Virginia's new optional Elementary "Gun Safety" curriculum

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
402
Location
Franklin, VA
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/meetings/2011/09_sep/agenda_items/item_b.pdf

Feel free to use the email address and any of my letter to make your own point to Dr. Wright. The letter I just sent to the Superintendent of the Dept. of Education:

Dr. Patricia Wright
[email protected]
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Virginia Department of Education

/THIS ADDRESSEE REDACTED/LOCAL SCHOOL CONTACT/

September 24, 2011

Dr. Wright and Ms. XXXXX,

I have reviewed the “Elementary School Gun Safety Guidelines and Curriculum.” I must inform you that this document is fatally flawed and should not be used until it has been significantly altered from it's present form. There are several glaring errors and omissions that I will detail below.

Open Carry. This is not mentioned anywhere in the suggested curriculum. There is no law against the practice of open carrying of sidearms by private citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Many Virginians, as well as citizens of several other states, legally openly carry firearms every day. You may want to review the website OpenCarry.org - A Right Unexercised is a Right Lost! ... for more information.

Self defense. The right to self defense is not mentioned as a reason to own or carry a firearm. This is the MOST important reason to own a firearm, and the right to do so has recently been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, as a function of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This right is also enshrined in the Constitution of Virginia, Article 13. Further, our Founding Fathers considered self defense a “Natural Right,” in other words, a human right.

Positive uses of firearms. While I recognize that the purpose of the curriculum is to teach firearms safety, there is a great disservice being to the students, parents, “helpers” and all citizens when firearms use is discussed exclusively as bad. Categorizing firearm use as “gun violence,” when violence becomes a “Code word” for “bad,” insults everyone who owns or uses a firearm for a legitimate purpose, and infuses doubt into the student's mind as to whether or not a legitimate firearm owner or user is good or bad. Using a firearm to protect yourself, enforce the law, or fight in a war is a violent action yet not illegal or “bad.” In my opinion this is social engineering of the worst kind. Surely throughout the history of Virginia and the United States it shouldn't be too difficult to find one or three specific positive uses of a firearm by an adult. If so, I will be happy to provide you with as many as you might need. See: Home | The Armed Citizen.

The item, “If you suspect someone has a gun at school or another public area and he or she does not look like a community helper, tell a trusted adult,” is particularly offensive. First, citizens with a Concealed Handgun Permit ARE allowed on school property with their firearm as long as certain rules are met. Second, there is a provision in the Code of Virginia for a Principal to allow certain citizens to bring firearms onto school grounds. Third, and most offensive, it is perfectly legal for a citizen to openly or concealed carry a sidearm in the vast majority of public places in Virginia. The only exceptions are courthouses, jails and prisons, the secured areas of police stations, K-12 schools, and certain Universities that prohibit firearms through inclusion of their policy in the Virginia Administrative Code, such as James Mason University and Virginia Commonwealth University.

By Fifth Grade, many students will have had the opportunity to use firearms for sport shooting, and hunting for small and large game. While we can all hope that their mentors will have instructed them in the proper safety procedures, some will not. The gun safety pledge in Appendix C just barely touches on firearm safety known as the Four Rules, developed by Colonel Jeff Cooper many years ago, but there is nothing in the Curriculum to correspond to it. See: NRA Gun Safety Rules.

I note that in the list of Committees and Resources, there are no firearms law scholars or instructors. I strongly suggest that a new Committee be convened using a wider selection of resources, and the entire Curriculum be reviewed and rewritten as necessary.

At this time, as the Curriculum has been approved, I unfortunately have no choice but to contact my children's school system and make them aware of the obvious reasons they should NOT be adopting this Curriculum, despite that such a Curriculum is desirable and needed in today's society.

On a personal note, I and my wife either open carry or conceal carry a self defense sidearm every day, and we will be introducing our children to shooting and hunting when they are mature enough to do so. We make it a point to let our children know that we have the right to armed self defense as humans, and it is legal and protected because we are Virginians and Americans.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if I may be of any further assistance.

Yours in service,

/REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION/
 
This is how you get rid of the 2nd Amendment. They use the school system to push their agenda and teach our children that guns are bad. Bad, bad, bad, bad, LEO, bad, bad, bad, helper, bad, citizen, bad, bad, bad, bad, bad, and bad.

It's funny that I do not see defending against a tyrannical government as a reason to have a gun.

Sex ed and drivers ed are not taught in most schools because of budget restraints, but again it's funny that there is a budget for this.

This IS by design!

Shawn
 
Last edited:
^ Driver's ed was close to useless. Way too much emphasis on process. Seriously, their theories pretty much required insane amounts of thinking in order to employ. I wish that sex ed taught me something. Yes, I know about contraception, pregnancy, and what that weird looking gland does. However, they taught nothing about making love or how to get anyone to bed.

I thought the gun propaganda back when I was in that part of elementary school 10 years ago was bad. I guess the only thing to do not is to swarm them with protest emails and use our kids to indoctrinate others to be in favor of guns.
 
While I share all previous posters concerns, I would suggest there might be another way to look at this situation. Here in NY, our schools are complete black out areas regarding information about firearms. The same people who suggest knowledge is a great thing when in comes to sex demand that our kids be kept completely ignorant about guns. So in this respect, I commend Virginia in making these options available to their schools. There might be a big advantage in encouraging such programs, then concentrating in making these classes balanced and reasonable. The letter of the original poster is just that kind of effort. At least you have programs to fight to improve. Here in the Empire State we aren't even allowed to have the discussion.
 
