Perspective: gun-safety class forced on elementary Schools

Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:13 pm

Article Link:
http://www2.starexponent.com/cse/news/opinion/article/perspective_no_need_to_force_a_gun-safety_class_on_elementary_school_childr/53487/

A proposal to force the State Board of Education to create a class teaching gun safety to elementary school children goes too far.

The bill, which passed the Senate Education and Health Committee Thursday, would make such a program optional in elementary schools.

First of all, since when did gun safety become the purview of elementary schools? We understand the supposed motive — teaching children not to touch guns found in their homes — but do we really want our public school system teaching our children about guns?

Furthermore, given the economic situation of the state government and the cuts to education it requires, it doesn’t make sense to be coming up with new programs for state schools. Especially programs that teach something better taught at home.

Originally, the class would have been modeled on one taught by the National Rifle Association. Thankfully, that political heatpacker won’t be getting a foothold in our school doors — the bill was changed to use the National Crime Prevention Council’s program instead.

Still, by making gun safety a subject akin to abc’s and 123’s, the Virginia Senate is pushing a political hot potato onto our children’s laps.
That, we could do without.
News & Messenger
Prince William County

Sergeant Joined: Nov 12, 2009 Posts: 1526

when I was 12 the dare officer Drug Abuse Resistance Education

came to my class and talked about his gun called a semi-auto an automatic. Police are not the best to teach kids about guns

Private Joined: Sep 25, 2009 Posts: 202

6010rocks wrote:

when I was 12 the dare officer Drug Abuse Resistance Education

came to my class and talked about his gun called a semi-auto an automatic. Police are not the best to teach kids about guns

Actually "automatic" is the correct and intended nomenclature for a "semi-auto". All automatic means (or rather was supposed to mean) is (was) self chambering/auto loading/cocked by its own devices when it is used correctly. The term automatic came into association with "fully automatic" during an interesting time in history, and I believe this was done deliberately and specifically to cause confusion. What was the Colt Automatic Pistol series? All were "semi-auto". How about the Browning Automatic Pistol (BAP)? Today we know (and love) it as the Hi-Power. And the Browning Automatic 5? As you may have guessed, it is the Auto 5/A5 today. Did you know that the "Browning Automatic Rifle" (M1918) was originally called the BMR (Browning Machine Rifle) while in development?

I firmly believe that the nomenclature was loosened to deliberately cause confusing. Seeing as how this was done in the Progressive Era and at a time leading up to the NFA and beyond, I believe a National Pistols Act was in the works, as it had been passed throughout progressive Europe at roughly the same time. I also believe that a ban on what we now call semi-automatic firearms was a chief desire of some of the politicians and elites of the day.

TL;DR: it is ok, and actually accurate, to call a semi-auto an automatic.

Sorry to go off on a tangent there. After doing thorough academic research on the gun control issue throughout our history, proper (read intended) nomenclature has become a pet-peeve of mine.

Member **Founders Club** Joined: Dec 12, 2007 Posts: 2562

When schools are laying off teachers because of budget concerns they want to add more non-academic hours to the day?

How about actually teaching kids academics. Forget giving them breakfast and lunch. Forget about sports . Gasp, but if you don't have the money to teach math and field a baseball team then baseball goes in my book. Forget teaching kindergartners about alternative lifestyles. Get back to spending the school day actually teaching them academic subjects. When more money comes in and there is a surplus then you can add in non-academic things, but not by sacrificing class time.

Rant off.

Sergeant Joined: Nov 12, 2009 Posts: 1526

TyGuy wrote:

When schools are laying off teachers because of budget concerns they want to add more non-academic hours to the day?

How about actually teaching kids academics. Forget giving them breakfast and lunch. Forget about sports . Gasp, but if you don't have the money to teach math and field a baseball team then baseball goes in my book. Forget teaching kindergartners about alternative lifestyles. Get back to spending the school day actually teaching them academic subjects. When more money comes in and there is a surplus then you can add in non-academic things, but not by sacrificing class time.

Rant off.

your right keep gun saftey out of school how they treat guns in school this could only go bad unless it's part of gym class and there is actuall shooting with qualified nra instructors with no hidden agenda.

Member **Founders Club** Joined: Dec 12, 2007 Posts: 2562

I guess that I really have two problems with this.

1) Spending school time and money to teach non-academics.

2) The continued push to remove parents as the authorities and primary instructors for children.

If the school or YMCA had some NRA instructor volunteer to do the class after school hours then that would be fine. It's not taking up class time, and it's not required.