otherwise, and this is when they first get the four basic safety rules beaten into them.

If the kid is uninterested in shooting at that point, then that is generally where it tails off. If the kid is interested in continuing, heavier and bigger-recoiling rifles and pistols get introduced as the kid proves able to handle it. There are junior rifle/pistol/trap/skeet (the rifle/pistol usually .22 and trap/skeet usually 20gage, I think) leagues and occasionally school teams that run competitions, and throughout all of this the four basic safety rules get reiterated.

---------------------

If kids are responsible enough to take driver's ed in high school, then I don't see a problem with firearms ed.

 

[Sparta]

Sparta I think if you cant trust kids with alcohol until theyre 21, it cant be a good idea to give them guns either.

I can’t argue or dispute (at the very least, the sentiment behind) that point. Some would though. It seems within reason to me personally to at least debate the age limits, but with ages of consent as they are (much younger for non-handguns), that remains a topic unto itself and I am inclined view the proposed courses as reasonable.

FYI, it is illegal (at least here (WI, U.S.)) for anyone to own a handgun until age 21 actually. I’m not aware of what the restriction is regarding rifles or shotguns, although both of those are primarily geared towards hunting and may (somewhat understandably) have a younger age limitation. Regardless, with hunting what it is here, younger kids will have access to guns through what we can only hope are actively supervising and well-educated parents or adults. In that regard it would be good in my view to have a better educated populace in terms of safe handling of an admittedly dangerous tool. I fear a teenager using a relative’s gun far more when he hasn’t been strenuously taught a profound respect for the jeopardy he’s unleashing on everything in his target path.

(Edit: I should point out that I don’t necessarily agree with the drinking age being 21 either, but I can understand taking exception at the discrepancy between the two.)

 

[blackheart]

Sparta I think if you cant trust kids with alcohol until theyre 21, it cant be a good idea to give them guns either.

That's a rather generalized statement isn't it? Some can handle it, some can't. You can't trust some 40 yr olds with neither guns nor alcohol, yet they have access to both.

I think there is a HUGE difference between educating kids about guns and giving them guns. The former would mean supervision and knowledge, while the latter would be handing them a gun and telling them to go outside and play with it.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

When the kids are three, four, five-ish, the kids are shown one or two representative guns, with very serious admonition that they are never to touch the guns, and if they see one around they are to leave it be and get an adult immediately.

When the kids are seven, eight, nine-ish, the kids are brought to the range and see/hear (with hearing/eye protection, obviously) guns being fired. At this point if they're inclined to do so, they may shoot a single-shot .22 rifle under extremely close supervision with emphasis on safety and basic marksmanship. The theme gets hammered home again that this is not a toy, is something only used under adult supervision at a range and not touched otherwise, and this is when they first get the four basic safety rules beaten into them.

If the kid is uninterested in shooting at that point, then that is generally where it tails off. If the kid is interested in continuing, heavier and bigger-recoiling rifles and pistols get introduced as the kid proves able to handle it.

Meaning no disrespect sir, I know you arent a lunatic, but this just sounds like pure lunacy to me. We're from completely different planets on this one. It highlights a pretty deep cultural divide in the US.

 

[IglooDame]

Meaning no disrespect sir, I know you arent a lunatic, but this just sounds like pure lunacy to me. We're from completely different planets on this one. It highlights a pretty deep cultural divide in the US.

And no disrespect taken. But though I've never found any data to support any conclusion at all on this, anecdotes tend to point toward my method of inoculating children to gun accidents is at least as effective as simply keeping the gun locked up, particularly if there is a variety of guns around. What is definitely the most dangerous 'method' is not keeping the guns locked up and assuming the children know enough to stay away from them. Untrained adults do the "I didn't know it was loaded" bit all the time, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that untrained children do it as well.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

Sparta I think if you cant trust kids with alcohol until theyre 21, it cant be a good idea to give them guns either.

This is one of the stupidities in America. I think the 21 age drinking laws are just stupid.

The US is a nation with guns. While there are many laws that need changed so it is harder for criminals to get guns, the fact is that they are a part of American society in many parts of the country and that won't change anytime soon. As long as that is true, it is only prudent to teach kids how to handle a gun safely. Just like I teach my four year old not to run into the street, I teach him not to touch a gun at all and go get an adult if he sees one. Not a problem at my current location, but an important lesson.

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I never saw a gun in my entire childhood except on TV or ones being carried by cops. Neither did any of my friends as far as I know. At no point has there ever been a gun in any house that Ive ever lived, either as a child or as an adult. If somebody had suggested to my family that I needed to learn how to handle guns, they would have thought he was a psycho. This is a regional way of looking at things. Attitudes here in the North East towards guns are vastly different from the South and more rural areas.

 

[A'AbarachAmadan]

This is a regional way of looking at things. Attitudes here in the North East towards guns are vastly different from the South and more rural areas.

