What's new
By:
Filters

Sorry gun advocates, you'll just have to suck it up

I'm curious about the idea of mandatory gun safety education in schools - - what exactly would be taught, and at what ages?

Considering that the majority (by a 2-1 margin) of households do not have guns, what sort of safety lessons does a child need to be taught if that child is unlikely to ever come into contact with a gun - other than DO NOT TOUCH THE GUN unless a responsible adult who is well-known to them is present and they have permission from their parent/guardian.

Of course, if a household is a gun owning household, then it's important for those who may be handling the gun to know how to safely handle it. But would children below a certain age be encouraged or allowed to handle a gun in the first place? That is something that I think would have to be decided on a personal basis for each family/household - and if their threshold age is X years old, then those under X should be taught something different than those who are X or older.

As a kid, I knew a couple of families who had guns in the house, but they were kept hidden, locked up and unloaded and used for sport target shooting, and there was never an issue of the kids having access to them. As an adult, the only person I know who had a gun was the family next door. The dad was a cop, but he did not bring his gun home. So I wasn't concerned about my kids playing with his kids at their home.

So while education is good for those likely to have access to guns, I'm curious what you think should be taught on a general basis.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-households-with-guns-on-the-decline-study-shows/

The number of Americans who live in a household with at least one gun is lower than it's ever been, according to a major American trend survey that finds the decline in gun ownership is paralleled by a reduction in the number of Americans who hunt.

According to the latest General Social Survey, 32 percent of Americans either own a firearm themselves or live with someone who does, which ties a record low set in 2010. That's a significant decline since the late 1970s and early 1980s, when about half of Americans told researchers there was a gun in their household.

The General Social Survey is conducted by NORC, an independent research organization based at the University of Chicago, with money from the National Science Foundation. Because of its long-running and comprehensive set of questions about the demographics, behaviors and attitudes of the American public, it is a highly regarded source of data about social trends.
Click to expand...

here's another link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/05/america-has-more-guns-in-fewer-hands-than-ever-before%E2%80%8B/
 
moevillini said:
I'm curious about the idea of mandatory gun safety education in schools - - what exactly would be taught, and at what ages?

Considering that the majority (by a 2-1 margin) of households do not have guns, what sort of safety lessons does a child need to be taught if that child is unlikely to ever come into contact with a gun - other than DO NOT TOUCH THE GUN unless a responsible adult who is well-known to them is present and they have permission from their parent/guardian.

Of course, if a household is a gun owning household, then it's important for those who may be handling the gun to know how to safely handle it. But would children below a certain age be encouraged or allowed to handle a gun in the first place? That is something that I think would have to be decided on a personal basis for each family/household - and if their threshold age is X years old, then those under X should be taught something different than those who are X or older.

As a kid, I knew a couple of families who had guns in the house, but they were kept hidden, locked up and unloaded and used for sport target shooting, and there was never an issue of the kids having access to them. As an adult, the only person I know who had a gun was the family next door. The dad was a cop, but he did not bring his gun home. So I wasn't concerned about my kids playing with his kids at their home.

So while education is good for those likely to have access to guns, I'm curious what you think should be taught on a general basis.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-households-with-guns-on-the-decline-study-shows/



here's another link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonkblog/wp/2015/03/05/america-has-more-guns-in-fewer-hands-than-ever-before%E2%80%8B/
Click to expand...

IMO there are two tacks to take with mandatory gun safety training in schools.

First you could have proto-militia training as a part of high school. Basically a simplified version of what the national guard does. Pros this is there are capable authorized instructors available via the military. It also would give the army a leg up on having a effective people to join the military. You go to the national guard bases or another firing range once a week for a few weeks to quality with a rifle and pistol. It would also reduce some the hysteria around guns because people would have some hands on education.

Second you could have the kind of safety you teach kids too young to use a gun safely. IE don't touch it.
 
moevillini said:
I'm curious about the idea of mandatory gun safety education in schools - - what exactly would be taught, and at what ages?

Considering that the majority (by a 2-1 margin) of households do not have guns, what sort of safety lessons does a child need to be taught if that child is unlikely to ever come into contact with a gun - other than DO NOT TOUCH THE GUN unless a responsible adult who is well-known to them is present and they have permission from their parent/guardian.

