NationStates Jolt Archive

At least one parent who's child attends a public school is outraged that her daughter is being taught about gun safety and hunting in class. I don't see the problem. Better that the kids know how to handle a gun safely, no? The parent is anti-gun, but her kid may someday come in contact with firearms and she should have some knowledge about how to use them safely. Kids have sex too and many parents are against that. Does that mean they shouldn't be given info on safe sex?

http://www.fox28.com/News/index.php?ID=12556

Hell I had a teacher show us how to build a nuclear bomb (single stage), how to field strip old m1 rifles, and how to fire a Tow Missile launcher.


God I loved ROTC.

I disagree.

If I sent my kids to school, I do not want them to be taught about guns or hunting at all.

There's things that belong to your education, and some that simply don't.

Guns and hunting belong to the second category.

At least one parent who's child attends a public school is outraged that her daughter is being taught about gun safety and hunting in class. I don't see the problem. Better that the kids know how to handle a gun safely, no? The parent is anti-gun, but her kid may someday come in contact with firearms and she should have some knowledge about how to use them safely. Kids have sex too and many parents are against that. Does that mean they shouldn't be given info on safe sex?

http://www.fox28.com/News/index.php?ID=12556

They aren't given info on sex, and the responsible ways to engage in sexual activity, not in a great many areas in the US. That's because some parents are upset about it. Kind of cuts both ways, doesn't?

They aren't given info on sex, and the responsible ways to engage in sexual activity, not in a great many areas in the US. That's because some parents are upset about it. Kind of cuts both ways, doesn't?

My point is that those against teaching gun safety are just as irresponsible as those opposed to teaching safe sex.

Hell I had a teacher show us how to build a nuclear bomb (single stage), how to field strip old m1 rifles, and how to fire a Tow Missile launcher.


God I loved ROTC.

I was going say, "What? You had Deep Kimchi as a teacher?" but that's ROTC, I can sort of see those things in ROTC.

I was going say, "What? You had Deep Kimchi as a teacher?" but that's ROTC, I can sort of see those things in ROTC.

Speaking of Deep Kimchi... where'd he go?

I think it depends on the society - in Britain, where guns are uncommon and a child is incredibly unlikely ever to even see one (I'm 20 and haven't ever) such a lesson is un-necessary. In America, where they are far more prominent, and obviously, legal, then safety should be taught. It's just sense, in my opinion.

I think it depends on the society - in Britain, where guns are uncommon and a child is incredibly unlikely ever to even see one (I'm 20 and haven't ever) such a lesson is un-necessary. In America, where they are far more prominent, and obviously, legal, then safety should be taught. It's just sense, in my opinion.
A good point!

I wouldn't see a need for it in Germany, either.

My point is that those against teaching gun safety are just as irresponsible as those opposed to teaching safe sex.

I think the school should have mentioned it to parents. Hell, they ban kids from playing tag on the playground, or whatever the heck that one school did, they couldn't take a minute to print off some notes and allow the parents to opt their kids out? And why is it irresponsible? I'm 55 years old, I've never come in contact with firearms. I don't think it comes under the heading of "essential information."

*waves at Jordaxia*

I think if kids are going to grow up in a country in which guns are legal, such as the United States, they'll have to have at least some understanding of what to do with one and how to use guns responsibly; it's just like sex ed. What goes for one should go for another as well, according to the SPC charter and the principles of common sense.

These parents sound like they have an irrational fear of firearms. If I were their parent I’d be more concerned that they were learning about hunting than firearms.

I’ve nothing against an elective hunting class if there’s the money for it. I don’t hink there really is, but meh.
I just wonder what hunting has to do with Phys Ed. You ever talk to a modern hunter? The vast majority just sit around at a deer feeder that the deer have been coming to every day for a year. Hardly physical.

These parents sound like they have an irrational fear of firearms

A firearm is something specifically designed to harm or kill a living thing. People can use it for other purposes of course - but it still is not weird to dislike them.

These parents sound like they have an irrational fear of firearms. If I were their parent I’d be more concerned that they were learning about hunting than firearms.

I’ve nothing against an elective hunting class if there’s the money for it. I don’t hink there really is, but meh.
I just wonder what hunting has to do with Phys Ed. You ever talk to a modern hunter? The vast majority just sit around at a deer feeder that the deer have been coming to every day for a year. Hardly physical.

In New Jersey all the deer hunters I know drive the deer, which involves hiking through the woods.

At least one parent who's child attends a public school is outraged that her daughter is being taught about gun safety and hunting in class. I don't see the problem. Better that the kids know how to handle a gun safely, no? The parent is anti-gun, but her kid may someday come in contact with firearms and she should have some knowledge about how to use them safely. Kids have sex too and many parents are against that. Does that mean they shouldn't be given info on safe sex?

http://www.fox28.com/News/index.php?ID=12556

Gun safety, I wouldn'tmind. Hunting is questionable. Guns are prevalent in the US, though, so gun safety is pretty important.

