Should firearm safety be taught in public schools?.....

Status
Not open for further replies.
Firearm Safety in School?

In one of the Many forums I belong to, their is a thread about that here in Virginia, apparently it has passed, but not yet implemented. While researching the Va. CHP laws, (here all CCW's are illegal except handguns with permit) and I can't seem to find that thread. There was a certain "language" the DOE used that is paraphrasing, they need to amend it.
 
I'm far from being a liberal, but rather than teaching it in schools, I think more kids should take up with the boy scouts (girls can join the scouts now, so everyone can get it on it). Aside from all of the new stupid touchy-feely den-mother wussification of the scouts, they still learn to properly and safely use firearms.

EDIT: grammar
 
Last edited:
I'm writing this at the same moment that two So Kali schools are currently in lock down, whilst the authorities search for a student that 'sposedly brought a handgun to school today. So it got me to thinking that perhaps exposing our kids to firearms early (by qualified instructors in a controlled environment) might not only save a few lives and dispel a few myths, but help to remove the stigma of 'evil' guns....and perhaps get some new blood interested in our mutual hobby?

Just an idea.....
Yes it was taught back through the 1980s in some places like Arkansas. The Game Warden came to our AG classes for a weeks worth of training in Fire arms handling and safety.
 
As a parent, I'm taking the responsibility for educating my sons about firearms myself. I know not every parent has that opportunity (economic constraints and whatnot), but if a fmaily can afford a weapon and ammo and range time, I can't see how a parent would leave something this important (and, IMO, personal) to a beaurocratically run school system.

Fortunately, I live close to an outstanding member owned and NRA affiliated outdoor range that offers a Junior's Day program once a month. It's open to the public (membership not required) and free. They provide safety instruction and weapons and ammo for the day. Each month features a different weapon system and/or target challenge. It's been a fantastic opportunity for us.

I wonder how many people live close to a range such as "mine" and have similar opportunities available to them that they don't even know about.
 
Good grief.
The OP asked "Should firearm safety be taught in public schools?"

Somehow banking, public school haters, and a bunch of other nonsense has derailed his thread.

IMHO....YES, the teaching of firearm safety should be allowed.......but I also believe that every kid needs to learn how to swim, be able to perform CPR and ride a bike. All things that kids used to learn at home or in the Scouts has been dumped on the schools.

BTW....I'm a teacher who has taught in both public and private schools. If your local public school system is bad you have only yourself to blame. School boards don't elect themselves......;)
 
My personal opinion...

I think tax payer funded schools should use the tax payers funds to pay for reading, writing and arithmatic.... period.

If you want your kids to play ball, play the flute, or participate in drama, you should pay for that out of your own pocket.

I would include any kind of firearms training in the same catagory as playing ball.

And yes, I have kids in the public schools... mostly becasue I can't afford to pay twice to send them to private school.
 
It's kind of interesting to me how far California has come on the subject. Back when I was in highschool, back before schools had resident LEOs, we had the California Cadet Corps. It was a junior ROTC. We wore uniforms to school on Fridays, practiced drill and manual of arms, with deactivated (no firing pins) '03 Springfields and had rifle practice with single shot Remington target rifles. About once a month or so we all loaded up in a school bus and went on the road to compete with other school's Cadet units.
 
Believe it or not New York city schools had competitive rifle teams untl the mid 1960's. The kids would carry their cased .22 rifles to and from school just like band students carry their instruments home now. Shooting practice was held in the gym with an angled metal backstop under the basketball goal.
 
Yes, by NRA certified(or equivilant) instructors.

Many parents, these days, do not have a clue about firearms.
 
FWIW, as pertains to the OP, I see that there's a confusion of terms.

I break "gun safety" down into actionable categories:


Level 1: Basic Gun Safety:

This applies to anyone of any age who hasn't attained levels 2 or higher, and boils down to "since you don't know what the heck you're doing, just don't touch guns. This goes double for you guys who watch action movies and play first person shooter video games. If you're interested in guns, get on with level 2."