There are definately regional differences. I was shocked to see people in rural Arizona actually carrying guns just because the were 'out and about'. The movie theater in the town I lived in had a sign that read, "No guns allowed." I grew up in the rural mid-West; though we didn't have a gun in the house, many folks we knew did. I fired my first weapons at 5 years old. I was one of just a few of my friends that never hunted, which they though was weird; I stuck to target shooting.

 

[DBear]

But your 1 person. No-one is saying every kid who takes gun class will end up going on a killing spree. It only takes 1 or 2 kids to do it...

By that logic we should ban cars, alcohol, etc. etc.

You're making this way too easy

 

[Atlas14]

Sparta I think if you cant trust kids with alcohol until theyre 21, it cant be a good idea to give them guns either.

Hopefully you would not be letting the kids drink. But anyway, if the kid is using the gun safely under parent supervision and direction, chance of any injury is very low.

Guns. Guns. Guns. Everyone throws this word around and many think of murder or crime the instant they hear it. Why blame these people. People use guns to kill others everyday. But, then people assume guns are to blame for all this killing. It is the PERSON who is screwed up, not the gun that should be at fault. The wacko killers would find a way to kill people with any other weapon or means. Why, when this wacko shows up at your house with a gun, would you not want to be armed. Liberals complain not enough armor is being sent to Iraq for soldiers, and is reason for many casualties. What if we did not arm the soldiers? Would there not be more deaths? Same thing applies to your house. A wacko w/ gun shows up. If you have a gun you can potentially stop him. YOu have much better chance of living, and much better chance of sending this KILLER to prison, which is what most people want to happen.

I've always grown up around guns. My dad, my uncle, and all my relatives pretty much hunt. I've been taught the safety of them, I've fired almost every gun from a pistol to a rifle to a shotgun to a machine gun. Guns are no mystery to me. I have no intention of using them to kill people. But if I did, it wuold be my fault, not the guns fault, for any other weapon could have been used. Taking away all civilian guns does no good because there is a black market and the 'Killers' will get their hands on guns anyway, and have unarmed targets to go around killing.

From my own personal experience, and what I've noticed about kids in my surrounding area is that those who've grown up hunting or comfortable/familiiar with guns are not the ones going around murdering people. It is the uneducated people who only learn that guns are only useful for killing people and conveniently view it as their tool to accomplish their gang or individual goals. Gun education for high school students I wouuld presume would help decrease the killings and crime, but Im no expert. Also, it might help the responsible kids, but the bad kids will kill people anyway, gun safety or not. Same way w/ illegal drugs. But then, w/ gun safety for all highschool kids, now you have potentially and already maniac kids who not only have a gun, but even worse: Know how to use it. I'd rather have some moron who has little idea about components of a gun trying to rob my house than some educated wacko moron trying to rob my house who decreases my chance of survival.

 

[blackheart]

Fine, I accept that you are all right. Afterall I don't live there, so I wouldn't know. I suggest you stick to your guns ('scuse the pun) and stick to those rampant crime and fatality figures and your Columbine incidents and all the rest of the gun nastiness that so many non-Americans find so hard 'to appreciate'. I don't really care what is taught in the schools over there quite frankly, that's your business. But clearly your politicans have got it all figured with regard to guns and I just hear more towing of the same old line in these posts.

I also agree that they are quite ubiquitous in American society. You will never get rid of them, of course I realise that, and I thank you all for stretching my words to conclusions and drawing such literal parallels that I would 'naturally' have taken them to. I'm clearly wrong aren't I. So why should I bother sharing with you that so many people around the world, who are not exposed to the ubiquity of guns (I have and also haven't), find it totally abhorent and unacceptable to have such liberal access to them. Wrap it up whichever way you guys want, like I say, it's your business but this incessant excusing of guns in society is one reason why I will never choose to raise a family in the USA. I just hope my ineffectual warblings gave you some impression of what a world apart a gun ridden society is for many people.

I wish you guys luck with it, and in saying that I drop all sarcasm completely.

I know this has already been addressed, but I gotta say something aobut it

The thing is, crime rate in America has consistently DROPPED over the past decade. Columbine was an isolated incident. Most school shootings are, and Columbine was over-broadcasted to the point of it being a media circus, how many other school shootings have gotten that much attention?

Clearly, the media will only run news that will draw viewers and sensationalize. When's the last time you heard a story (in America) about how great everything is going and that teenagers aren't corrupt drug users, etc. You can't believe everything the media says, because although what they say might be true, it has a likely chance of being half-truths. For example, let's say that CNN/ BBC/ AP reports the stock of Starbuck's only rose 2% this year, this is usually bad, no? Well what if they didn't report that this year the market was consistently down? Half-truths designed to corral thoughts into a certain manner.