Missouri gov. signs gun-safety course for first-graders

[Dittohead not!]

I have to disagree slightly.

The BEST way to teach them is to make sure they understand, on a gut level, WHY guns, or mysterious bottles of unknown liquids, or rattlesnakes, are not a toy.

In the case of guns, removing the taboo mystique also removes the temptation to "play" with them when Daddy isn't watching.


The way I trained my son, and many other children, and advocate all gun owning parents do, is familiarization with safety training, demonstration of destructive power, and removing the mystique by allowing controlled access.

First, you SHOW them why guns are dangerous and must be taken seriously. This was my son's first lesson at age 3... I shot a 2 liter jug of water with a 12 gauge while he stood by and watched, then explained that the gun has no brain of its own and will do that to anything in front of it. It made an impression.

Next, the Three Rules of Gun Safety; finger off the trigger, assume all guns are loaded, never point at anything you dont' want to shoot. When my son gets married his wife will probably hear him mumbling the Three Rules in his sleep, that's how thoroughly I hammered those in.

If you hunt or take your kids hunting, they will get a clear and graphic view of why guns are dangerous.

To remove the mystique of taboo, you have to let them familiarize themselves with your firearms until they understand that these are powerful and dangerous tools that must be used only with care and under adult supervision, but that the allure of the taboo is removed because you will let them shoot under supervision anytime they want. Very soon, the taboo allure goes away.

I handle power tools much the same way.

My son is now 17. He first shot a gun at age 4. We have had zero incidents, zero accidents, zero injuries, in a house with many guns where we do a LOT of shooting and hunting and etc.

Allowing kids to shoot guns while carefully supervised is a good idea.
At age 4, even 6 I think that should mean that the gun is held by the adult while it is being shot. Small fingers might be allowed to squeeze the trigger, but control is in dad's hands.

 

[Goshin]

Allowing kids to shoot guns while carefully supervised is a good idea.
At age 4, even 6 I think that should mean that the gun is held by the adult while it is being shot. Small fingers might be allowed to squeeze the trigger, but control is in dad's hands.

At age 4 or 5, sure.


It depends on the kid, and that's an individualized judgment. I've known kids who were 8 or 10 who I declined to teach; they were not ready, or to be more precise had not been raised in a manner that I felt comfortable teaching them about firearms.

OTOH I've known 6yo squirrel hunters who did just fine handling their Chipmunk model 22s. Sure, you don't just turn them loose in the woods with the rifle, adult supervision is needed.

 

[Bonzai]

I suppose if 6 year olds are packing the 9 year olds will be gettin' hitched.......................oh, the humanity...........................

 

[Shadow Serious]

That is common sense not gun safety.

Little kids like 1st Graders often lack "common sense".

 

[BretJ]

And your point is...............what?
The link in the OP even stated it was an NRA sponsored program. You object to the material? What in particular? And the big question is....so what??

 

[LaMidRighter]

Little kids like 1st Graders often lack "common sense".

True, but that is usually gained from making mistakes. Better they make the mistakes in a controlled environment than with no supervision.

 

[jamesrage]

Please don't equate those things with a child who has found a gun. Not one of those things has nearly the danger of a loaded weapon in the hands of a child.

If you claiming that a child will still pick up a firearm found on the street even after being told numerous times not to then that same logic applies to running out in the street before looking both ways, talking to strangers, running with scissors and many other things we tell them not to do.

By the way these things do have the same danger as a loaded weapon.If a child runs out into the street without looking then that child can be ran over.If that child runs with scissors then that child can stab himself or others.If that child talks to strangers then there is a good chance that child can be kidnapped.All these things can result in death. This is why well tell kids don't talk to strangers, look both ways before crossing the street and so on.

 

[Goshin]

I suppose if 6 year olds are packing the 9 year olds will be gettin' hitched.......................oh, the humanity...........................

Hyperbole. Nobody said anything about either of those.

 

[ksu_aviator]

If it is good enough for sex ed, it is good enough for gun safety ed. Obviously in first grade you aren't showing the how to shoot. But, teaching them what a gun is, what the dangers are and what the child should do if they encounter a gun is a common sense initiative. That's about as far as the school needs to take any gun safety course. Leave the rest up to the numerous organizations that teach gun safety. Best class I ever took was my hunter's education class. I still use most of those principles today.

