What do you guys think about gun safety grants and teaching gun safety in schools?

[Joe Link]

I was looking over H. R. 256 this morning and I was quite surprised when I read section's 7 and 8.

SEC. 7. GRANTS FOR GUN SAFETY EDUCATION PROGRAMS.

(a) Program Authority- The Attorney General is authorized to provide grants to units of local government to enable law enforcement agencies to develop and sponsor gun safety classes for parents and their children.

(b) Application-

(1) IN GENERAL- Any unit of local government that desires to receive a grant award under this section shall submit an application to the Attorney General at such time, in such manner and containing such information as the Attorney General may reasonably require.

(2) CONTENTS- Each application referred to in paragraph (1) shall include an assurance that--

(A) funds received under this section shall be used only to provide funds to law enforcement agencies to provide gun safety classes; and

(B) gun safety classes will be offered at times convenient to parents, including evenings and weekends.

(c) Regulations- The Attorney General shall issue any regulations necessary to carry out this section.

SEC. 8. EDUCATION: NATIONWIDE FIREARMS SAFETY PROGRAMS.

It is the sense of Congress that--

(1) each school district should provide or participate in a firearms safety program for students in grades kindergarten through 12 and should consult with a certified firearms instructor before establishing the curriculum for the program; and

(2) participation by students in a firearms safety program should not be mandatory if the district receives written notice from a parent of the student to exempt the student from the program.

I'm curious to know how you guys feel about this. The rest of the bill is a turd but these two sections seemed like a good idea to me. It seems like if officials *really* want to do something about firearm accidents this would be a good solution, instead of trying to restrict and/or ban our possession of them. Of course, this is very vague, and I imagine it could mean schools would be indoctrinating our children into little anti's with their 'guns are bad' message but I'd like to hear what you guys think.

 

[Robert Hairless]

Based only on a quick reading of only what you provided, it seems like a good idea to me with one major exception. The exception is that I don't believe it should be limited to programs sponsored by law enforcement agencies.

Lee Paige provide ample evidence that even a major law enforcement agency such as the DEA has not the slightest idea of how to teach its own agents basic gun safety. But Lee Paige was teaching gun safety to Orlando youngsters and their parents when he shot himself because he violated the basic rule for clearing a semi-automatic pistol: remove the magazine before racking the slide. This is not hard to understand or remember.

Paige also broke other basic rules for gun safety. He broke the first of them when he entered that room with a loaded weapon that he planned to use for demonstration purposes. The only demonstration he could have made successfully was why it was a bad idea to do so and how it would be possible to shoot yourself in the foot if you did: he did, but that's not a lesson I would want taught to kids--unless the DEA would make Lee Paige available for shooting himself in the foot at every class. The idea of a gun safety class is how to avoid shooting yourself, or anyone else, accidentally. The second basic rule he broke is Cooper's third rule of gun safety: "KEEP YOUR FINGER OFF THE TRIGGER UNTIL YOUR SIGHTS ARE ON THE TARGET."

My point isn't that law enforcement officers are incompetent in the area of gun safety, and I don't at all believe that. What I do believe is that law enforcement agencies are not necessarily competent to teach gun safety to anyone at all. It's not what they are intended to do and it's not what they should be doing.

I'd very much like to see good firearms training--to include good gun safety courses--in our nation's schools, but I want them taught by people who are qualified to teach them. I think, for example, that NRA-certified instructors should be able to develop and teach such courses. And I think that the NRA itself should be able to develop excellent gun safety courses for the schools.

I don't think that NRA instructors should be arresting speeders or breaking into crack houses, nor do I think that law enforcement agencies should be working outside their areas of competence either.

I share your concern that "gun safety" as taught by law enforcement agencies would be the equivalent of Lee Paige's statement to the Orlando kids: that he is the only person in the room competent to have a "Glock 40." Their tendency, I suspect, would be to teach that individuals are not competent to own guns.

 

[FeebMaster]

Have the same government schools that can barely teach kids to read by the time they're 18 teach kids gun safety?

No thanks.

 

[Molon Labe]

I am very much against teaching "gun safety" in government schools. IMO it stigmatizes guns, can be dangerous if it's taught by someone who is unfamiliar w/ guns, and is ripe for abuse if it's taught by an anti.

Gun safety should be taught to a child by someone outside the government school system such as a trusted & qualified parent, mentor, or firearms instructor.

 

[ArmedBear]

How about our schools teach kids to read, right and do math? Give them some sports instruction and some exercise? Some art and music?

Then leave them alone.

 

[El Tejon]

Firearms familization and proficiency should be required at grades 6, 9 and 12. Students should not be allowed to graduate unless they check out on an M16. Same rules should apply to voting.

High school shooting teams should be funded at the same level as the most popular sport in the school.

This should have bipartisan support as the Left does not care what you do as long as it is compelled by the government.

 

[MrTuffPaws]

Everyone should know how to use a gun safely. No matter how much they hate them. Public schools are a good place to start, being that there are a lot of parents out there that don't have the knowledge base to teach their kids on their own.

 

[Jeff White]

I see myself writing a grant to put the Eddie Eagle Program into the local grade school, hunter safety into the middle school and perhaps a program I will write myself for high school students.

Does anyone think this has a snowball's chance in the netherworld of passing?

Jeff

 

[Rumble]

I would support programs for firearms familiarization, absolutely. I would be leery of what "gun safety" would mean to the different grant-proposing agencies (and what pressure they might be under to simply drive for a "just say no" approach), however, on the face of it, this is a good idea. Familiarity with firearms--or, rather, demystification of firearms--makes them a lot less frightening. I mean, it did for me.

 

[Monkeyleg]

Rumble gets the prize.

The potential for politicization of gun ownership in such classes is enormous.