This message will need repetition throughout the years of the curriculum, presented in an age appropriate fashion.

Level 2: Basic Gun Competence.

This is the basic course on the 4 rules and basic gun handling and operations under the controlled and structured circumstances of the range.

Level 3: Gun Proficiency.

This builds on level 2, extending the users proficiency into the field and real world. This level can go into several directions: hunters safety, CCW/defense related, and so on.


As it pertains to the schools, I'm thinking level 1, with references to how to obtain higher levels, is probably appropriate.
 
since you don't know what the heck you're doing, just don't touch guns.

...As it pertains to the schools, I'm thinking level 1, with references to how to obtain higher levels, is probably appropriate.
I think this message would be particularly ineffective in promoting gun safety. Beyond the age of perhaps 10, it is easily re-interpreted as, "But, if you do handle a gun, that SHOWS that you're some kind of cool bad-boy gun expert." Who can resist that?

While a "Don't touch!" message is great for young kids, if that's the best we can do in public schools for older kids and adolescents, I'd say don't bother. JMHO.
 
Last edited:
If the Public School is teaching Sex Ed, Abstinence, Evolution, Creationism, or multiculturalism, and these are mandatory then Firearms Safety should be too.
Now the "BUT". Teach firearms safety not firearms fear and hatred.
 
yes at lest being able to check that the gun is empty and the safety is on. even if its just for the most popular guns being sold the last 25yrs. there are all kinds of odd scenerios where a person that doesnt own/use guns may handle one.
 
My personal opinion...

I think tax payer funded schools should use the tax payers funds to pay for reading, writing and arithmatic.... period.

If you want your kids to play ball, play the flute, or participate in drama, you should pay for that out of your own pocket.

I would include any kind of firearms training in the same catagory as playing ball.

And yes, I have kids in the public schools... mostly becasue I can't afford to pay twice to send them to private school.

I really don't agree with that. While it works well in principal, this would mean that any lower-income family, or anyone who is concerned with their spending, will limit their child's extracurricular activity. The arts and sports are often a haven for troubled children, children with family or home problems, or who otherwise don't have the funds to do other things. Studies show that the arts improve grades in other course studies and make children, especially in lower-income areas, less likely to be involved in crime or drop out of school. Making children who come from troubled homes pay for these things means that their parents will most likely keep them from it, meaning that this children will continue the cycle of crime, lowered education levels, and lowered self-expression, which will in return create more adults who are, once again, lower income and struggling.

As far as firearms, I think a basic course would suffice, something like D.A.R.E or other programs that happen a few hours a year and remind children of the basics. If they take an interest, then that's great. If they don't, then they'll know the safety basics that will keep them from firearm-related accidents.
 
Hey, look at that! Once all the grossly off-topic posts* have been culled from the thread, the discussion is actually kind of an interesting read, and on topic to boot!


*Made by members who freakin' know better.
 
I think tax payer funded schools should use the tax payers funds to pay for reading, writing and arithmatic.... period.

If you want your kids to play ball, play the flute, or participate in drama, you should pay for that out of your own pocket.
Firearms safety training isn't in the same category as playing ball, much like sex ed. The difference between not knowing how to play ball doesn't have an adverse affect on themselves and others, but being uninformed about gun safety and sex does. It should be a mandatory part of the curriculum.

Ideally, the education should include blueguns or airsoft to familiarize them with safe handling techniques. Realistically, that won't happen any faster than sex ed courses giving students a chance to learn to apply a condom on a prosthetic stand-in. We should push for the lectures which discuss the fundamentals of firearm safety, and maybe videos if that can get past. Once we're there, we can work on getting them more of the familiarization that they need.
 
I think it should be an option in schools, whether or not I teach my kids the same things. Which I do. Still, too much information and education hasn't hurt anyone yet. It might be redundant for kids like mine, but not for others. I'd set it up as an option and then make it mandatory later on.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top