The girl's parents are total morons. They're probably also the types that don't want their little angel learning about condoms.

In New Jersey all the deer hunters I know drive the deer, which involves hiking through the woods.

Ones here in Indiana sit in a tree stand getting progressively more drunk. Occasionally they shoot at something.

Ones here in Indiana sit in a tree stand getting progressively more drunk. Occasionally they shoot at something.

I'm sure that there are some hunters here in Jersey just sitting in tree stands, but the ones I know drive. Still means some of the hunters are stationary though.

I think the school should have mentioned it to parents. Hell, they ban kids from playing tag on the playground, or whatever the heck that one school did, they couldn't take a minute to print off some notes and allow the parents to opt their kids out? And why is it irresponsible? I'm 55 years old, I've never come in contact with firearms. I don't think it comes under the heading of "essential information."
Thanks for the words o' wisdom! That brightens my day. :)
*waves at Jordaxia*

I think if kids are going to grow up in a country in which guns are legal, such as the United States, they'll have to have at least some understanding of what to do with one and how to use guns responsibly; it's just like sex ed. What goes for one should go for another as well, according to the SPC charter and the principles of common sense.
It's an easy rule: Don't fucking touch guns. That's my most basic principle concerning guns. And I call that common sense. ;)

A good point!

I wouldn't see a need for it in Germany, either.

The US and Canada it might make sense however.

I don't see a problem with teaching firearms safety. But this class seems to have gone beyond that. This was a hunting class and shouldn't be part of of the required ciriculum for a variety of reasons.

http://www.fox28.com/Images/012907Hunting.jpg
That's the pic from the textbook in the article.

I disagree.

If I sent my kids to school, I do not want them to be taught about guns or hunting at all.

There's things that belong to your education, and some that simply don't.

Guns and hunting belong to the second category.

That, of course, depends on the culture of the place. Around one third of Michiganders hunt, and Democrats here (remember, Michigan is a blue state) can be seen in hunter's orange in their campaign materials. Hunting is a very important part of our cultural identity, which many people feel is right to teach in schools. Of course, this isn't the case in Germany, so it's quite understandable that you wouldn't want it taught there.

My little brother (10 years old, 14 years younger than I) just went on a "winter survival" field trip the other day. They learned to snowshoe, build a fire, build an igloo, fire .22 rifles, and ice fish. I often check the local newspaper in the "Sound Off" section, which is for general complaints by the public, and I haven't heard a word about it.

There's no reason for it to be a required course. It's on pretty shaky ground even as an elective.

Ones here in Indiana sit in a tree stand getting progressively more drunk. Occasionally they shoot at something.
Pretty much the same here in Texas, except we don’t have enough sturdy trees so they sit in deer blinds, which they build next to deer feeders.
A firearm is something specifically designed to harm or kill a living thing. People can use it for other purposes of course - but it still is not weird to dislike them.
I guess not, but still.
I've never held a firearm in my life, but I've been around people who were, and I'm not scared of guns unless they're being held by certain people.

Thanks for the words o' wisdom! That brightens my day. :)

It's an easy rule: Don't fucking touch guns. That's my most basic principle concerning guns. And I call that common sense. ;)

"Don't fucking touch guns" sounds about as effective as "Don't fucking have premarital sex" in certain parts of the US. Kids and teens, particularly males, will handle guns if they have the opportunity. In the US, particularly rural areas where hunting is common, they will have that opportunity. Isn't it better that they know where the safety is and they know to keep their finger off the trigger until the gun is on the target?

These parents sound like they have an irrational fear of firearms. If I were their parent I’d be more concerned that they were learning about hunting than firearms.

I’ve nothing against an elective hunting class if there’s the money for it. I don’t hink there really is, but meh.
I just wonder what hunting has to do with Phys Ed. You ever talk to a modern hunter? The vast majority just sit around at a deer feeder that the deer have been coming to every day for a year. Hardly physical.

Baiting deer is illegal in Connecticut. Yes, we can use scents and calls, but we can't sit over a feeder, apple pile, etc.

My little brother (10 years old, 14 years younger than I) just went on a "winter survival" field trip the other day. They learned to snowshoe, build a fire, build an igloo, fire .22 rifles, and ice fish. I often check the local newspaper in the "Sound Off" section, which is for general complaints by the public, and I haven't heard a word about it.
So those rich little brats get to go camping while inner city and rural wasteland schools don’t even have enough for new textbooks every fifteen year. Nice.
Kids and teens, particularly males, will handle guns if they have the opportunity.
I've had the opportunity and I turned it down, many times.
Paricularly males.:rolleyes:

The US and Canada it might make sense however.
That, of course, depends on the culture of the place. Around one third of Michiganders hunt, and Democrats here (remember, Michigan is a blue state) can be seen in hunter's orange in their campaign materials. Hunting is a very important part of our cultural identity, which many people feel is right to teach in schools. Of course, this isn't the case in Germany, so it's quite understandable that you wouldn't want it taught there.
My little brother (10 years old, 14 years younger than I) just went on a "winter survival" field trip the other day. They learned to snowshoe, build a fire, build an igloo, fire .22 rifles, and ice fish. I often check the local newspaper in the "Sound Off" section, which is for general complaints by the public, and I haven't heard a word about it.
Oh, don't get me wrong: There are (while certainly not as many as, let's say, the U.S.) quite a lot of hunters in Germany as well.
It's just that I, personally, don't like guns at all, don't want them around me, and certainly wouldn't want them around my kids, either.