What Whalerman said...at least they're trying an Eddie Eagle type curriculum and exposing the kids. Plus, this is an elementary school curriculum..do you really expect to have a coherent lesson on Open Carry? And self-defense? Tough to teach that to a child's mindset without making them think it's okay to run for Daddy or Mommy's gun the first time they get scared. Does it become okay to defend themselves against the bully stealing their lunch money? Kid's aren't that rational.
 
The agenda behind this a quite transparent. I'd prefer the aforementioned blackout over this. Zero information is at least balanced.
 
I think as an "elementary" introduction loosely based on "Eddie" it's at least trying to give youngsters an introduction to firearms safety. I agree with "waler and "beretta" that this is just an elementary introduction taught to and for elementary students.

Is it perfect? Not hardly but, it at least gives the children something to ask their parents about when they get home. Most kids aren't even gonna remember most of this class when they get into their teen years anyway. And if they do, it'll almost without a doubt be supplemented by the teachings of a father, brother, uncle, etc. that will supersede or enhance the past teachings of firearms safety . And to be honest, I know a lot, stress again, a lot of adults that don't have have the basics of firearms safety that is being outlined in this pamphlet/curriculum.
 
There's a large difference between not going into detail about self-defence et al. and programing children to treat any OC or CC'er like a would-be murderer. Care to guess which side "tell the cops if you see a non-cop with a gun" falls on?
 
Let me state for the record that I think it would be fantastic for them to teach basic firearm safety to elementary school kids. Hopefully that would help prevent some of the horrible accidents that happen from time to time when kids are not taught at home and then find a gun.


However, I do not trust the Department of Education to do this in a balanced manner. I foresee it as a way to tell the kids all the horrific things that "guns" do, usually all on their own, and preprogramming them into the next generation of anti-gunners. I was in school in the 80's and early 90's and it was that way then so I can only imagine how it is now.
 
^ Agreed. Here is how I wish that I was taught about firearms in school:

Lesson 1: This is a gun. It is a metal object that grown ups have and goes bang. Don't play with it.

Lesson 2: Tell an adult if you see a gun out in the open.

Lesson 3: If an adult offers to show you his guns, then be safe and only do as permitted.

Lesson 4: If you see someone with a gun, assume nothing.

Lesson 5: Guns can be used for good and a lot of normal people have them.

Lesson 6: The Constitution grants individuals the right to have guns.
 
Does not.

I say granted because if it guaranteed everyone rights, then it could apply to everyone on earth. I say it grants people rights because the people in effects are American Citizens and therefore subject to the rights it entails, thus granting them the rights due to them as citizens.
 
I believe everyone on earth has the right to defend themselves and the means to do so. If some government deprives its citizens of those rights, the rights still exist despite their being withheld.

Rights are separate from the freedom to exercise them.
 
The Founders probably did believe that the rights apply to everyone on Earth, but could not protect the rights of everyone - just US citizens.
 
You might also want to e-mail it to her boss, Governor McDonnell. If she wasn't appointed by McDonnell, someone above her was appointed by McDonnell. McDonnell and Cuccinelli have both proven to be very pro 2A
 
Wow. I have to say lot of debate and it's obviously not perfect, but compared to other areas with complete "black-out" being the norm this is at least a half step in the right direction. I would definitely like to see it amended and improved, but again better than nothing.

FWIW I remember going to a sleep-over at school in Kindergarten where we were allowed to bring BB guns and the teacher's husband, a local LEO, showed proper safety to the whole class and let everyone shoot them, and this was only about 16 or17 years ago.
 
Overall, I think this is not a bad start, until 4th grade, that is. The exercises on pages 18 and 19 are not perfect, but the highlight some of the positives - firearms for protection, firearms for sport.

I was kind of bemused by the depictions of the pistol on pages 22 and 36. Looks like the Old Dominion has Makarov pistols lying all over the place.

The section for 4th graders on the Impacts of Gun Violence on Society is where this really starts to take a turn from gun safety to "the Agenda". YMMV, but when they focus on these three assassinations, it's alarming to see such major moments of political violence twisted - and in a way trivialized - into a narrow discussion of "this is what happens when people don't use their guns safely." Way out of context.
 
In response to the original poster:

With the exception of the 4th grade curriculum, those lessons all looked reasonable to me.

The Four Rules apply to someone handling a firearm and the gist of the lessons is that they should not be handled without adult supervision. This is a reasonable objective. The school is not responsible for teaching students the safe and proper handling of firearms, that lesson should come from the responsible adult introducing the student to firearms. Even so, on page 46 it says: "If you see a gun always treat it as if it were loaded and dangerous." This is enough to tell a 3rd grader when your objective is to discourage them from handling a firearm without adult supervision.

Also, the curriculum specifically states multiple times that permit holders have the right to carry.

The curriculum also states that responsible members of society use firearms to positively affect society.

While I certainly agree with the sentiment of your letter, it seems to me that you may have been hasty in your response to the proposed curriculum. Upon closer inspection, the only biased lesson I can find is on pages 49 to 56.
 
1) I don't trust the teachers to teach this program without inserting their own anti-gun bigotry.

2) "Finnigan Fox," sans NRA approval, is blatant plagiarism of the Eddie Eagle program.

3) There is no effort here to present balance.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top