https://www.yahoo.com/parenting/kinderg ... 07921.html

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.

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.”

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.”

The American Academy of Pediatrics doesn't like the Eddie Eagle program, which is part of Gun Stop, either.

That sounds like a good program.

I made similar language for California and gave it to my 3rd District local Republican Assembly member, James Gallagher, about six weeks ago. I targeted it for the 2016 session. I have not heard back yet. Maybe it's time for me to visit this rascal in Sacto--he never comes here to his own district. I did meet with two different staff members on two different occasions to give them the text and talk about it.

My language also included marksmanship training. Maybe that's the sticking point. I'll go see him or his staff to find out.

CDFingers

Why educate when you can just tell kids that Guns Are Bad, Mkay? Then no kids will never even get near guns. Totally works for sex, drugs and alcohol.

CDFingers wrote:That sounds like a good program.

I made similar language for California and gave it to my 3rd District local Republican Assembly member, James Gallagher, about six weeks ago. I targeted it for the 2016 session. I have not heard back yet. Maybe it's time for me to visit this rascal in Sacto--he never comes here to his own district. I did meet with two different staff members on two different occasions to give them the text and talk about it.

My language also included marksmanship training. Maybe that's the sticking point. I'll go see him or his staff to find out.

CDFingers

Good idea! The term marksmanship is objectionable? Easy fix, call it something else.

I like the idea teaching kids early.

The concensus would be 6 is too young for marksmanship training in public school. I would stick to promoting only safety for that age in public school. Marksmanship could come later, but of course would not really come at all. Given the resistance even to Gun Stop, educators will accept nothing less than promoting hatred and fear of guns. Marksmanshiip would undermine that.

ArmedAndLiberal wrote: The concensus would be 6 is too young for marksmanship training in public school. I would stick to promoting only safety for that age in public school. Marksmanship could come later, but of course would not really come at all. Given the resistance even to Gun Stop, educators will accept nothing less than promoting hatred and fear of guns. Marksmanshiip would undermine that.

Point out that not all educators are anti gun. Sporting clays is one of the fastest growing sports in high schools now. Get out of the big cities and lots of teachers hunt and shoot and will even talk about guns in public. Some probably even vote Republican, and I have heard of a few teachers who claim to be Libertarians. In my little town, when the new football field was dedicated, we had a dozen muzzle loading cannon on the field playing the 1812 Overture the way it was written.

Call it "accurate shooting basics" or "shooting fundamentals" and link to gun safety.

I don't think this is bad. In this case, MDA seems kind of like the far right qua sex education. Just because you don't LIKE something doesn't mean that it's not going to happen. While I may be wildly misguided, I believe that if you acknowledge that thing and teach it openly there's a far greater risk of things backfiring; clearly abstinence-only education doesn't prevent VD or teen pregnancies, and the "guns are bad" stance probably just makes guns more appealing.

Wasn't there a story not too long ago where one of the Moms Demand Everytown For Bloomberg groups is trying to get a pro-2A group's funding for free cable locks pulled? Basically the gist of it was something along the lines of, "We know they're distributing free safety equipment that will help save the lives we're supposedly most concerned about, but they're behind some of our recent defeats so fuck them.".

I also see a theme similar to the 'no rubbers' campaign; It seems illogical on the one hand to complain about being awash in guns and on the other pretend that they don't exist. I think a safety curriculum such as in the OP sounds excellent. For those kids whose parents teach safe handling early, there'll be nothing new; for those kids whose only exposure is from movies and plastic toys, there could be immense benefit.

I am also for a training/marksmanship program in school for older kids, at least on an elective basis. Seems to me some kids would benefit from a normalization of the tool rather than treating it as a dark and forbidden topic, a la 'Bobby/Sally, if you touch your (gun) you're going to go blind!'

Bacchus wrote:I also see a theme similar to the 'no rubbers' campaign; It seems illogical on the one hand to complain about being awash in guns and on the other pretend that they don't exist.

I'm reminded of the Religious Right's reaction to sex education as well, and we now know how well "Abstinence Only" programs work.

What the two groups have in common is an unquestioning belief in doctrine without regard for empiric proof.

My reasoning about the marksmanship training is that when a person learns how properly to use a tool, the misuse of that tool become less and less likely.

Now I know that pols can only handle pretty much one idea at a time, so when I go back in there, I'm just going for safety training. Not even my Repub assembly critter was wild about the marksmanship--even tough I suggested paint ball for the lower grades, and .22 rifles for those over 18. I do like the trap idea, though. That might fly up here where we're hearing the geese coming in right on schedule.

I wonder whether we ought to invite one of those Moms Demand Action women over for some safety training and maybe some .22 pumpkin drawing: if fun can't be had by drawing a punkin face with .22 bullets, we might not be able to work with them. ;-)

For some people like me, target shooting is a martial art. For others it's irreligious. I dunno: the purpose of a martial is not to be able to beat up bad guys. It's to attain enlightenment. Sounds religious to me, but it's personal religion, so the organized ones are deeply threatened by that. Recall what happened to Martin Luther when he dared to ask that the Bible be printed in a language the people could read rather than in a dead tongue spoken only by pedophiles.

CDFingers

There is precedence. Those of us born in the '50s will remember this.



(Of course, some folks will want to edit out those fascist cops, sheriffs, and firefighters.)

brandonsmash wrote:I don't think this is bad. In this case, MDA seems kind of like the far right qua sex education. Just because you don't LIKE something doesn't mean that it's not going to happen. While I may be wildly misguided, I believe that if you acknowledge that thing and teach it openly there's a far greater risk of things backfiring; clearly abstinence-only education doesn't prevent VD or teen pregnancies, and the "guns are bad" stance probably just makes guns more appealing.

×10 for this! The allure of forbidden fruit is very strong, well nigh irresistible to many.

brandonsmash wrote:I don't think this is bad. In this case, MDA seems kind of like the far right qua sex education. Just because you don't LIKE something doesn't mean that it's not going to happen. While I may be wildly misguided, I believe that if you acknowledge that thing and teach it openly there's a far greater risk of things backfiring; clearly abstinence-only education doesn't prevent VD or teen pregnancies, and the "guns are bad" stance probably just makes guns more appealing.

This was my first thought as well.

SwampGrouch wrote:There is precedence. Those of us born in the '50s will remember this.

(Of course, some folks will want to edit out those fascist cops, sheriffs, and firefighters.)

Damn...that's like a PSA from the Fallout universe. Ya'll from the 1950's just leave bazooka's lying around too?

http://www.kidssafetynetwork.com/what-h ... ter-a-gun/
[youtu_be]http://youtu.be/2jmAnRIIpv8[/youtu_be]

senorgrand wrote:

SwampGrouch wrote:There is precedence. Those of us born in the '50s will remember this.

(Of course, some folks will want to edit out those fascist cops, sheriffs, and firefighters.)

Damn...that's like a PSA from the Fallout universe. Ya'll from the 1950's just leave bazooka's lying around too?

Damn right how else were we going to stop the commie invasion.

Kindergarten gun safety!

Wow. That's a good idea. Anyone want to steal it and run with it local?

Missouri has a legal provision allowing such instruction to happen in grade schools.

Once other issues are ironed out I will get rolling on this locally.

So it teaches the Eddie Eagle program, which is nothing more than abstinence for guns, and hasn't been shown to prevent kids from playing with firearms. But Demanding Procreators wants to get rid of even that program.

Their logic is basically "Parents, you can't trust your teens to not have sex. So make sure they don't know anything at all about it. So they're not tempted."

Does Eddie Eagle teach purely avoidance, or also safer gun handling? I know the complaint is "trained kids still pick up the gun!!!1!" A more nuanced analysis would be whether they handle the gun in a safer manner.

If a kid plays with the gun but knows not to point it at anyone, and doesn't, I'm pretty OK with that. But I was taught to shoot a .22 revolver when I was 6, along with a clear understanding of Rules 1 and 2 (at first 3 and 4 were covered more by adult supervision) so I'm clearly a brainwashed maniac.

A few weeks ago, I was at the range and a kid of about 5 or 6 asked me about my Mk II a couple of times. His dad was just there patterning a shotgun and didn't seem to have any other hardware along, so I offered that same .22 revolver I learned on and his dad helped him shoot a few cylinders. That kid was good on Rule 3, too! I think he'd shot once before.

I am all for this. Its better than them finding a gun and running around with it yelling Pew Pew Bang Bang..

My dad taught me gun safety at a super early age, and I did the same with my kids..


And dont for once thing that just because the gun has safety features it will be safe. My dad, who is 18 years older than his next youngest brother, my uncle, has told the story of how when he was on leave from the service one time he was cleaning his guns, and his little brother [ about 4 ] was sitting on the floor with him watching. My dad said he turned his head, talking to his dad, and when he looked back my uncle had picked up a 1911, was looking right down the barrel, his thumbs on the trigger and his fingers wrapped around the safety bar on the back of the grip, and the gun went "click" . My dad said that spooked him so much that he never cleaned the guns in front of his little brother until he completely taught about guns and around 8 years old.

Yes, can be ignorance much more dangerous than knowledge.. in many ways.