So those rich little brats get to go camping while inner city and rural wasteland schools don’t even have enough for new textbooks every fifteen year. Nice.

I've had the opportunity and I turned it down, many times.
Paricularly males.:rolleyes:

I suspect most kids won't turn it down. No rule applies to everyone though.

So those rich little brats get to go camping while inner city and rural wasteland schools don’t even have enough for new textbooks every fifteen year. Nice.

Rich? Hardly. The three biggest job providers in this town are the university, the casino, and Walmart in that order. If it weren't for the university we'd be part of the "rural wasteland" you're talking about, just like every other town for 50 miles in each direction. Also, I've never heard of schools not being able to afford textbooks. Maybe Texas with it's minimalist government has that problem, but we don't, at least not outside of isolated cases and Detroit, which is a rather different problem which I blame on the rich white suburbs.

A firearm is something specifically designed to harm or kill a living thing. People can use it for other purposes of course - but it still is not weird to dislike them.

It's an inanimate object. Fearing an inanimate object is irrational.

It's an inanimate object. Fearing an inanimate object is irrational.

Why ? A giant asteroid on its way to destroy the earth may be inanimate, but it still is dangerous. A clump of radioactive material may be inanimate, but danger exists.

It's an inanimate object. Fearing an inanimate object is irrational.

Equating fear with dislike is irrational

Why ? A giant asteroid on its way to destroy the earth may be inanimate, but it still is dangerous. A clump of radioactive material may be inanimate, but danger exists.

Actually, giant asteroid on its way to destroy the earth is anything but inanimate. In fact, it's quite animated (because it's moving). A clump of radioactive material is dangerous because it doesn't need an external force applied to it in order to cause harm. A firearm sitting on a shelf, in a case, in a safe, or on a table will cause no harm unless A: it's loaded, B: its safety isn't engaged, and C: an external force is applied to the firearm (someone pulling the trigger).

"Don't fucking touch guns" sounds about as effective as "Don't fucking have premarital sex" in certain parts of the US. Kids and teens, particularly males, will handle guns if they have the opportunity. In the US, particularly rural areas where hunting is common, they will have that opportunity. Isn't it better that they know where the safety is and they know to keep their finger off the trigger until the gun is on the target?
I'm inclined to agree - to a certain degree.
Yet I don't see why it is the school's responsibility to teach children the (safe) use of weapons. That just feels wrong.
Besides, I as a parent would be pissed off not to a small extent if the school didn't ask my permission first.
If I don't want my kids to handle guns, the school'd have to respect that and ask me to sign a permission slip first.

But to compare handling guns with having sex is a little faulty. Humans are "naturally programmed" to engage in sex - I don't see how that applies to guns. ;)

I can't imagine a normal school class that this subject could come up in. Unless they added a few more redneck electives - Woodshop I-V were full perhaps?

... oh, it's a phys ed class. They're close. I'd never heard such inane babble before or since as I heard in my mandatory health/phys ed classes.

I'm inclined to agree - to a certain degree.
Yet I don't see why it is the school's responsibility to teach children the (safe) use of weapons. That just feels wrong.
Besides, I as a parent would be pissed off not to a small extent if the school didn't ask my permission first.
If I don't want my kids to handle guns, the school'd have to respect that and ask me to sign a permission slip first.

But to compare handling guns with having sex is a little faulty. Humans are "naturally programmed" to engage in sex - I don't see how that applies to guns. ;)

I don't know. Maybe it's a phallic thing.

My point is that those against teaching gun safety are just as irresponsible as those opposed to teaching safe sex.

I dunno. How relevant is gun safety? Not as relevant as sex. Sex will happen, probably in these schools. But guns may in fact be illegal in many places, or so hard to get that these kids will see maybe one or two guns in their whole lives if that. I just don't see why it should be right up in there with the curriculum.

As an extra credit class? Sure, no problem. But not some part of the mandatory education. I mean it's not like sex education, which falls neatly under biology. Gun safety is just out there, it's like driving a car (not offered when I went to school) or desert survival tips.

I don't know. Maybe it's a phallic thing.
http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y223/GermanNightmare/really.gif While I know how to handle my gun, I don't need to know how to handle a rifle... (This is my rifle. This is my gun. This is for fighting. This is for fun.)

"Some parents"? That's what? Maybe two or three? Out of how many? Why weren't the parents paying attention to the childs curricullum before? Did they attend PTA meetings? School board meetings where these things were decided?

Hunting is a sport. It involves physical activity and education.
Firearm safety is just as important as teaching kids about prescription drugs, fire, or sex. Just ignoring it doesn't make it go away.

The parents attitudes boil down to just two words from the article , "It's scary".

I dunno. How relevant is gun safety? Not as relevant as sex. Sex will happen, probably in these schools. But guns may in fact be illegal in many places, or so hard to get that these kids will see maybe one or two guns in their whole lives if that. I just don't see why it should be right up in there with the curriculum.

As an extra credit class? Sure, no problem. But not some part of the mandatory education. I mean it's not like sex education, which falls neatly under biology. Gun safety is just out there, it's like driving a car (not offered when I went to school) or desert survival tips.

We got mandatory driver's ed in my high school.

I dunno. How relevant is gun safety? Not as relevant as sex. Sex will happen, probably in these schools. But guns may in fact be illegal in many places, or so hard to get that these kids will see maybe one or two guns in their whole lives if that. I just don't see why it should be right up in there with the curriculum.

Define "many places"? Firearms are legal in the overwhelming majority of the US (especially Indiana) and well over a third of the population admits to owning firearms.

As an extra credit class? Sure, no problem. But not some part of the mandatory education. I mean it's not like sex education, which falls neatly under biology. Gun safety is just out there, it's like driving a car (not offered when I went to school) or desert survival tips.

And the anti-sex ed arguments use exactly the same reasoning. Hunting and firearm safety fall neatly uner physical education as both are part of sporting activities.

Gun safety I'm fine with, teaching hunting I am not.

I'm sure that there are some hunters here in Jersey just sitting in tree stands, but the ones I know drive. Still means some of the hunters are stationary though.

Information is not the devil!!!!! Give kids as much information as humanly possible and let them decide what to do with it in their discussions with responsible adults. Sex should be taught, guns should be able to be taught. If the parents don't want their kids using a gun then tell Sally "We don't accept that in our family." It all comes down to people and their "right to not be offended." It's just plain bullshit.

We got mandatory driver's ed in my high school.

Huh. We didn't.

At any rate, even teaching driving is more relevant. Especially since we need driver's liscenses for ID in these terrorist-stricken endtimes. Gun liscenses, nice but nowhere near as universal.

Define "many places"? Firearms are legal in the overwhelming majority of the US (especially Indiana) and well over a third of the population admits to owning firearms.

The restrictions placed upon their ownership, use, possession are many and numerous. I know you are not ignorant of that. And while 1/3rd of the population may own a firearm, off the top of my head I'd have to say 95% of the people have sex. One is just more relevant to more people.

And the anti-sex ed arguments use exactly the same reasoning. Hunting and firearm safety fall neatly uner physical education as both are part of sporting activities.

They don't use the same reasoning, because sex education is part of biology and at least for now, biology is an important part of education. Biological sciences have been a part of education since the times of Ancient Greece, although "biology" was only a specific and coherent science since the 19th century.

Sports are not part of the mandatory education. There's a general physical ed requirement in most places, but one has the option of choosing say, soccer or football or what-have-you to fulfill that requirement. So if this is going to be a similar OPTION, again I don't have a problem with it. As a mandatory class? Take this class or FAIL? Fuck that.

I don't mind gun safety but the hell is with the learning about hunting? Teach kids how to balance budgets and get the right cuts of meat from the butcher.

It's an inanimate object. Fearing an inanimate object is irrational.

I'm not afraid of guns and I'm not afraid of bullets, I'm afraid of guns firing bullets at me at several hundred feet per second.

To the topic, the fact they are teaching hunting means they arn't teaching gun safety for people to be safe around guns.

Bad parents, good school.

Being bothered about your children learning gun safety is stupid.

I'm not sure, however, why the school felt it necessary to teach students the best way to shoot certain animals, as if hunting is a necessary life skill these days.

I think it's a good idea to teach "Gun Safety" since in the USA it is legal to have firearms. Picture this...your child is going over to a friends house for the night and while they are playing, watching tv, or just being kids and sometime overnight comes across a firearm...Having "Gun Safety" in school teaches him/her awareness and safety of guns. Sounds like a good idea to me. Kids come across firearms all the time and in few cases their's a tragic ending. I don't see a problem with teaching kids the awareness and safety of guns, not at all.

Being bothered about your children learning gun safety is stupid.

I'm not sure, however, why the school felt it necessary to teach students the best way to shoot certain animals, as if hunting is a necessary life skill these days.

Maybe they're just preparing for life after all the oil is used up.

At least one parent who's child attends a public school is outraged that her daughter is being taught about gun safety and hunting in class. I don't see the problem. Better that the kids know how to handle a gun safely, no? The parent is anti-gun, but her kid may someday come in contact with firearms and she should have some knowledge about how to use them safely. Kids have sex too and many parents are against that. Does that mean they shouldn't be given info on safe sex?

http://www.fox28.com/News/index.php?ID=12556

Nobody dies of a head-wound due to sex, DCD. Go promulgate gun-culture somewhere other than schools.

