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.
The student and his parents.
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.
I do not agree.
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.
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.
The most likely people to negligently discharge a firearm are ignorant little urbanites/suburbanites who mimic action movies.
I didn't say anything about flyover country, what the hell are you talking about.
Of course you didn't.
You just used the word "rural"
"Rural" is a pejorative term now?
Are you disputing that what I said is true? That people living in rural environments are more likely to own guns than people living in urban environments? Really, dude? Really?
But...sex ed IS required in almost all school disctricts in the land, regardless of what the damn prudish parents think about it.
So why shouldn't gun training be mandatory, regardless of what the damn pants wetting liberal weenie whiny parents think about that?
Hmmm?
Isn't a gun more immediately dangerous than a dick, and thus shouldn't that training be more urgent?
Do you have some statistics on this? Particularly accidental firearm use by children?
Almost everyone is likely to have sex at some point in their lives...and there is a very good chance they'll do so before they finish school. A lot of people in urban environments grow up in homes where there are no guns, thus making firearm training a waste of time.
No, but it's a rational assumption. People who are not familiarized with firearms are more likely to negligently discharge them.
Almost all real Americans handle guns at some time in their lives.
What's your point? That because some unAmerican people won't see guns doesn't mean they shouldn't be taught gun safety?
I am sympathetic to the idea of teaching gun safety in the schools, especially in a society that insists on having guns everywhere.
However I also see some problems with this. Adding a new subject to the curriculum will take away time and money from other subjects. In the current financial and economic crisis adding a new economic burden on schools or taking time away from other subjects might not be the best idea.
While I would not like to own a gun myself I see no problem in hunters and marksmen having guns, provided they store and use them responsibly.
I am sympathetic to the idea of teaching gun safety in the schools, especially in a society that insists on having guns everywhere. However I also see some problems with this. Adding a new subject to the curriculum will take away time and money from other subjects.
I think a more fair approach would be requiring passing a test in gun safety before you could legally own a firearm.
It would be no different from having to pass a test to be allowed to drive a car.
And just like we demand a driver's license in order to avoid irresponsible drivers we should demand a gun license in order to to avoid irresponsible gun owners.
OK, you're obviously just a troll. No real person can possibly be this stupid. Are you a left-winger trying to parody conservative views a la Stephen Colbert? I'm done with you. I'd rather discuss the issue with people who actually have a brain. :2wave:
Absolutely...I just don't see how that translates into urban kids being more likely to negligently discharge them than rural kids. It depends entirely on the numbers you assume for what percentage of kids are exposed to firearms, what percentage are adequately trained, what percentage of those who aren't trained will accidentally discharge them, and what percentage of those who are trained will accidentally discharge them.
While it's a rational assumption that untrained people are more likely to be negligent with the firearms they have, it's quite a logical leap to then say that urban kids are more likely to be negligent around firearms than rural kids.
Absolutely...I just don't see how that translates into urban kids being more likely to negligently discharge them than rural kids.
Oh, that's easy.
The word is "gym". No one needs gym as much ...l.****, the revisionists are calling it "physical education" as a sop the lowly gym teachers, aren't they? Train those fairly useless sob's as gun safety instructors and set part of that almost completely pointless curriculum into something both usefull and interesting, firearms training.
However, as a pre-requisite, only law abiding US citizens and legal residents should be trained in proper gun use. Invaders and criminals can shoot themselves to ribbons, it's okay by me.
THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
So much for that prior-restraint bull****.
Driving a car is a privilege, not a Constitutionally protected right.
Naw, bull****.
You weed out the "irresponsible" gun owners by imposing stringent criminal penalties for using the damn things unsafely and unwisely.
If you enter your house to see a crew of masked thugs ransacking it, you're perfetly authorized to haul your peice out and kill them.
I have no problems with having marksmanship as a part of the gym curriculum if the school and the teachers chooses to do so.
Irresponsible gun owners don't just shoot up each other... they shoot who ever is standing nearby...
Can you tell me why owning a lethal firearm should be a constitutionally protected right, while driving a car should not?
So we should not do anything to stop irresponsible gun owners before they shoot some innocent guy up?
I don't believe punishment would be a sufficient deterrent even if we were to let a group of drunken conservatives dream up the most barbaric punishment they could. Even the death penalty don't deter people from murdering each other.
Yes, it is insane. Blood for property.
That's weird.
My math teachers were required to teach trigonometry and calculus.
Gym teachers can be exempted from a basic curriculum requirement?
When did the rats begin to steer the stable? Gun safety and marksmanship should be made mandatory, and teachers who choose to not teach that part of the course can demonstrate this decision by resigning.
That's how it works when the public, not the employees, are in charge of the schools.
That's why you lock them in jail forever and forget to feed them.
Their existence is not justification for prior restraint, just as the New York Times isn't justification for suspending the First Amendment.
Want me to explain why you can't fly without an airplane, while we're at it?
Because that's the way it is in the United States.
Don't like?
Don't live here.
It's that simple.
What part of prior restraint did you fail to understand?
If you find someone leaving their guns unattended on the front seat of an unlocked car, yeah, they can be charged with some kind of negligence. But history has solidly proven one essential fact about people:
You can't outlaw idiocy.
The proper exercise of the death penalty not only deters capital crime, it successfully eliminates recidivism.
When the elimination of the human right to own firearms is taken off the table, what do you propose to do to cure the human race of idiocy?
No, violent enemies are in your home. Their choice to commit aggression, your choice to respond appropriately. There's absolutely no reason why a man should be forced to flee from his home merely because someone else has decided thug blood is worth more than his TV.
My TV is worth a dozen thugs, easily.
That's how you deter crime. You kill criminals and scare the living **** out of them with bullets and buckshot. And you deny those that happen to live access to the civil courts to sue their would be victim.
Their body, their choice. They choose to put their body in a someone's home where he has the right to defend himself with deadly force. If their bodies get injured or killed, it was their choice.
It's that simple.
Americans should not be forced to be simpering cowards merely because soft headed do gooders are worried about the lives of the damned criminals.
As far as I know the curriculum is not so rigid that gym teachers can't decide whether to teach football or tennis.
Too bad they have to hurt somebody before you want to do anything about it.
If somebody writes an editorial you don't like, all that happens is that you get angry for a while. When somebody does something stupid with a gun, an airplane or a car you die. See the difference?
I understand why untrained people are not allowed to fly airplanes. What I don't understand is why untrained people are allowed to own lethal weapons.
Come on. That isn't even an argument. Can't you come up with something better than that; something that actually gives a good reason why things should be as they are?
You're totally right.
You can't outlaw idiocy and that is why we should make sure idiots are not allowed to have guns in the first place.
The death penalty certainly did not prevent the inmates on death row from doing the crimes that got them there.
Americans are virtually alone in thinking gun ownership for untrained idiots is a human right.
It is extremely rare that burglars become violent, whether it is in societies with guns everywhere or in societies with responsible gun laws.
That is a very callous way to think about human lives.
Neither should Americans live in a society with a ready supply of guns for criminals, psychopaths and idiots. They deserve more safety.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?