Reply With Quote
you make a good point about MO bill, WC. it's a rather limited form of gun safety that's been proposed. still, one wonders why schools should teach gun safety to children and what benefit to the public justifies the expense.
missed thembed, thanks. youtubes my eye skips over.
you make a good point about MO bill, WC. it's a rather limited form of gun safety that's been proposed. still, one wonders why schools should teach gun safety to children and what benefit to the public justifies the expense.
It's like any other agenda. Personally, I wish the schools would stick to reading, writing, spelling, etc. No agenda driven training that may rub some parents the wrong way. It is the parents responsibility to teach personal agendas.
I think you missed the following from the article:
Missouri state Senate is considering a bill that would require all first graders in the state to take a gun safety training course. Using a grant provided by the National Rifle Association, it would put a “National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program” instructor in every first grade classroom.
It would seem the NRA would pay for the program. Now it doesn't give exact details if this is 100% funded or not. I think it should be up to the school districts to decide if they would participate or not. That would give local communities more of a say as to if this class/course is needed or not.
I am not sure of the need for a law mandating such a course, or that it couldn't be included into a general safety course that could cover many different topics like stragners, drugs, and abuse.
I didn't want to make this comment as a snarky sarcastic comment, but it works soooooo much better as one, so here it goes.
Great, now I can't wait for my McDonalds Sponsored Health and Nutrition class!
What, did someone here think they were going to the firing range and running off a few magazines of wad cutters?
who benefits the most of out this? NRA and gun manufactures ....you clowns should go buy some shares....
dunno how a minority group is making the majority bend over, at least the 1% makes sense over the population, but the NRA;
nope.
agreed 100%
I can't wait either. It's gonna be great.
Teaching firearm safety to children: failure of a program
The present study investigated the effectiveness of a skills-based firearm safety program on reducing children's play with firearms. In a randomized control study, 34 children aged 4 to 7 years participated in a week-long firearm safety program; the Control Group was composed of 36 children. After the program, pairs of children were observed playing in a structured setting in which they had access to a semiautomatic pistol. A total of 53% of the pairs played with the gun, and there was no difference in gun-play behavior between those children who did and did not receive the intervention.In lab test, boys find hidden gun and pull trigger
In a disturbing laboratory experiment in which a gun was hidden in a drawer, many boys found the weapon, played with it and even pulled the trigger without knowing whether it was loaded.
"They did everything from point it at each other to look down the barrel themselves," said Dr. Geoffrey Jackman, who led the study. "The scariest thing is when the children picked up that gun and looked straight down the barrel."
More than 90% of the boys who handled the gun or pulled the trigger reported having received some sort of gun safety instruction, ranging from an informal talk with their parents to formal instruction from a teacher or a police officer at school, Jackman and colleagues said in the June issue of the journal Pediatrics.
thanks for the link
Growing up in wyoming all 7th graders were required to take hunters safety courses.Missouri state Senate is considering a bill that would require all first graders in the state to take a gun safety training course. Using a grant provided by the National Rifle Association, it would put a “National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program” instructor in every first grade classroom.
Sen. Dan Brown, R-Rolla, told the Senate General Laws Committee Tuesday that his bill was an effort to teach young children what to do if they come across an unsecured weapon.[...]
“I hate mandates as much as anyone,
Senators watched a brief segment of the training video during the hearing. The segment featured a cartoon eagle telling children to step away from an unsecured gun and immediately report it to an adult.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/201...t-grader-guns/
gun safety? 6 or so gun-fellators accidentally SHOT at GUN SHOWS!
When the answer to "who will think about the kids?" is the NRA, America is so ed.
given the number of kids that are accidentally killed by guns every year, this would seem to be a prudent thing to do, IMO.
6 ADULTS accidentally, supposedly safety trained and experienced, shot in recent gun shows!
This is one case where my standard of evidence would be rather low.6 ADULTS accidentally, supposedly safety trained and experienced, shot in recent gun shows!
If the benefit is "children not shot to death", I am prepared to accept even a very marginal benefit of 1 prevented death for every 100,000 children.
Such a margin of prevention would easily be missed by all but the most widely-scoped rigorous studies.
Cost to benefit.
I would however, also repeal the 2nd amendment if I could. Owning a gun should require at least a license on par with operating a motor vehicle, and is very arguably NOT a right on par with freedom of speech.
The 2nd amendment long ago outlived its usefullness, and now serves little more than to give shield to gun fetishists, crazies, gun manufacturers, and criminals.
If we took all the time/effort/money we spent on firearms and spent it particpating in goverment, and educating ourselves about issues, we would more surely prevent tyrants than any billion firearms.
The first amendment gives shield to nutbars like Westboro and the Aryan Brotherhood. Perhaps we should eliminate the 1st amendment as well? (Since it was on the plate right next to the second amendment, I would assume that 1 & 2 were equally important at least during inception.) Or perhaps we accept these 1st amendment lunatics as an artifact of liberty, since that's exactly what they are.
And no, education is not the panacea we wish it to be. Often, it's nothing more than a feel good placebo when dealing with important issues. I'm very tired of the "If only we could educate people!" argument.
"And no, education is not the panacea we wish it to be. Often, it's nothing more than a feel good placebo when dealing with important issues. I'm very tired of the "If only we could educate people!" argument. "
Raise your hand if you've never considered drinking and driving to be a poor choice.
"I would assume that 1 & 2 were equally important at least during inception"
and now? are the equally important?
The 1st is important the Corporate-Americans because they can, in secret from the public, buy politicians at all levels.
The 2nd is important to specific death-peddling Corporate-Americans for the same reason.
I believe I was addressing your point of who was funding it, as in, not the tax payers. As I stated:
I think it should be up to the school districts to decide if they would participate or not. That would give local communities more of a say as to if this class/course is needed or not.
If McDonalds would fund a health and nutrition class that was approved by the school district as a reasonable or responsible program, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If I did, I could go to the school district and voice my concerns. That to me is good local representation.
Again, I don't think the course is necessary or something that couldn't be covered by general "DANGERS!" curriculum. That point is probably moot, as one would think it has little chance of becoming law.
Agreed.
Community first. The community should be responsible for all issues they can handle. As issues arise that cannot be dealt with in the community, only then should the next step up the ladder take action.
No one has ever gone into a school and speeched 22 children to death.
First and second amendments are not equal.
I am willing to shield Westburo's nutbars as a cost of the first amendment.
I am not willing to offer up children on the altar of the 2nd amendment.
How many dead children are you willing to allow to keep the 2nd amendment? If you can't, or won't, answer that, we can't really have an honest discussion.
Give me an acceptable yearly casualty count of dead kids, and we can proceed.
Just because doing something might not be 100% proven or cost effective, doesn't mean we should do nothing at all.
Fail.
Not even attempting to equate the two. Odd you would take that route. What I was trying to establish is that unintended consequences are an artifact of liberty. You either accept that or not.
No, nobody has speeched 22 children to death (da ?). But the ability to speak freely ( o hate groups and various flame fanners) has claimed it's share of victims. It's not a stretch.
Did I say we shouldn't do it?
dude. I simply said it's not the panacea we wish it to be.
ing begging the question rarely results in an honest discussion. Want to have one? leave that bull at home.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions