ADVERTISEMENT

Gun Safety Classes in Schools? Yea or Nay?

Gun safety classes in school? Good idea or "atrocious to put the onus of gun safety on children"?

  • Yes, this is as good an idea as sex education is.

    Votes: 7 36.8%
  • Yes, but Kindergarten seems a bit young.

    Votes: 4 21.1%
  • Yes, but only because it's voluntary.

    Votes: 6 31.6%
  • No, this is a shameless attempt to put the onus of gun safety on children!

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Present.

    Votes: 2 10.5%

  • Total voters
    19

The Tradition

HB King
Apr 23, 2002
128,029
102,529
113
When are kids old enough to learn about gun safety? One school in rural Pennsylvania says age 6, and is offering a yearly program called Gun Stop that teaches kindergarteners how to stay safe around firearms.

“This course isn’t pro-gun or anti-gun; we teach kids how to be safe around guns, and not to be passive bystanders,” fourth grade teacher Daniel Krestar, who teaches the course at Forest Hills Elementary School in Sidman, tells Yahoo Parenting. More than 80 percent of homeowners in the school’s Cambria County county own a gun, according to WTAJ, which profiled the local program this week.

There’s no question that gun violence is rampant. A study conducted by the non-profit Everytown for Gun Safety, which analyzes unintentional gun deaths during the year following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shootings, showed that 100 boys and girls die from accidental gun deaths yearly. The group also found that there are more 1.37 school shootings per week, with the majority occurring at K-12 schools.

Gun Stop was first introduced by the Cambria District Attorney’s office two decades ago, and is taught each October. In it, students in kindergarten and again in third grade are educated on what to do if they see a gun and how to engage in non-violent conflict resolution. “We wanted to teach the course because statistics showed that 80 percent of local home owners kept guns in their home,” says Krestar. “And we focused on kids as young as kindergarten after reading studies that showed kids as young as 5 or 6 had the strength to pull the trigger of a handgun.”

In the 45-minute class (which is optional and open to parents of students, too), kids watch videos featuring Eddie Eagle, an animated bird character created by the National Rifle Association (NRA) who teaches kids four steps to take if they see a gun — stop, don’t touch, run away, and tell a grown-up — along with videos about McGruff the Crime Dog, a cartoon bloodhound featured in classic crime awareness ads.

Krester says the school doesn’t touch specifically on “the controversy” of school shootings, rather on how kids can work out issues non-violently. “it’s about kids being aggressive and strong enough to say ‘violence isn’t a good idea’ — not necessarily to approach that student — but conflict resolution through discussion,” he explains. Children also participate in role-playing exercises, such as what to do if they find a gun in their home, and read Dr. Seuss’s The Butter Battle Book, a children’s story about an arms race over breakfast food.

The Gun Stop program has received a favorable response from the community, says Krester, but there hasn’t been much evidence to show that gun-safety programs are effective to begin with. One 2004 study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that existing gun safety programs — including Eagle Eddie — weren’t applicable in real-life scenarios. Study authors noted that when kids find guns, they’re likely to play with them, and that such classes ”do not prevent risk behaviors and may even increase gun handling among children.“ The study concluded by stating that more research is needed to determine the best method.

But according to Jennifer Hoppe, deputy director of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a campaign of the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, the best way to reduce gun deaths among children is to be keep the weapons out of children’s hands altogether. “It’s atrocious to put the onus of gun safety onto children — this is an adult problem,” Hoppe tells Yahoo Parenting. “Every gun that’s gotten into the hands of a child has first been under the control of an adult. A program that tries to dodge that is disingenuous.”

What’s more, she adds, "Accidental gun deaths among children are not ‘accidental.’ They’re preventable tragedies.” The organization’s new campaign Be Smart encourages parents to keep guns locked up, ask about unsecured guns before allowing children to play in someone else’s home, and recognize the link between teen suicide and access to guns.

"After all, you can tell a kid to be careful,” she says. “But you’ll still childproof your home, right?”

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/kindergarteners-get-gun-safety-lesson-at-school-183507921.html



Bold emphasis above is mine.
 
When are kids old enough to learn about gun safety? One school in rural Pennsylvania says age 6, and is offering a yearly program called Gun Stop that teaches kindergarteners how to stay safe around firearms.

“This course isn’t pro-gun or anti-gun; we teach kids how to be safe around guns, and not to be passive bystanders,” fourth grade teacher Daniel Krestar, who teaches the course at Forest Hills Elementary School in Sidman, tells Yahoo Parenting. More than 80 percent of homeowners in the school’s Cambria County county own a gun, according to WTAJ, which profiled the local program this week.

There’s no question that gun violence is rampant. A study conducted by the non-profit Everytown for Gun Safety, which analyzes unintentional gun deaths during the year following the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary School mass shootings, showed that 100 boys and girls die from accidental gun deaths yearly. The group also found that there are more 1.37 school shootings per week, with the majority occurring at K-12 schools.

Gun Stop was first introduced by the Cambria District Attorney’s office two decades ago, and is taught each October. In it, students in kindergarten and again in third grade are educated on what to do if they see a gun and how to engage in non-violent conflict resolution. “We wanted to teach the course because statistics showed that 80 percent of local home owners kept guns in their home,” says Krestar. “And we focused on kids as young as kindergarten after reading studies that showed kids as young as 5 or 6 had the strength to pull the trigger of a handgun.”

In the 45-minute class (which is optional and open to parents of students, too), kids watch videos featuring Eddie Eagle, an animated bird character created by the National Rifle Association (NRA) who teaches kids four steps to take if they see a gun — stop, don’t touch, run away, and tell a grown-up — along with videos about McGruff the Crime Dog, a cartoon bloodhound featured in classic crime awareness ads.

Krester says the school doesn’t touch specifically on “the controversy” of school shootings, rather on how kids can work out issues non-violently. “it’s about kids being aggressive and strong enough to say ‘violence isn’t a good idea’ — not necessarily to approach that student — but conflict resolution through discussion,” he explains. Children also participate in role-playing exercises, such as what to do if they find a gun in their home, and read Dr. Seuss’s The Butter Battle Book, a children’s story about an arms race over breakfast food.

The Gun Stop program has received a favorable response from the community, says Krester, but there hasn’t been much evidence to show that gun-safety programs are effective to begin with. One 2004 study published by the American Academy of Pediatrics found that existing gun safety programs — including Eagle Eddie — weren’t applicable in real-life scenarios. Study authors noted that when kids find guns, they’re likely to play with them, and that such classes ”do not prevent risk behaviors and may even increase gun handling among children.“ The study concluded by stating that more research is needed to determine the best method.

But according to Jennifer Hoppe, deputy director of Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America, a campaign of the Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund, the best way to reduce gun deaths among children is to be keep the weapons out of children’s hands altogether. “It’s atrocious to put the onus of gun safety onto children — this is an adult problem,” Hoppe tells Yahoo Parenting. “Every gun that’s gotten into the hands of a child has first been under the control of an adult. A program that tries to dodge that is disingenuous.”

What’s more, she adds, "Accidental gun deaths among children are not ‘accidental.’ They’re preventable tragedies.” The organization’s new campaign Be Smart encourages parents to keep guns locked up, ask about unsecured guns before allowing children to play in someone else’s home, and recognize the link between teen suicide and access to guns.

"After all, you can tell a kid to be careful,” she says. “But you’ll still childproof your home, right?”

https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/kindergarteners-get-gun-safety-lesson-at-school-183507921.html



Bold emphasis above is mine.
I'm okay with it since it's voluntary, but I also believe the age is a bit too young. That's just my opinion and I could be convinced I'm wrong with more evidence to suggest it's successful in children that age.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Sounds fine to me, but when the government kindergarten teachers come up with a catchy jingle about not touching guns, don't go all ape shit about the constitution and brainwashing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: cigaretteman
Sure did. A study the article cites says that such classes, ”do not prevent risk behaviors and may even increase gun handling among children.“

Dubious.

In any case, they're watching a video, not learning how to break down and clean guns.
 
Dubious.

In any case, they're watching a video, not learning how to break down and clean guns.

No, but as the article points out, It’s atrocious to put the onus of gun safety onto children — this is an adult problem. Every gun that’s gotten into the hands of a child has first been under the control of an adult. A program that tries to dodge that is disingenuous.”
 
No, but as the article points out, It’s atrocious to put the onus of gun safety onto children — this is an adult problem. Every gun that’s gotten into the hands of a child has first been under the control of an adult. A program that tries to dodge that is disingenuous.”

That "Mad Mom" person is a lunatic. That's why I chose her over-the-top quote for the poll.

Should we not teach our children to watch out for traffic? Yes, not running children down in the roadway is an adult problem, so that means we shouldn't educate kids about the danger?
 
  • Like
Reactions: SWIowahawks
That "Mad Mom" person is a lunatic. That's why I chose her over-the-top quote for the poll.

Should we not teach our children to watch out for traffic? Yes, not running children down in the roadway is an adult problem, so that means we shouldn't educate kids about the danger?
I guess this is just the price we have to pay for the 2nd. Instead of adults being the ones to keep guns out of the hands of kids, we expect kids to do their own safe guarding.
 
I guess this is my way of looking at it: If guns are the problem, the solution isn't to teach kids how to avoid them. The solution is to get rid of the guns in the first place.
 
I guess this is my way of looking at it: If guns are the problem, the solution isn't to teach kids how to avoid them. The solution is to get rid of the guns in the first place.
Oh didn't you know? Guns aren't dangerous (unlike traffic), the real problem is kids are dangerous. Get rid of kids.
 
Not quite the same gun safety course we had in gym class in seventh grade. That was all about hunting safety.

Right about the same time liberals were fighting to get "Christmas" taken out of the Christmas pageants that the school had held since it was built. Why? Still not sure. Talk about thinned skinned, looking for something to complain about curmudgeons.

And now they want us to stop eating meat because they said so.
 
What point is that? Sex ed? I'm fine with sex ed as part of an overall health class curriculum.
That guns are inherently dangerous and like traffic requires a great deal of regulation, safety measures and training to navigate correctly.
 
I had hunters safety class for a few days in 7th grade science in Wisconsin. It certainly made sense there, I'm sure there could be some safety/awareness taught everywhere.
 
More than 80 percent of homeowners in the school’s Cambria County county own a gun.

Wow! That seems incredibly high. I own several guns myself but I can't imagine the number being that high where I live, although I have no idea what the number would be (I'd think less than 50%).

I guess this is one of those situations where the locals should be able to decide if this is appropriate and necessary, and if 80% of the homes do have a gun, then I don't have a problem with it.
 
Hunter Safety is still taught in a good portion of rural Iowa schools.

Of course, 95% of Hunter Safety in gun handling and the law.

Great idea.
 
I don't see a problem with it. The message is not to touch it and to go tell someone. It would be different if they where trying to teach kids how to operate a firearm.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered
I don't see a problem with it. The message is not to touch it and to go tell someone. It would be different if they where trying to teach kids how to operate a firearm.
This kind of misses the point to me. The NRA has tried endlessly to get guns in as many homes as possible. Now they admit that some of these guns are killing kids. So what is the NRA's solution? To say that they were wrong and that perhaps not as many homes should have guns? No. The NRA says the kids should shoulder the responsibility of making sure they're safe.

Nice one, NRA. Help create a problem and then tell us that kids should be the ones to solve it.
 
