Yeah, no. Make it like drivers ed, sure: a completely optional class that you have to opt into that is held partially or (in the case of guns) entirely off-school-grounds, sure. If you can get there to be actual consequences for failing it, even better!
But make it a class by default is required without specific opt-out? Ha, no. And have it be a standard class that’s taught every year from kindergarten on? Putting aside that there’s not enough content on the subject to fill a class unless you’re breaking down and rebuilding antiaircraft weaponry by the fifth grade, the notion that we’re normalizing weaponry usage for our little child soldiers is horrifying.
You could do a lot of it on school grounds, and then have a range day of “practical application”, not unlike how driver’s ed typically has a classroom portion and a driving practice portion. In the classroom you could review relevant gun laws (like, “hey, kids aren’t allowed to possess these at school, so if you see / hear about one, tell a teacher”) and use inert plastic models to explain the basic components and function of a firearm and practice safe handling. You wouldn’t need to have functional firearms or live ammunition in the classroom.
No, my point is that when legislatures make laws based on gut feelings you often end up with bad laws. I’m strongly in favor of gun control legislation, but I want it to be enacted with thoughtful consideration.
You know how many kids shoot themselves or other kids because they don’t know that basic safety instructions about a gun?
I’m for making it as close to universal and mandatory as possible. Kids are curious, and if you put a gun in their hand in a safe environment, they are less likely to play with their parent’s gun, or a gun they found in the couch cushions at their friend’s house.
I said nothing about “every year”, though it is probably not a bad idea to have at least an annual update on safety. It’s not like it would be a whole year long, it doesn’t even have to be a week, a few hours on one or two days is all that is really necessary.
The right fought against teaching kindergarten sex ed, because they thought that that meant they were being taught how to have sex, rather than how to recognize and report being molested.
Same thing here, I am proposing something that will give children knowledge to keep themselves safer, so avoid objecting to it on the grounds that we are teaching kids how to shoot.
Avoiding talking about guns as a way of protecting kids against them is probably going to be about as successful as teaching abstinence only as a way of preventing pregnancies and STDs.
You make a fantastic point here. I can’t tell the difference between a legal rifle and an illegal one. Therefore, if I see anyone walking down the street carrying a rifle, I shall inform the police and let them use their expertise to determine if it is legal or not.
I have strong doubts that a classroom environment would be able to strongly implant gun safety into a young child in any brief period of time. It could teach them how to flip off the safety, though, and if you let them handle one make them think they know what they’re doing. Show off your cool skills for your friends, kids!
Also, why does your argument not apply to cars as well? Kids can in theory steal their parents keys’ and attempt to joyride. Why doesn’t that happen? Oh, right, because parents keep a closer eye on their car keys than they do their damn guns. Couch cushions??
Did you learn fire safety in elementary school? I remember being given lighters and matches. I remember being told to not play with them, or with fire. I didn’t play with them until I joined boy scouts.
There is that too. But, there is also the fact that then they have to take those keys, take them out to the car, start the car, put it into gear, then they can start causing problems. Lotta work for a 6 year old.
The moment they touch a gun, they can start causing problems.
I do not recall being given matches and lighters in elementary school, no. Could just be my bad memory, but I honestly don’t think it happened. We were taught how to exit the building if the alarm went off, though.
I am firmly of the opinion that parents who keep guns in their couch cushions should take the time and go to the effort of carefully teaching their children gun safety. I mean, they probably can be taught it, by the time they’re eight or so.(?) I just don’t think school is the place to try and do that - particularly since there are a nontrivial number of parents who would be apoplectic at the idea that you’re teaching their children to play with guns.
Yeah, letting every damn idiot keep and bear arms is just a super idea. Thanks founding fathers. Can’t we just make an amendment to have people get licensed for the things, dammit? We do that for cars! And for quite a lot of people, losing their cars would have a much greater direct impact on their life than losing their guns.
Were the actions of the Black Panthers something that should have been stopped through legislation not motivated by racism?
Do you think that, if the gun legislation passed with a more benign motivation, the Black Panthers would have been more comfortable leaving the safety of their communities in the hands of the people who passed the legislation? I don’t think so. Further, I think the fact that they passed the racially motivated legislation is proof that the Black Panthers were wise to take up arms in self-defense.
An absolutist, opposed to any sort of discussion whatsoever, would think so, yes. An easier way to tell them is the use of the terms “slippery slope” or “gun grabbers”. No point in engaging someone who refuses to engage, or try to discuss something with people who refuse to discuss anything but their own zealotry. It isn’t a reasoned position at all, but an emotional one. All we can do is try to contain them for the good of us all.
What point? I asked you if you had any hunting experience, and you refused to answer, but your posts on the subject betray an extreme ignorance. What should we conclude from this?
No, we don’t both know. I haven’t seen you make anything even approaching a coherent point in this thread, so I don’t have a clue what you’re referring to. AFAICT, it’s just jibberish.
It’s not caliber. It’s not action type, as three popular deer rifles are semi-autos. It is not magazine capacity, since not every state has such limitations and the one that do allow for quick changes between. And all the rest are cosmetic.
Yes, since the Remington Model 700 bolt action rifle is a standard issue sniper weapon in the USA armed service. And, I’d have no problem hunting deer with a AR 15- with a reduced magazine.
Other than cosmetic issues,* as I pointed out by quoting the actual laws-* there is no “bright line” dividing what is a hunting weapon vs a “assault weapon”. If there were lawmakers wouldn’t have any issue defining one.