 

[MaggieD]

We teach kids not to run with scissors.We tell kids to look both ways before crossing the street.We tell kids to not do drugs.We tell kids don't talk to strangers. We even sex ed classes to teach kids about pregnancy and STDs. So one would think that in a country where at least 70-80 million firearm owners own around 310 million firearms that this would be a no brainier, that firearm safety would be something every school in the country would be doing.This program is optional but at least it is a step in the right direction.

Missouri gov. signs gun-safety course for first-graders | Fox News

Missouri schools will be encouraged to teach first-graders a gun safety course sponsored by the National Rifle Association as a result of legislation signed Friday by Gov. Jay Nixon. The new law stops short of requiring schools to teach the Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program. But by putting it in state law, Missouri is providing one of the stronger state-sanctioned endorsements of the NRA-sponsored firearms safety course, which the group says is taught to about 1 million children annually.

Read more: Missouri gov. signs gun-safety course for first-graders | Fox News
​

As long as its optional, requiring parental approval, I have no problem with it. To me? It seems a little young . . . and might inspire curiosity which, of course, killed the cat.

 

[ksu_aviator]

As long as its optional, requiring parental approval, I have no problem with it. To me? It seems a little young . . . and might inspire curiosity which, of course, killed the cat.

Please. When I was in grade school that taught us not to drink and drive. So when grandma loaded me up in the car and had a can of coke sitting next to her, I proceeded to tell her "You can't drink and drive!" over and over again. The point is, kids learn rules and abide by them until they are old enough to question why. 1st graders will go running to their parents if they are taught to go get an adult when you see a gun. Right now, my toddler, if he found a gun would grab it, bite it, throw it, put it in the toilet and do anything but bring it to me. It is better to teach them not to than to let them learn the hard way.

 

[MaggieD]

Please. When I was in grade school that taught us not to drink and drive. So when grandma loaded me up in the car and had a can of coke sitting next to her, I proceeded to tell her "You can't drink and drive!" over and over again. The point is, kids learn rules and abide by them until they are old enough to question why. 1st graders will go running to their parents if they are taught to go get an adult when you see a gun. Right now, my toddler, if he found a gun would grab it, bite it, throw it, put it in the toilet and do anything but bring it to me. It is better to teach them not to than to let them learn the hard way.

I believe you -- makes pretty good sense. I don't have kids.

 

[TurtleDude]

And who's fault will that be? I think a compulsory education system for gun owners is in order. With teeth to back it up.

Like most of your suggestions concerning guns, the result will be to hassle people who don't cause problems and it will be ignored by the criminals who causes 99% of the violent illegal gun deaths

 

[Dittohead not!]

It's difficult to predict just what a child might do. That's why you keep guns away from them if you can, unless you are closely supervising them. That's why you put up a fence so they won't run in the street, keep medications and poisons out of reach, teach them to swim, but don't allow them near the pool alone, and still keep your fingers crossed hoping that there won't be a tragedy.

 

[Morrigi]

My father started me off with BB guns. Once I proved that I could handle them as I would a true firearm, I was allowed to graduate to them. The problem with these classes about firearms is that they seems to encompass yet another "Just say no" approach... We all know how well those work. Of course, teaching proper gun safety would have parents up in arms (pun intended) across the country... go figure.

Might I also remind those unfamiliar with guns out there that MANY children are taught proper firearms safety at a very young age and are able to exhibit what they have learned in the future. If it is properly drilled into one's head how to handle a gun, then it will become as natural a behavior for a child to exhibit firearms safety as it is to look both ways before crossing the street or to avoid talking to strangers. Of course, it would require closer supervision for obvious reasons.

As for compulsory education about anything beyond the standard high school curriculum (which already sows the seeds of ignorance into the minds of many), it will only invite government abuse over the long term. First, compulsory education systems for gun owners. Then, compulsory education to the masses that guns are bad. Then, compulsory education that one should never own a gun and that they should be banned outright. What if the same thing happened with freedom of speech? The right to a fair trial? Would you make it even easier for those rights to be eroded?

What many do not understand is that the inalienable right to keep and bear arms was the single most important thing for our founding fathers to place in the Constitution aside from basic freedom of speech. You cannot claim that the Second Amendment should be limited and infringed upon without effectively claiming that other amendments should be limited and infringed upon as well.

Wherever politics are involved, one has to be very careful to avoid treading on slippery slopes.