Nobody dies of a head-wound due to sex, DCD. Go promulgate gun-culture somewhere other than schools.

Well, that isn't completely true, but it is unlikely.

Hence the reason that gun-safety is a necessary lesson for students to learn. That way, if they do get their hands on a gun, or come across one, or get accosted with one, they are less likely to end up with (or cause) a gunshot wound to the head.

At my kids HS they had a hunter safety class as part of physical education until a couple years ago. As far as I know no one complained. I think they dropped it because of cost. Of course, I'm in rural Missouri where hunting season is treated as a national holiday. The funny thing was the girls did better than the guys.

Being bothered about your children learning gun safety is stupid.

I'm not sure, however, why the school felt it necessary to teach students the best way to shoot certain animals, as if hunting is a necessary life skill these days.

The school should have provided an option for kids not to have it taught to them if their parents object. Did they really think no one would object? I agree on the hunting thing, that's too much.

Nobody dies of a head-wound due to sex, DCD. Go promulgate gun-culture somewhere other than schools.

It's possible if you're a hardcore Sopranos fan.

And while the Ralphie/Janice, um, love scene from episode three may have been skirting the outer limits of what's tasteful, even on the channel of "Real Sex" and "Taxicab Confessions," was it really any more twisted than Richie holding a gun on Janice while they had sex in season two?

Nobody dies of a AIDS due to celibacy, DCD. Go promulgate free-love somewhere other than schools.

Boy D, changing the nouns makes it sound real similar to other arguements against education.

The restrictions placed upon their ownership, use, possession are many and numerous. I know you are not ignorant of that. And while 1/3rd of the population may own a firearm, off the top of my head I'd have to say 95% of the people have sex. One is just more relevant to more people.

Nice moving of the goalposts. You were making the arguement that there were "many" places that banned firearms and that the kids were unlikely even to see one. It's a relevant topic to millions of people.



They don't use the same reasoning, because sex education is part of biology and at least for now, biology is an important part of education. Biological sciences have been a part of education since the times of Ancient Greece, although "biology" was only a specific and coherent science since the 19th century.

So was weapons training. Safety is also an important part of education. They use the exact same reasoning.

Sports are not part of the mandatory education. There's a general physical ed requirement in most places, but one has the option of choosing say, soccer or football or what-have-you to fulfill that requirement. So if this is going to be a similar OPTION, again I don't have a problem with it. As a mandatory class? Take this class or FAIL? Fuck that.

Most phys ed classes don't give you the option. You play the sport that the teacher has assigned for the time.

Like I stated, did the parents even bother to monitor their kids' curriculum BEFORE they started bitching or complaining, or did they let others handle it for them until they found something they didn't like?

The school should have provided an option for kids not to have it taught to them if their parents object. Did they really think no one would object? I agree on the hunting thing, that's too much.

Personally, I have a problem with all these, "Let the parents keep their children from getting an education," laws. If guns weren't a part of our society, and gun-safety were not important, I'd agree with you (hence the reason I think teaching hunting was thoroughly unnecessary). But just as kids will decide to have sex (and should thus be educated about it), kids will come into contact with guns, and they should know how to keep themselves safe.

A parent who doesn't want their children to learn such things should fork out the money for a private school, or home school.

Boy D, changing the nouns makes it sound real similar to other arguements against education.

No one died of AIDS due to wearing proper protection either, but oh wait, let's not teach actual information about sex in school because we it's the same as teaching them to hunt!

PS. I wasn't aware people were hormonally compelled to wield firearms.

This isn't about gun safety, if it was about gun safety it would be about gun safety, this is about hunting, which is bullshit.

The only thing stupider than the teaching of hunting is the comparing of this to the teaching of proper sex ed. It isn't even remotely related and I don't see how one can be so fucking stupid or so fucking pigheaded as to make the comparison.

I don't mind gun safety but the hell is with the learning about hunting? Teach kids how to balance budgets and get the right cuts of meat from the butcher.

What's the difference between a dead deer and a dead cow?

No one died of AIDS due to wearing proper protection either, but oh wait, let's not teach actual information about sex in school because we it's the same as teaching them to hunt!

PS. I wasn't aware people were hormonally compelled to wield firearms.

This isn't about gun safety, if it was about gun safety it would be about gun safety, this is about hunting, which is bullshit.

The only thing stupider than the teaching of hunting is the comparing of this to the teaching of proper sex ed. It isn't even remotely related and I don't see how one can be so fucking stupid or so fucking pigheaded as to make the comparison.

Guns do have some connection to hormone levels.

Handling a gun makes men's testosterone levels rise — and makes them more aggressive. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/31/health/webmd/main1849354.shtml

What's the difference between a dead deer and a dead cow?

one of them is slightly harder to drag back to the truck? [/redneck]

No one died of AIDS due to wearing proper protection either, but oh wait, let's not teach actual information about sex in school because we it's the same as teaching them to hunt!

PS. I wasn't aware people were hormonally compelled to wield firearms.

This isn't about gun safety, if it was about gun safety it would be about gun safety, this is about hunting, which is bullshit.

The only thing stupider than the teaching of hunting is the comparing of this to the teaching of proper sex ed. It isn't even remotely related and I don't see how one can be so fucking stupid or so fucking pigheaded as to make the comparison.

And round and round we go. Hunting is a sport. Therefore it has a place in a phys ed class. If you don't like it, then opt your kids out.

If you would read the article, the parents were also complaining about their kids learning about firearm safety because they're afraid of firearms. That is the same as not teaching them actual information.

Dodge around the topic all you want. Them's the facts.

Gun safety I'm fine with, teaching hunting I am not.

It's called "Hunter Safety" because in most states those under a certain age are required to have the class in order to hunt. In reality it is a "gun safety" class. They do things like show where the safety button is on different guns. How to hold a gun without shooting someone. How to walk with a gun. How to store a gun. How to make sure no one is in your line of fire. How to handle guns in groups so you don't pull a "Chaney". They usually shoot a few targets so the students know what the "kick" of a gun feels like and how to control the gun when it goes off.

What's the difference between a dead deer and a dead cow?

Degrees of separation. They can pretend not to know how the cow died when it's bought at the store.

Guns do have some connection to hormone levels.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/07/31/health/webmd/main1849354.shtml

You obviously read what I said wrong.

I wasn't aware people were hormonally compelled to wield firearms. I didn't even say shoot, I said wield. Which means the hormonal effect would have to be preemptive of holding the weapon and compel people to hold it.

And round and round we go. Hunting is a sport. Therefore it has a place in a phys ed class. If you don't like it, then opt your kids out.
Sports classes are required to be extracurricular. Phys ed is for physical activity. Try again.

At least one parent who's child attends a public school is outraged that her daughter is being taught about gun safety and hunting in class. I don't see the problem. Better that the kids know how to handle a gun safely, no? The parent is anti-gun, but her kid may someday come in contact with firearms and she should have some knowledge about how to use them safely. Kids have sex too and many parents are against that. Does that mean they shouldn't be given info on safe sex?

http://www.fox28.com/News/index.php?ID=12556

Idiot.

Nobody dies of a head-wound due to sex, DCD. Go promulgate gun-culture somewhere other than schools.

With sex they get AIDS and other diseases. Guns just kill you faster. What is wrong with any safety information about any product or action?

You obviously read what I said wrong.

I wasn't aware people were hormonally compelled to wield firearms. I didn't even say shoot, I said wield. Which means the hormonal effect would have to be preemptive of holding the weapon and compel people to hold it.

That's why I said guns have some connection to hormone levels, not "You know what? Hormones do compel one to own guns." I was bringing up a fact that is tangentially related to your statement.

I'm not afraid of guns and I'm not afraid of bullets, I'm afraid of guns firing bullets at me at several hundred feet per second.

To the topic, the fact they are teaching hunting means they arn't teaching gun safety for people to be safe around guns.

That's exactly what they are teaching.

Personally, I have a problem with all these, "Let the parents keep their children from getting an education," laws. If guns weren't a part of our society, and gun-safety were not important, I'd agree with you (hence the reason I think teaching hunting was thoroughly unnecessary). But just as kids will decide to have sex (and should thus be educated about it), kids will come into contact with guns, and they should know how to keep themselves safe.

A parent who doesn't want their children to learn such things should fork out the money for a private school, or home school.

Well, I'm not sure how many kids will come into contact with guns over their lifetimes, but okay, I'll grant you that point. Still, the school should have asked the parents, because in these litigious times, they should have known someone was going to object.

We agree on shooting Bambi.

That's why I said guns have some connection to hormone levels,
Yes and stoves have a connection to boiling water, but not without water. Guns have a connection to hormone levels in the wrong place. So I will therefore take your answer to my implied question to be "No, people are not hormonally compelled to wield firearms." And therefore I reply, "Your comparison of hunting ed class to sex ed class is misleading, foolish, and blatantly pigheaded."

Idiot.

You may want to direct that statment to someone in particular before sombody choses to be offended by it.

Yes and stoves have a connection to boiling water, but not without water. Guns have a connection to hormone levels in the wrong place. So I will therefore take your answer to my implied question to be "No, people are not hormonally compelled to wield firearms." And therefore I reply, "Your comparison of hunting ed class to sex ed class is misleading, foolish, and blatantly pigheaded."

I forget. Why is a connection to hormones the deciding factor here?

Sports classes are required to be extracurricular. Phys ed is for physical activity. Try again.

Phys ed has sports as a part of it. Sports are physical activity. Try again.

And why did you not respond to the rest of my post? Is it because the parents are also complaing about firearm safety and you're trying to divert the topic?

Yes and stoves have a connection to boiling water, but not without water. Guns have a connection to hormone levels in the wrong place. So I will therefore take your answer to my implied question to be "No, people are not hormonally compelled to wield firearms." And therefore I reply, "Your comparison of hunting ed class to sex ed class is misleading, foolish, and blatantly pigheaded."

Ok, so the availability of guns and the drive to pick one up are lower than the availability of sex and the drive to engage in it. So since more people are killed by heart disease than by auto accidents, and more people have access to fatty foods than cars, we can throw away the idea of teaching safe driving.

Ok, so the availability of guns and the drive to pick one up are lower than the availability of sex and the drive to engage in it. So since more people are killed by heart disease than by auto accidents, and more people have access to fatty foods than cars, we can throw away the idea of teaching safe driving.

YAAY!! No more drivers ed.

And reading the article, the parents basically say "Some kids are killed by firearms so we don't want ours learning how to be safe around them".

What's the difference between a dead deer and a dead cow?

No difference. But if my kid is anything like me, he's going to be going to a grocery store to get his meat.

Ok, so the availability of guns and the drive to pick one up are lower than the availability of sex and the drive to engage in it. So since more people are killed by heart disease than by auto accidents, and more people have access to fatty foods than cars, we can throw away the idea of teaching safe driving.

I honestly believed you smarter than that, sadly I was wrong. Because that's even fucking stupider than your original comparison.

I honestly believed you smarter than that, sadly I was wrong. Because that's even fucking stupider than your original comparison.

Look dude, it boils down to this. They're teaching safety. They're teaching skills that can make the difference between life and death. What's wrong with that? And don't fuck with me over not taking this thing totally seriously. This is NS. It's not a school board meeting to decide whether or not this should stay in the curriculum.

Look dude, it boils down to this. They're teaching safety. They're teaching skills that can make the difference between life and death. What's wrong with that? And don't fuck with me over not taking this thing totally seriously. This is NS. It's not a school board meeting to decide whether or not this should stay in the curriculum.

You mean the school board meetings that these parents obviously didn't attend?

I honestly believed you smarter than that, sadly I was wrong. Because that's even fucking stupider than your original comparison.

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y138/Dragonkirby/Non-Kirby/KDSez/gtfogrowswearybullshitptu8.jpg
See, I can make pointless posts too. Care to explain?

Look dude, it boils down to this. They're teaching safety. They're teaching skills that can make the difference between life and death. What's wrong with that? And don't fuck with me over not taking this thing totally seriously. This is NS. It's not a school board meeting to decide whether or not this should stay in the curriculum.

And you are making stupid bullshit comparisons.

No difference. But if my kid is anything like me, he's going to be going to a grocery store to get his meat.

Having killed deer and having seen a slaughtering plant, a dead deer suffers less and the meat is cleaner.

You don't even want to know what the animal looks like that goes into a McBurger. Or for that matter what "part" of the critter is in a McBurger. Remember anything in a bovine is "beef".

And you are making stupid bullshit comparisons.

And your whole argument is stupid bullshit. See? I can do it too. Now let's cut out the flaming.

Having killed deer and having seen a slaughtering plant, a dead deer suffers less and the meat is cleaner.

You don't even want to know what the animal looks like that goes into a McBurger. Or for that matter what "part" of the critter is in a McBurger. Remember anything in a bovine is "beef".

My kid isn't going to McDonalds and I have issues with the slaughter industry but I'm not a hunter and I doubt I'll be living in an area where hunting is a feasible way to spend your time. I understand gun safety but wilderness survival just isn't necessary unless there is wilderness about and I'd question too much time being spent on either issue while at school.

I admit that I don't get the whole teaching hunting thing (at least not as a required part of the curriculum) but would the parents complain if it was just teaching the kids what not to do with a gun.

I think that in a country where guns are as predominant as they are in the US, children should know what not to touch on a gun. So if in one class they brought in mockups of real guns and showed the kids what parts not to touch (the trigger, the safety, the barrel, etc) it might actually reduce gun accidents.

But I really don't think the kids should've been taught how to shoot or remove the safety without parental permission. Even with, it's kind of sketchy.

Teach them what not to do, not what to do.

I see the point, but I'd say that considering the current state of the US education system, their time might be better spent on calculus. Or evolution.

I admit that I don't get the whole teaching hunting thing (at least not as a required part of the curriculum) but would the parents complain if it was just teaching the kids what not to do with a gun.

I think that in a country where guns are as predominant as they are in the US, children should know what not to touch on a gun. So if in one class they brought in mockups of real guns and showed the kids what parts not to touch (the trigger, the safety, the barrel, etc) it might actually reduce gun accidents.

But I really don't think the kids should've been taught how to shoot or remove the safety without parental permission. Even with, it's kind of sketchy.

Teach them what not to do, not what to do.
My name is Desperate Measures and this post has my approval.

See, I can make pointless posts too. Care to explain?
Speaking of growing weary of stupid shit. How is sex ed not comparable to hunting ed? Let's see. There is no guarantee that children will ever have to handle a gun; however, it is a definite that they will eventually have sex, probably before marriage and therefore that is obviously more important and the comparison is bullshit because it is inherently false. The moon is not the sun, but it sits up in the sky and lights everything up, but it doesn't emit radiation. There is no biological compelling to pick up a gun and go shoot things, there is one to have sex.

Speaking of growing weary of stupid shit. How is sex ed not comparable to hunting ed? Let's see. There is no guarantee that children will ever have to handle a gun; however, it is a definite that they will eventually have sex, probably before marriage and therefore that is obviously more important and the comparison is bullshit because it is inherently false. The moon is not the sun, but it sits up in the sky and lights everything up, but it doesn't emit radiation. There is no biological compelling to pick up a gun and go shoot things, there is one to have sex.

Okay, this arguement may have some semblance of bearing on the situation if we're talking about an either/or between sex ed and gun safety, But I don't remember anything about that.

My kid isn't going to McDonalds and I have issues with the slaughter industry but I'm not a hunter and I doubt I'll be living in an area where hunting is a feasible way to spend your time. I understand gun safety but wilderness survival just isn't necessary unless there is wilderness about and I'd question too much time being spent on either issue while at school.

Wilderness can come to some surprising places. I imagine there were a few in New Orleans that wish they had had some wilderness survival. Just think how different it would have been if each family would have had a 72 hour kit with the basics needed to survive until the cavalry came over the hill. I sent a kit with both of my college daughters. The first time an ice storm came through and shut down all modern conveniences they had no problems. St. Louis isn't exactly where one would expect wilderness.

Okay, this arguement may have some semblance of bearing on the situation if we're talking about an either/or between sex ed and gun safety, But I don't remember anything about that.
DCD was equating this hunting ed to sex ed and using that to justify the former.

DCD was equating this hunting ed to sex ed and using that to justify the former.

I was equating the arguments against teaching gun safety in school with the arguments agaisnt teaching sex ed in school. Both are based on emotion rather than on the best interests of the kids. While not every kid will end up encountering a gun while growing up, since they are prevalent in our society a significant percentage of kids will.

If you're going to call my argument stupid bullshit you should at least know what my argument is. Seems stupid to criticize an argument you haven't even taken the time to understand.

I suspect most kids won't turn it down. No rule applies to everyone though.
Believe it or not, not everyone needs a phallic extension.
Rich? Hardly. The three biggest job providers in this town are the university, the casino, and Walmart in that order. If it weren't for the university we'd be part of the "rural wasteland" you're talking about, just like every other town for 50 miles in each direction. Also, I've never heard of schools not being able to afford textbooks. Maybe Texas with it's minimalist government has that problem, but we don't, at least not outside of isolated cases and Detroit, which is a rather different problem which I blame on the rich white suburbs.
I've observed the problem in three other states. Lack of resources for education is a problem everywhere in this country.
As for you district, sounds like they're wasting time and money that our country obviously needs for other educational pursuits, as demonstrated by how we measure up to other countries in every educational survey ever.

My point is that those against teaching gun safety are just as irresponsible as those opposed to teaching safe sex.

Full agreement.

As for you district, sounds like they're wasting time and money that our country obviously needs for other educational pursuits, as demonstrated by how we measure up to other countries in every educational survey ever.

Perhaps, but money isn't the issue. We spend more per pupil than most European states on education and get far less out of it. There's something terrible wrong with the system that money by itself won't fix.

Look dude, it boils down to this. They're teaching safety. They're teaching skills that can make the difference between life and death. What's wrong with that?

Nothing, and that's an excellent reason why bungee jump safety, proper use of SCUBA gear and Krav Maga should be mandatory in public schools.

Nothing, and that's an excellent reason why bungee jump safety, proper use of SCUBA gear and Krav Maga should be mandatory in public schools.


Hmm, I wouldn't have minded taking a course in high school about the proper use of SCUBA gear. Too bad my school was a Vo-Ag school, so that never would have happened. :(

Nobody dies of a head-wound due to sex, DCD. Go promulgate gun-culture somewhere other than schools.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485588

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=485588

Dearie me :D

Nothing, and that's an excellent reason why bungee jump safety, proper use of SCUBA gear and Krav Maga should be mandatory in public schools.

More people own guns than bungee jump or scuba dive in the US. I see where you're going with this, but it doesn't really apply because guns are fairly common. Sex is ubiquitous, guns are common, bungee jumping is rare. I would like Krav Maga taught in schools, but only as part of a mixed martial arts class. Krav Maga is good, but there are plenty of other good martial arts out there and some are better than Krav Maga in one or more areas..

Nothing, and that's an excellent reason why bungee jump safety, proper use of SCUBA gear and Krav Maga should be mandatory in public schools.

YAY Krav Maga! :D