Of course, if a household is a gun owning household, then it's important for those who may be handling the gun to know how to safely handle it. But would children below a certain age be encouraged or allowed to handle a gun in the first place? That is something that I think would have to be decided on a personal basis for each family/household - and if their threshold age is X years old, then those under X should be taught something different than those who are X or older.

As a kid, I knew a couple of families who had guns in the house, but they were kept hidden, locked up and unloaded and used for sport target shooting, and there was never an issue of the kids having access to them. As an adult, the only person I know who had a gun was the family next door. The dad was a cop, but he did not bring his gun home. So I wasn't concerned about my kids playing with his kids at their home.

So while education is good for those likely to have access to guns, I'm curious what you think should be taught on a general basis.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/number-of-households-with-guns-on-the-decline-study-shows/



here's another link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...s-more-guns-in-fewer-hands-than-ever-before​/
Click to expand...

The education, in my opinion, should be a HS level class. It would first demonstrate the way in which various types of guns function. So, a semi-automatic handgun, a revolver, a bolt action rifle, a pump action shotgun, a semi-automatic rifle and a fully automatic rifle. That would all be week one stuff. Just pictures and animations demonstrating how rounds are fed from the magazine into the chamber, the way the hammer is activated, what the manual safety actually does and showing that many hand guns have no manual safety. Basically, what is a gun and how does it function in a mechanical sense.

Week two, knowing how it functions, how does one ensure they are acting in a safe manner when in the presence of or when handling a gun. The "four basic rules of firearm safety" would be introduced and it would be demonstrated how if followed they will prevent the accidental shooting of a person. Safe storage. When a person is allowed to carry a gun and how they are allowed to carry (loaded, unloaded, holstered, locked up, etc.).

What constitutes legitimate self defense with a firearm. What doesn't. How can one avoid situations where a person would have a legitimate reason to shoot them. Stats on how often firearms are used legitimately for self defense. How often are they used for what the shooter considers self defense, but does not fall under the law. How much more often they are used in ways completely incompatible with self defense (accidental shootings, domestic violence, suicide). The emotional toll that using a firearm for self defense takes on the shooter. The legal trouble using a firearm for self defense can cause even if it is ultimately found that it was used legitimately for self defense. Images of shooting victims. Stories of negligence that resulted in the death of innocent people.

The use of firearms for purposes other than self defense. Where is one allowed to target shoot. Proper etiquette when target shooting outdoors or at a shooting range. Safety while using firearms for hunting.

Statistics on firearm fatalities. The use of firearms for criminal activities. What additional penalties one faces when they commit a crime with a firearm. The increased likelihood that you will be shoot if you are using a firearm illegally. More images of shooting victims, Stories from people who used firearms illegally and what the consequences of that were.
 
Gameface said:
The education, in my opinion, should be a HS level class. It would first demonstrate the way in which various types of guns function. So, a semi-automatic handgun, a revolver, a bolt action rifle, a pump action shotgun, a semi-automatic rifle and a fully automatic rifle. That would all be week one stuff. Just pictures and animations demonstrating how rounds are fed from the magazine into the chamber, the way the hammer is activated, what the manual safety actually does and showing that many hand guns have no manual safety. Basically, what is a gun and how does it function in a mechanical sense.

Week two, knowing how it functions, how does one ensure they are acting in a safe manner when in the presence of or when handling a gun. The "four basic rules of firearm safety" would be introduced and it would be demonstrated how if followed they will prevent the accidental shooting of a person. Safe storage. When a person is allowed to carry a gun and how they are allowed to carry (loaded, unloaded, holstered, locked up, etc.).

What constitutes legitimate self defense with a firearm. What doesn't. How can one avoid situations where a person would have a legitimate reason to shoot them. Stats on how often firearms are used legitimately for self defense. How often are they used for what the shooter considers self defense, but does not fall under the law. How much more often they are used in ways completely incompatible with self defense (accidental shootings, domestic violence, suicide). The emotional toll that using a firearm for self defense takes on the shooter. The legal trouble using a firearm for self defense can cause even if it is ultimately found that it was used legitimately for self defense. Images of shooting victims. Stories of negligence that resulted in the death of innocent people.

The use of firearms for purposes other than self defense. Where is one allowed to target shoot. Proper etiquette when target shooting outdoors or at a shooting range. Safety while using firearms for hunting.

Statistics on firearm fatalities. The use of firearms for criminal activities. What additional penalties one faces when they commit a crime with a firearm. The increased likelihood that you will be shoot if you are using a firearm illegally. More images of shooting victims, Stories from people who used firearms illegally and what the consequences of that were.
Click to expand...

I like this proposal.
 
Gameface said:
Yeah, so can your stomach stop turning then? Since we agree on the cause?
Click to expand...


That depends on your position to address the issue. If your position is to have a stricter set of gun laws for impoverished black neighborhoods then my stomach is still churning. I would also want to remind everyone that we tried that. If your position is to do outreach and make legal gun ownership more accessible to blacks, providing the quality policing we seem to find everywhere but in poor black neighborhoods, and address the larger social problems blacks face, than I'm with you.

It was not my intention to single you out. I did however want to address a position that seems to have become more popular recently(different rules for different folks). I suspect you lean more towards the latter than former.
 
Gameface said:
The education, in my opinion, should be a HS level class. It would first demonstrate the way in which various types of guns function....

Week two, knowing how it functions, how does one ensure they are acting in a safe manner when in the presence of or when handling a gun....

What constitutes legitimate self defense with a firearm. What doesn't. How can one avoid situations where a person would have a legitimate reason to shoot them. Stats on how often firearms are used legitimately for self defense.... Stories of negligence that resulted in the death of innocent people.

The use of firearms for purposes other than self defense. Where is one allowed to target shoot. Proper etiquette when target shooting outdoors or at a shooting range. Safety while using firearms for hunting.

Statistics on firearm fatalities. The use of firearms for criminal activities. What additional penalties one faces when they commit a crime with a firearm. The increased likelihood that you will be shoot if you are using a firearm illegally. More images of shooting victims, Stories from people who used firearms illegally and what the consequences of that were.
Click to expand...

I honestly think that some of this could/should be taught to children as young as first grade, or younger. Most schools teach "stranger danger" and personal safety even to very young children (ie, when the firetruck visits and the kids learn "stop, drop and roll")

Points to cover would include how guns can be used by police and others to help protect people, but how they also hurt and kill people. Show pictures of guns, including those that may look like toys but are real guns. Teach kids to ALWAYS assume any gun they see is a real gun. Teach them NEVER to touch a gun - and what they should do if they see someone with a gun, or if they find a gun somewhere.

As kids get a little older, maybe middle school age, they should be taught how to respond to police officers or security personnel even if they know they have not done anything wrong. This should be taught in conjunction with the local police - - again, I think many schools already have some sort of "Officer Friendly" program in place to help children understand the work of the police and how to interact with them.
 
I have to be honest, the only reason I would want compulsory gun education is because it would do nothing but entrench gun rights and create more gun right advocates later on in life. I don't know what percent of anti-gun folks are simply afraid of touching a gun or even looking at one, but it seems to me a very large chunk of them simply fear out of lack of familiarity. That's pretty common of people no matter what the subject or action is.
 
franklin said:
I have to be honest, the only reason I would want compulsory gun education is because it would do nothing but entrench gun rights and create more gun right advocates later on in life. I don't know what percent of anti-gun folks are simply afraid of touching a gun or even looking at one, but it seems to me a very large chunk of them simply fear out of lack of familiarity. That's pretty common of people no matter what the subject or action is.
Click to expand...

Fathers teach your daughters to shoot.

Srsly I can't imagine carrying a gun on my person. I'm a 30 year old white dude that lives in Utah and can handle myself in a fight. The number of people that could or would victimize me is too small to make the inconvenience of carrying worth it. I carry a pocket knife that is a tool and a small flashlight both come in handy and reduced the number of people that could victimize me even further. If I was a woman, a member of a minority group, disabled, old, or lived in a violent place I would definitely carry.

If I could waive a magic wand and change American gun culture it would be to change the image of a typical gun shop customer from someone like myself to people that need the protection. I think education would be a good step in that direction.

For my part my daughter is almost 10 and has shown herself not only to be a good shot but also strictly adheres to gun safety rules, She's going to get an upgrade from a BB gun to a pellet gun this xmas. Around 12 I imagine she should be ready for a .22 and when she is a teenager I will buy my first handgun for her to get comfortable with. Will I teach my son to shoot; yes. Will I buy a handgun for him to use; No.
 
franklin said:
I have to be honest, the only reason I would want compulsory gun education is because it would do nothing but entrench gun rights and create more gun right advocates later on in life. I don't know what percent of anti-gun folks are simply afraid of touching a gun or even looking at one, but it seems to me a very large chunk of them simply fear out of lack of familiarity. That's pretty common of people no matter what the subject or action is.
Click to expand...

i touched some homosexual gay man. i hugged a homosexual gay man. but i still think govenrment should stay the **** out of marriage. maybe i should get more familiar with homosexual gaymen
 
I can't decide what's more awesome: A Jazzfanz thread about gun control, or a Jazzfanz thread about Joseph Smith. Thank god I never have to choose.
 
isis-forces-100000-syrian-refugees-to-turkey-650x406.jpg


When the next holocaust/genocide comes. would you rather be refugees fleeing or a ARMED man who can form his own militia.

if you rather be a refugee, you can gtfo of usa and go to isis controlled territory, there is gun control there.
if you are a whiny bitch who blames guns when a black homosexual gay man with a rainbow flags murders 2 people, but when a white racist punk with a rebel flag does it you blame the flag. gtfo and go live in isis controlled territory.

a ARMED people is a good defense against ******** that is happening NOW in THE WORLD!


the 2nd amendment would have made this isis **** harder to control. if good Christians and Yazidi where armed instead of victims.


/argument
 
Last edited:
♪alt13 said:
That depends on your position to address the issue. If your position is to have a stricter set of gun laws for impoverished black neighborhoods then my stomach is still churning. I would also want to remind everyone that we tried that. If your position is to do outreach and make legal gun ownership more accessible to blacks, providing the quality policing we seem to find everywhere but in poor black neighborhoods, and address the larger social problems blacks face, than I'm with you.

It was not my intention to single you out. I did however want to address a position that seems to have become more popular recently(different rules for different folks). I suspect you lean more towards the latter than former.
Click to expand...

as far as gang violence, which is largely found in poverty-ridden areas of the inner city, we need to take the financial incentives out of the drug trade

One way to do that is to legalize drugs.

Jobs would help to a degree, but if they don't pay better than dealing drugs, they're not going to help all that much.
 
moevillini said:
as far as gang violence, which is largely found in poverty-ridden areas of the inner city, we need to take the financial incentives out of the drug trade

One way to do that is to legalize drugs.

Jobs would help to a degree, but if they don't pay better than dealing drugs, they're not going to help all that much.
Click to expand...

legalizing alcohol, prostitutes, and gambling didn't end the mob in Vegas, or produce a law-abiding police force.

I'd say if you want to end violence the way to do it is round up the money-laundering scumbags like Chase Bank and the Bush family. And take all the wind outta Washington's establishment. Less Power, less corruption. A whole lot of people tending gardens or picking cotton, instead of writing tens of thousands of laws every year.
 
HighlandHomie said:
There are a million ways to dissect WHY gun violence is astronomical in the USA compared to the rest of the world, AND WE NEED TO START PUBLICLY DISCUSSING THOSE REASONS.

Conservatives who so staunchly advocate the right to own guns amid senseless shooting deaths can't scream about banning abortion, birth control or gay marriage and refuse to talk about gun violence in the USA. I'm not saying ban all guns except for the military and police, but I am saying we need to start looking into other ways to change the current course.

The conservatives refused to open a dialogue in the wake of the theater shooting in Colorado, Sandy Hook or anything in before, after or in between because it was "too soon", or the liberals were trying to politicize tragedies.

HEY GUN ADVOCATES, TIME TO SUCK IT UP AND TALK ABOUT A DIFFICULT ISSUE. I get most people are brainwashed with being raised by gun advocates, and feel personally attacked for some reason when their political ideals are challenged. But real people are dying and no one is accusing you of being the ones killing them. But your tacit support needs to be re-evaluated!
Click to expand...

Ok, I'll play.

Firstly, your generalization of firearm advocates being conservatives makes me think that you're just a hoplophobic ideologue who either has an irrational fear of firearms or doesn't understand the true macro picture of the firearm "issue" in the US. Now, I'm about to blow your mind but I support a woman's right to choice, I support gay marriage, I support the legalization of drugs. But I also support the right to bear arms as is stated in the one of the grandest documents ever written, the United States Constitution. I believe both you, I and every other human being on this great planet has an inalienable right to live and because they have this right they also have a right to defend themselves.

Now, don't get me wrong. I didn't always have this position on firearms, as, like you, I didn't know enough about them AND I was listening to the talking heads on an issue that is not as complex as one would think.

I think most of us firearm advocates are NOT of the Duck Dynasty variety but just regular law abiding citizens who don't fear the often touted meme of "the gubmint's tyranny is at work and they're coming for us." On the contrary I think most of us realize that citizens, not emergency personnel, in almost every emergency situation encountered is the true first responder. American's as a whole have a short memory. I was of age during the 1992 riots here in Los Angeles. I still remember the Korean folk protecting their livelihood against looters while LEO's were off doing whatever they were doing. The police can never be at all places at all times. There's a saying in the firearm world, when the police are needed in seconds, they are minutes away. This is almost an absolute throughout all of society.

For reference (1992 LA Riots and Koreans protecting themselves):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tgCiC6qTtjs&feature=youtu.be&t=72

Since I can't link two videos in one post, here is another one:
[url[/MEDIA[/MEDIA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u_J7kPNe7fI&feature=youtu.be&t=92[/url]

Now, to your initial question about a dialogue being avoided from the gun advocate side.

********. We've had that dialogue and we've capitulated to many of the demands. We have 10 day waiting periods for law abiding citizens. We have background checks for law abiding citizens. We have magazine limits in certain states for law abiding citizens. We have FFL requirements for private party transfers and intra-familial transfers for law abiding citizens. It's really a pain in the *** to buy a gun here in California for a law abiding citizen.

I think we can both agree that both of us want no violence in this world. But since we both know we can't achieve that, we agree that we want the least amount of violence in our respective cities. If you look at the FBI UCR stats, the US is safer today by a wide margin than it has been in decades.

https://www.reuters.com/article/2014/11/10/us-usa-crime-fbi-idUSKCN0IU1UM20141110

Some say that there's an alarming trend in mass shootings (definitions are important here) and I disagree. I think mass shootings are incredibly rare and the chances of you or I finding ourselves in one are incredibly slim. I think for decades the instances of mass shootings as a whole have been flat.

This article: https://nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/09/why-you-shouldnt-fear-the-mass-shooting-rise.html is based on the findings of this recent FBI report: https://www.fbi.gov/news/stories/20...r-incidents-in-the-u.s.-between-2000-and-2013

You know what is not rare? People defending themselves daily from violence and mayhem with the use of a firearm.

From just the last few days:
https://www.fox8live.com/story/29942732/cashier-pulls-gun-on-robber-who-walks-out-empty-handed
https://newsradio1310.com/jerome-home-owner-holds-attempted-robber-at-gun-point/ (albeit bad form with the warning shot)
https://www.news9.com/story/29930451/resident-shoots-kills-burglary-suspect-in-sw-okc
https://nbc4i.com/2015/09/01/police-homeowner-says-she-shot-person-knocking-at-her-door/ (this woman equalized the situation)
https://www.pressherald.com/2015/09/01/rockland-homeowner-shoots-intruder/

These are all examples from the last few days. I can go on and on and on. Are you willing to take away these law abiding folks' right to ****ing live for rare instances of mass shootings?

I also want you to think about the aforementioned gun laws and how they affect criminals:
https://chicago.suntimes.com/news/7...crooks-get-guns-from-pals-dont-keep-them-long

Remember, someone is referred to as a criminal because inherently they have no respect for the law. And when said criminal has decided to commit a capital offense no other laws matter because they can only be tried once. Do you understand what this means?


It is absolutely 100% your right not to want to defend yourself or to NOT have anything to do with a firearm but where do you draw your principle from in denying my right to life and defense? THIS is what is up for debate.

dalamon said:
Chart[/IMG]

anyone want to take a stab at explaining this?
Click to expand...

When comparing different countries you are always comparing apples and oranges. I wonder why Mexico was not included in that chart considering they have some of the strict gun laws in the world.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top