I can guarantee you that, here in Milwaukee, any such class would be very much slanted to the anti-gun side.

 

[Plink]

Gun safety needs taught and the more access to the instruction the better. Ideally it would be taught at home, but in today's world, far too many folks are not gun owners and far too many gun owners have no clue as to safety anyway. If kids learn about firearms, not only do they grow up not fearing them and may become owners themselves some day, but it should help reduce accidental shootings. I see it as a good thing if it follows a strict curriculum that's designed to be hard to screw up by incompetant teachers.

 

[nemoaz]

Shouldn't there be a provision

forbidding the DEA from teaching gun safety?

 

[mike101]

How do you teach firearm safety in a "Gun Free" school zone?

 

[AZRickD]

Alan Korwin http://www.gunlaws.com got his pet project (real gun safety instruction in schools, including range time) voted into in spring 2005 as an elective course. The state is dragging its feet on designing the course, and many of the leftist schools say they won't offer it, but there are avenues available.

This is Korwin's press release:

http://www.gunlaws.com/HighSchoolMarksmanship.htm

SCHOOL KIDS TO “SHOOT” FOR DIPLOMA

Governor Signs Bill, Teaches Actual Gun Safety



For Immediate Release
April 12, 2005

Arizona has enacted a gun-safety bill for children that breaks new ground. Worth one credit toward a high school diploma, the course requires students to safely discharge a firearm at a target to pass. American high schools used to have firing ranges in the basement, but the tradition began fading in the late 1960s. Gun-rights proponents believe that training and education leads to increased safety and responsible behavior.

The bill’s designers, concerned that “gun safety” could be turned into “gun avoidance” by gun-control politics, included statutory rules like the “shoot safely” requirement, to prevent unintended change. Other requirements include: Instruction in the role of firearms in preserving peace and freedom; the constitutional roots of the right to keep and bear arms; the history of firearms and marksmanship; the basic operation of firearms; practice time at a shooting range, and more.

The Arizona Game and Fish Dept. (AGFD), specified by law as the course instructors, are discussing the specifics of the curriculum. AGFD has currently trained more than 18,000 school students in archery, a shooting sport, and are pleased with the final version of the bill, which they supported.

The law began as an idea and rough draft from Bloomfield Press publisher Alan Korwin, who asked, “Why don’t we make marksmanship a requirement for a high school diploma? We know many kids get no gun-safety training, and marksmanship teaches responsibility, improves concentration, and affects national preparedness.” Because a required course would have budget implications and likely sink the bill, State Senator Karen Johnson introduced the class as an elective. It sailed through the Senate unanimously, and through the House by a veto-proof nearly three-to-one margin. Governor Janet Napolitano signed it into law on April 11 (the text follows).

One television reporter, obviously nervous about providing such education, asked, “Don’t you think kids will rush to line up just so they can get a chance to go shooting?” Without hesitating Korwin replied, “If it’s that popular, and kids get all that safety training and experience, that would be a good thing.”

 

[gyp_c2]

...hmm...

...I'd prefer Jeffs' approach...not gun safety, but more like the old CMP thing, to include range time and required completion for graduation from each level of school...1-6, 7-9, 10-12...although I'd prefer graduation to include the M-14

 

[Bubbles]

In general I don't have a problem with firearm safety being taught in the public schools as long as the curriculum is truly on how to handle firearms in a safe manner. IIRC Brady/VPC came out with a "firearm safety curriculum" a few years back that is pure anti propaganda.

 

[JJY]

"Gun safety" to the anti's who fill many schools in many areas would be instruction to turn those evil and dangerous items over to the government because only government can be trusted to look after you and protect you. Perhaps I am jaded – I grew up and went to school in New York (outside NYC).

 

[Libertylover]

Is this at the federal level?

I'm sorry, where exactly in the powers enumerated did the Constitution address education? Oh, it didn't? Good, than it's a state issue as far as Congress is concerned, isn't it?

sorry folks, I'm for less government intrusion into schooling, not MORE, even if this could help out gun rights. The reason? We all know they'd manage to muck it up, and places like San Francisco's "gun safety" course would consist of "just say NO!" and "Run to your nearest nanny... errrr, COP, if you EVER see one!" Not to mention, I don't want to get stuck paying for someone else's kid to learn something their parents should be teaching them. But that's just my humble opinion.

I think I'd even be against this at the state and local levels as well. If you want your kids to be safe w/ guns, teach them yourself. If you want little Billy's friends to learn, ask their parents if it's okay to bring them to the range, and see if you can convince the parents to come along too. You might just get a response like "Wow, that was really cool, think we could do this again?" Presto-chango, you've now got a likely future gun owner who might just vote pro-gun in the future.

 

[MD_Willington]

Firearms familiarization and proficiency should be required at grades 6, 9 and 12. Students should not be allowed to graduate unless they check out on an M16. Same rules should apply to voting.

High school shooting teams should be funded at the same level as the most popular sport in the school.

This should have bipartisan support as the Left does not care what you do as long as it is compelled by the government.

Funny you should mention this, quite a few of the foreign and foreign naturalized engineers at work can recount their experiences with familiarization with their countries MBR and GPMG's...

 

[Kim]

Well I would like less government too but I do not believe that is going to happen. And if it is not going to happen then you had better start playing the NEW game and push for what you want the government to do. I hate that but as we sit and wish for things that are not going to happen the other side keeps pushing on. I saw Sen. Schumer hawking his new book on C-span. He want to volunitarily NATIONALIZE the school system. The bribe of coarse will be money. That my friends is where things will go and if they do you had better step up and get some of what you want done. I would think the school system is already Nationalized. So you can imagine what control he hopes to push on your mine and the countries children.