This kind of misses the point to me. The NRA has tried endlessly to get guns in as many homes as possible. Now they admit that some of these guns are killing kids. So what is the NRA's solution? To say that they were wrong and that perhaps not as many homes should have guns? No. The NRA says the kids should shoulder the responsibility of making sure they're safe.

Nice one, NRA. Help create a problem and then tell us that kids should be the ones to solve it.

The NRA has long advocated for gun safety education and training. Just stop. You're making a fool of yourself.
 
We can even put this in different terms. Let's say that instead of guns killing kids, it's lead paint. Would it be acceptable to simply tell kids to stay away from lead paint while still pushing the public to keep painting their walls with it? To me, it wouldn't
 
We can even put this in different terms. Let's say that instead of guns killing kids, it's lead paint. Would it be acceptable to simply tell kids to stay away from lead paint while still pushing the public to keep painting their walls with it? To me, it wouldn't

SMH on how dumb of an analogy that is...
 
The NRA has long advocated for gun safety education and training. Just stop. You're making a fool of yourself.
So the NRA hasn't been pushing for more guns? What world are you living in? That's the NRA's reaction to everything. More guns. More guns in public. More guns at home. More guns at schools.

The NRA used to be about safety. Now they're an extension of the gun manufacturers and their new focus seems to be to sell guns.
 
Or we can consider the more likely result. That you're not smart enough to come up with a real criticism of it.

There's no reason to keep using lead paint in homes.

There are plenty of good reasons someone might keep a gun at home.

A gun is simply a tool. No different than a hammer, or a knife, or a screwdriver.
 
  • Like
Reactions: KitingHigh
There's no reason to keep using lead paint in homes.

There are plenty of good reasons someone might keep a gun at home.

A gun is simply a tool. No different than a hammer, or a knife, or a screwdriver.
Oh come now. You make a fine point that it's a uniquely necessary tool without a viable alternative. Only to follow it up with an inane point that it's just like a screw driver. Could you both get real. It's a dangerous tool, a uniquely dangerous tool that warrants special rules, just like traffic.
 
Okay, do you warn your children no to touch the chain saw?
Of course. But that's not the point. The NRA has been pushing for more guns for years. Now they admit they kill children. So why can't the NRA simply say it was wrong and that there shouldn't be so many accessible guns? Why is their solution to keep all the guns and hope that the kids can learn to stay away from them?
 
Of course. But that's not the point. The NRA has been pushing for more guns for years. Now they admit they kill children. So why can't the NRA simply say it was wrong and that there shouldn't be so many accessible guns? Why is their solution to keep all the guns and hope that the kids can learn to stay away from them?

The NRA has never advocated that people store guns in an unsafe manner. It's possible be a responsible gun owner, you know.
 
This kind of misses the point to me. The NRA has tried endlessly to get guns in as many homes as possible. Now they admit that some of these guns are killing kids. So what is the NRA's solution? To say that they were wrong and that perhaps not as many homes should have guns? No. The NRA says the kids should shoulder the responsibility of making sure they're safe.

Nice one, NRA. Help create a problem and then tell us that kids should be the ones to solve it.

Wow sounds a lot like liberals with ending sexual morality, easy divorce and trying to fix all the problems that causes with abortion. Yes I totally get the comparison.

For the record on this issue, I'm with you that the NRA is being hypocritical somewhat on this, but on the actual teaching children to stay away from guns, I think that's a no-brainer. I think we should be teaching kids that.

It's not that we are putting the responsibility so much as teaching kids this is the last line of defense against irresponsible adults.
 
The NRA has never advocated that people store guns in an unsafe manner. It's possible be a responsible gun owner, you know.
No, but it has advocated that we need more of them. And it has also advocated for less restrictions on who can buy them. Face it. The NRA is no longer in the business of safety and education. It's in the business to sell guns.
 
No, but it has advocated that we need more of them. And it has also advocated for less restrictions on who can buy them. Face it. The NRA is no longer in the business of safety and education. It's in the business to sell guns.

"more" does not mean "less safe".
 
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT