Should firearm training be mandatory in schools?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 19 NEXT
 

The only thing a kid really needs to know is not having the barrel of a gun pointed at your face. And besides that, there shouldn't be gun training in schools. Kids lack the discipline and control to wield guns.

I think its interesting how many here are opposed to simple education regarding firearms. It's not like the OP proposed handing a gat' to seven year olds and telling them 'go nuts'. But a program designed to teach kids how to responsibly handle, maintain, and respect a firearm.

It wasn't so long ago that kids as young as seven were out hunting with their fathers with .50 caliber rifles, granted they were muzzle-loading rifles but they'd put a hole in someone just as good as anything.

The really strange thing about this debate is the thought process regarding the cause-and-effect around firearms training...as if the training would make someone inclined to commit mass-murder (which is akin to saying that playing violent video games would yield the same result in my opinion). I was trained with rifles when I was 12, and a shotgun when I was 14...no ONCE (even in the midst of the self-loathing teen angst other posters have pointed out) was I ever inclined to (let alone perpetrated the act of) mass-murder, regular murder, or even a simple menacing...and neither were my contemporaries who went through the same training I did.

Let's be honest. Anyone who WANTS to learn how to use and obtain a firearm with the intention to commit a crime; CAN. Vilifying the possession of or training surrounding a firearm won't change that... other than making the criminal's job easier by ensuring fewer armed victims. So simply offering education regarding their operation won't make a difference in regards to criminal behavior. As for making such training mandatory...I'd have to have a few more details with regard to the point and purpose of that before I would get on board.

thelonewolf266:

spectrenihlus:

thelonewolf266:

So its the Mexicans fault is it I don't think a Mexican was responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting and the recent Tuscon shooting?
I'm sorry but more guns does not a safer country make.

The virginia tech shooting could have been decreased had it not been for the total firearm ban on campus ( didn't stop the shooters from bringing in guns did it) and the tuscon shooting could have been stopped if someone had a gun as well. When guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns.

Or we could have just been sensible people and not given then fucking guns.It would be lot harder to kill a lot of people if the best weapon he could have got a hold of was a knife. Lets see him kill more than one person before being stopped with that I'm sorry but guns are designed to kill people nothing else.

And you would remove every gun, ever? And you think people who have illegal guns will comply? We all know how respectful of laws criminals are!

I also find it funny that I see the same people whining about drugs being illegal want guns to be illegal. They claim that illegalizing drugs gives money to crime lords, and that people will get them anyway. And the same is not true of guns? Better that they are regulated

mirasiel:

Simalacrum:
but even less so in the UK where I live, where virtually nobody has a gun in the first place.

Except for the criminal gangs that keep showing up with nice amounts of firearms.... ;)

-------------

On topic, wow the level of knee-jerking and ignorance from the hoplophobes is well...staggeringly predictable, amusingly though a lot of sounds exactly like the rantings you hear from the anti-sex ed crowds:

"if you teach teenagers firearms safety and usage, they'll be running around with mac-10's capping mofos "

or

"if you teach teenagers about safe sex they'll be banging everything that moves* and teen pregnancies will rocket"

*ok that is even more ridiculous since it presumes that teenagers didnt already fuck like....well teenagers.

Yeah but teenagers ALREADY have genitals, and don't NEED guns, so...

randomfox:

spartan231490:

Mrhappyface 2:
I think it would be a wonderful idea, considering the fact there is so much ignorance and accidents surrounding the usage of such weapons. As anyone who properly learned to drive a car, training is a lot more than simply "The wheel steers, this pedal brakes, and this pedal accelerates." I firmly believe this will solve many problems. I'm also not advocating giving guns to everyone, just that everyone be educated on such a subject.

not a bad idea actually, don't expect to get much support for it on this forum though. Really, there is a disturbing amount of ignorance surrounding firearms, maybe if everyone learned how to use them, people wouldn't be so damn afraid of them.

There's a quote that's made specifically for instances like this. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

Yes, people kill people...but guns make it ungodly easier. When was the last time an unarmed man went on a killing spree? Or even a man armed with a knife or brass knuckles? It's the gun that makes the difference, and lets highschooler malcontents and political dissidents start killing when they snap. Hell, this is why the 'Sovereign Citizen' movement is a problem: it's a bunch of assholes with guns who are frighteningly willing to murder others if they think they might have to abide by US law.

That being said, I've always advocated gun control, not a blanket ban. I've a good deal of friends and family who own weapons, and I've gone to ranges on more than one occasion. And for all the "having a gun in the house is dangerous" statistics there are, your family is in more danger from a personal swimming pool than a firearm in your house.

thelonewolf266:

spectrenihlus:

thelonewolf266:

So its the Mexicans fault is it I don't think a Mexican was responsible for the Virginia Tech shooting and the recent Tuscon shooting?
I'm sorry but more guns does not a safer country make.

The virginia tech shooting could have been decreased had it not been for the total firearm ban on campus ( didn't stop the shooters from bringing in guns did it) and the tuscon shooting could have been stopped if someone had a gun as well. When guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns.

Or we could have just been sensible people and not given then fucking guns.It would be lot harder to kill a lot of people if the best weapon he could have got a hold of was a knife. Lets see him kill more than one person before being stopped with that I'm sorry but guns are designed to kill people nothing else.

Oh there is plenty of ways to kill people without guns. Molotov cocktails for one or an IED (if an illiterate terrorist can make one you better believe one of this guys can). Also you can kill a lot of people with a knife before you are apprehended

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-04/08/content_9702952.htm

We are literally surrounded by deadly improvised weapons.

CM156:

thelonewolf266:

spectrenihlus:
The virginia tech shooting could have been decreased had it not been for the total firearm ban on campus ( didn't stop the shooters from bringing in guns did it) and the tuscon shooting could have been stopped if someone had a gun as well. When guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns.

Or we could have just been sensible people and not given then fucking guns.It would be lot harder to kill a lot of people if the best weapon he could have got a hold of was a knife. Lets see him kill more than one person before being stopped with that I'm sorry but guns are designed to kill people nothing else.

And you would remove every gun, ever? And you think people who have illegal guns will comply? We all know how respectful of laws criminals are!

I also find it funny that I see the same people whining about drugs being illegal want guns to be illegal. They claim that illegalizing drugs gives money to crime lords, and that people will get them anyway. And the same is not true of guns? Better that they are regulated

And without that drug money, and any reason to have those guns, those evil crime lords will get them how exactly?

A gun is designed to kill people. Pot makes kids eat peanut butter and watch too many cartoons. If you'd prefer kids got shot rather than got high, your call. Most guns criminals obtain (in the domestic US) are either legally bought by themselves, or stolen from householders who bought guns to stop criminals from breaking into their homes...

I think the hilarious thing is that the gun advocates, as far as I can tell, want a world where guns aren't dangerous, and the rest of us live in a world where we'd prefer to lessen the odds of getting shot.

JacobShaftoe:

CM156:

thelonewolf266:

Or we could have just been sensible people and not given then fucking guns.It would be lot harder to kill a lot of people if the best weapon he could have got a hold of was a knife. Lets see him kill more than one person before being stopped with that I'm sorry but guns are designed to kill people nothing else.

And you would remove every gun, ever? And you think people who have illegal guns will comply? We all know how respectful of laws criminals are!

I also find it funny that I see the same people whining about drugs being illegal want guns to be illegal. They claim that illegalizing drugs gives money to crime lords, and that people will get them anyway. And the same is not true of guns? Better that they are regulated

And without that drug money, and any reason to have those guns, those evil crime lords will get them how exactly?

A gun is designed to kill people. Pot makes kids eat peanut butter and watch too many cartoons. If you'd prefer kids got shot rather than got high, your call. Most guns criminals obtain (in the domestic US) are either legally bought by themselves, or stolen from householders who bought guns to stop criminals from breaking into their homes...

My point is not a comparison. I am in no way saying that. I just find it funny that people want to prevent people from owning guns, but wnat them to be able to use pot. Which one has an Amendment, mind you?

And so what if a gun is used to kill people? Is killing people 100% wrong? 100% of the time? As in, if someone is killing people with a knife and the only way to make them stop is to take them down, is shooting them wrong?

Plus, if we have anywhere from 10000-40000 gun deaths each year, that is out of, what, 10 million regesterd guns? That's rather good.

EDIT: Humans have been killing each other since the dawn of time. Cain didn't use a gun to kill his brother. Guns don't kill people, people kill people.

either, and

spectrenihlus:

thelonewolf266:

spectrenihlus:
The virginia tech shooting could have been decreased had it not been for the total firearm ban on campus ( didn't stop the shooters from bringing in guns did it) and the tuscon shooting could have been stopped if someone had a gun as well. When guns are criminalized only criminals will have guns.

Or we could have just been sensible people and not given then fucking guns.It would be lot harder to kill a lot of people if the best weapon he could have got a hold of was a knife. Lets see him kill more than one person before being stopped with that I'm sorry but guns are designed to kill people nothing else.

Oh there is plenty of ways to kill people without guns. Molotov cocktails for one or an IED (if an illiterate terrorist can make one you better believe one of this guys can). Also you can kill a lot of people with a knife before you are apprehended

http://www.chinadaily.com.cn/china/2010-04/08/content_9702952.htm

We are literally surrounded by deadly improvised weapons.

Here's another one: Chlorine bomb. www.metacafe.com/watch/526564/how_to_make_a_chlorine_bomb/
You can make them out of stuff you buy at a convenience store. You don't exactly need to be a chemist to make one either. You can kill a whole building full of people with half the budget of a firearm.

No..... I dont believe so.

no this seems like a bad idea, educating people about guns is fine but stocking a school with guns to teach students how to use them does not seem like a smart idea to me.

senordesol:
I think its interesting how many here are opposed to simple education regarding firearms. It's not like the OP proposed handing a gat' to seven year olds and telling them 'go nuts'. But a program designed to teach kids how to responsibly handle, maintain, and respect a firearm.

Okay...but it's completely useless to the vast bulk of the population who neither owns nor will ever even use a firearm.

senordesol:
It wasn't so long ago that kids as young as seven were out hunting with their fathers with .50 caliber rifles, granted they were muzzle-loading rifles but they'd put a hole in someone just as good as anything.

No, actually they wouldn't. Besides being woefully inaccurate, the average muzzle-loader could fire three rounds per minute if being operated by a skilled user. So one shot every twenty seconds, most of which are inclined to miss. If that's the most dangerous firearm on the market, any criminal with half a brain cell is going to be investing in blades and blackjacks.

At any rate, I liked your word choice there: "with their fathers." The decision to teach a child how to use a device that was explicitly designed to kill people (I don't care that there are plenty of perfectly legal uses for guns nowadays) is up to a parent, not a school.

Atheist.:

Jabberwock King:

Atheist.:

I agree that his logic is wrong, as most people already know how to use a gun, especially if they practice for even a few minutes after getting one. It's pretty easy. Take safety off, point, and pull the trigger.

But your metaphor is just as bad. A more realistic one would be "If we give all countries nuclear weapons and taught them how to use them, the nuclear bearing countries wouldn't have an advantage." Which is not only completely true, but proves your reasoning to be flawed. He said it would remove the advantage (Or the very least some aspect. IE armed robbers vs disarmed people. It's illegal to even have a knife in a bank BTW.) Body armor is good and all, but if the examples given were held up, 20 people shooting some guy in body armor will waste his ass before he gets off more than a few shots. Not to mention the bankers would probably have armor piercing assault rifles and shit if this actually became a real issue.

How about we avoid all of our hypothetical scenarios altogether by not making any dramatically stupid decisions like this. I think that's a good idea for now.

Yes, because your hypothetical situation including a logical fallacy surrounding nuclear weapons is so intelligent (Comparing nuclear weapons to firearms is probably one of the most inflated metaphors I've ever seen). Lets stop the Ad Hominem attacks. You're the one that proposed EVERYONE in the bank had a gun. Just sayin'.

Maybe we should go with a real scenario and say that people educated on how to properly handle a gun are less likely to harm other people around them through ignorance. How's that work for ya, bud?

First: I did not propose that everyone in the bank had a gun, someone else did, I was responding.

Second: Of course the comparison between the destructive potential of nuclear weapons and firearms is ridiculous and imprecise, just as silly as making an anthropomorphic representation of an entire country! Hetalia. That particular counter-example was meant to be ridiculous and silly. Though you really never can account for all scenarios, there is the possibility of a sudden power shift/emotional breakdown in a country/person. At the same time however, I feel that "peace" brought about though fear of mutually assured destruction is not at all comforting, as it would be comparable to the pre-WW1 powderkeg alliances on steroids.

Third: Ad Hominem attacks? Telling someone else that their idea is terrible is not an Ad Hominem attack. Unless you are referring to my first post on this thread, I can't see how it would be mentioned, even then, making note of a desire to launch character attacks is quite different from actually carrying them out.

Fourth: My previous comment to you was a vastly ineffective attempt to convey my being overwhelmed by the thought of your hypothetical rifle equipped bankers with AP ammo, and how horribly flushed down a toilet any society would have to be to resort to that.

randomfox:

spartan231490:

randomfox:

There's a quote that's made specifically for instances like this. "Guns don't kill people, people kill people."

We're not "scared" of guns. We just don't want idiot fucking teenagers to have any access to them whatsoever, safe or not, it's a bad fucking idea.

That's flawed logic. If your not afraid of the guns, but the people who use them, then there is no point in keeping the guns away, or in trying to ban them, because there are an infinite number of ways for a person to kill another person. Do you want to take away the kids pencils, or chairs, or forks, or computer monitors, or text-books, or power chords? The fact that you want to prevent them from getting their hands on firearms, even in a supervised situation, shows that you are actually afraid of the firearm, not the person using it.

I was gonna write a big long rant that would probably get me a pretty big warning or something, but that'd just make me look like an ass, so fuck it. I will just say that you don't seem to understand what logic is so it would be a waste of my time to dispute your claim.

Send it in a message. Now I'm curious. If you really thought that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" than what do guns have to do with it? Especially in a controlled and supervised environment. It wouldn't be hard to create a controlled environment that would be perfectly safe.

ajh93:

lokiduck:

Yes keeping a gun away from them is preventing accidents, but... what if the kid you prevented from being near a gun goes to friends house that has a gun not secure in a safe, or they find one, if they don't know how to handle it properly and PREVENT a miss fire, then what's to keep them from shooting each other.

if you would have read my first post you would have seen that i basically said "education = less harm".what i meant is that if you make something mandatory,people my age are a lot less likely to listen to what the instructor is saying!they'll treat it as a joke,"oh i'll never need to use a gun,i don't need to pay attention to this!",then they'll fuck around and someone ends up with a bullet in the eye.if you let them seek out the education themselves (firearms training that is,normal education there's no way around it),they'll be more receptive to the lessons.

Oh okay, I didn't see so I understand now XD. I can really agree with that though because that is my own personal feelings.

CM156:

JacobShaftoe:

CM156:

And you would remove every gun, ever? And you think people who have illegal guns will comply? We all know how respectful of laws criminals are!

I also find it funny that I see the same people whining about drugs being illegal want guns to be illegal. They claim that illegalizing drugs gives money to crime lords, and that people will get them anyway. And the same is not true of guns? Better that they are regulated

And without that drug money, and any reason to have those guns, those evil crime lords will get them how exactly?

A gun is designed to kill people. Pot makes kids eat peanut butter and watch too many cartoons. If you'd prefer kids got shot rather than got high, your call. Most guns criminals obtain (in the domestic US) are either legally bought by themselves, or stolen from householders who bought guns to stop criminals from breaking into their homes...

My point is not a comparison. I am in no way saying that. I just find it funny that people want to prevent people from owning guns, but wnat them to be able to use pot. Which one has an Amendment, mind you?

And so what if a gun is used to kill people? Is killing people 100% wrong? 100% of the time?

I think Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was in the MAIN part of your constitution if I'm not mistaken. Your right to bear arms, if read in full by someone with an historical understanding of English as it was used at the time sees a counrty declaring its right to what passed for an army in those days.

Then again, that's the problem on all fronts when you start to base your worldview on old documents really. Half the founding fathers were slave owners, some denied Newtonian physics was real on the grounds that it contradicted god. And some were freethinking leftists too. What made the cut was what made the cut, doesn't mean anyone today NEEDS to get shot for it to have been worth writing.

spartan231490:

randomfox:

spartan231490:

That's flawed logic. If your not afraid of the guns, but the people who use them, then there is no point in keeping the guns away, or in trying to ban them, because there are an infinite number of ways for a person to kill another person. Do you want to take away the kids pencils, or chairs, or forks, or computer monitors, or text-books, or power chords? The fact that you want to prevent them from getting their hands on firearms, even in a supervised situation, shows that you are actually afraid of the firearm, not the person using it.

I was gonna write a big long rant that would probably get me a pretty big warning or something, but that'd just make me look like an ass, so fuck it. I will just say that you don't seem to understand what logic is so it would be a waste of my time to dispute your claim.

Send it in a message. Now I'm curious. If you really thought that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" than what do guns have to do with it? Especially in a controlled and supervised environment. It wouldn't be hard to create a controlled environment that would be perfectly safe.

I'd be scared if someone offered compulsory pen-stabbing courses too :p

Char-Nobyl:

senordesol:
I think its interesting how many here are opposed to simple education regarding firearms. It's not like the OP proposed handing a gat' to seven year olds and telling them 'go nuts'. But a program designed to teach kids how to responsibly handle, maintain, and respect a firearm.

Okay...but it's completely useless to the vast bulk of the population who neither owns nor will ever even use a firearm.

senordesol:
It wasn't so long ago that kids as young as seven were out hunting with their fathers with .50 caliber rifles, granted they were muzzle-loading rifles but they'd put a hole in someone just as good as anything.

No, actually they wouldn't. Besides being woefully inaccurate, the average muzzle-loader could fire three rounds per minute if being operated by a skilled user. So one shot every twenty seconds, most of which are inclined to miss. If that's the most dangerous firearm on the market, any criminal with half a brain cell is going to be investing in blades and blackjacks.

At any rate, I liked your word choice there: "with their fathers." The decision to teach a child how to use a device that was explicitly designed to kill people (I don't care that there are plenty of perfectly legal uses for guns nowadays) is up to a parent, not a school.

Muzzle loaders with rifled barrels aren't that inaccurate, actually. Even with flint-locks, you can easily land kill shots at 200 yards(as long as the barrel is rifled).

No, why would you teach minors how to use a gun..? I don't know whats the situation in other country's, but here it's more likely to hear on the news that someone chopped up his neighbour with an axe than to hear about someone getting shot.

jackknife402:

lokiduck:

jackknife402:
Aye, the majority of training does not even involve guns. And when they do its strictly monitored. The people whom do use guns for crimes are generally those whom have never taken the time to properly learn about and respect the power a gun offers. Its mostly just idiots whom decide to pick up a weapon and go shoot a bunch of people. Most crimes are commited with weapons that are either illegally obtained anyways.

The way I see it, if someone is going to shoot up a place, they will do it with or with out training. So to me, i firmly believe that should have the right to arm ourselves to protect us from said shooters, and with that we should at least know how to not accidently kill ourselves.

Besides, I'd rather be killed by a gunshot to the heart or head compared to having my guts spilled on the floor by a blade or my throat slashed out like what happens in "civilized countries" that don't allow civilian access to guns.

Pretty much my only training was during my hunter safety course training, I taught myself everything else through research.

I learned when I went shooting for the first time. They told me the gun rules and I have followed them ever since.

That's a great idea, what could go wrong?

Or you could just ban guns and less accidents would occur.

Hey school children, here are some firearms, go nuts. And hey, if you ever get pissed off at anyone you've learned an invaluable skill.

I remember there was recently wanted a law to be passed allowing university students to carry firearms on campus and I think being allowed to carry firearms would be a little smarter than training people on how to use them because that's essentially training people how to kill and in our times we don't know how some people will put that knowledge to use. By simply allowing people to carry guns, nobody will try a school shooting or anything of the like because they know then anybody may shoot back.

This is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, PLEASE DO NOT REPRODUCE.

JacobShaftoe:

spartan231490:

randomfox:

I was gonna write a big long rant that would probably get me a pretty big warning or something, but that'd just make me look like an ass, so fuck it. I will just say that you don't seem to understand what logic is so it would be a waste of my time to dispute your claim.

Send it in a message. Now I'm curious. If you really thought that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" than what do guns have to do with it? Especially in a controlled and supervised environment. It wouldn't be hard to create a controlled environment that would be perfectly safe.

I'd be scared if someone offered compulsory pen-stabbing courses too :p

Except that both guns and pens are easy to use as weapons. With a pen, just stick the pointy end in someone you don't like. And colt is the original point and click interface. The hard part about guns is maintenance and choosing the right rifle/bullet for each specific situation, not shooting them. If you taught people how to shoot, clean, and maintain guns, as well as some basics about ballistic trajectories and bullet energy comparing different calibers and twists and barrel lengths would be a very beneficial. Might teach people to respect and understand guns instead of fearing them and blaming them for the decisions made by the people using them.

JacobShaftoe:

CM156:

JacobShaftoe:

And without that drug money, and any reason to have those guns, those evil crime lords will get them how exactly?

A gun is designed to kill people. Pot makes kids eat peanut butter and watch too many cartoons. If you'd prefer kids got shot rather than got high, your call. Most guns criminals obtain (in the domestic US) are either legally bought by themselves, or stolen from householders who bought guns to stop criminals from breaking into their homes...

My point is not a comparison. I am in no way saying that. I just find it funny that people want to prevent people from owning guns, but wnat them to be able to use pot. Which one has an Amendment, mind you?

And so what if a gun is used to kill people? Is killing people 100% wrong? 100% of the time?

I think Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was in the MAIN part of your constitution if I'm not mistaken. Your right to bear arms, if read in full by someone with an historical understanding of English as it was used at the time sees a counrty declaring its right to what passed for an army in those days.

Then again, that's the problem on all fronts when you start to base your worldview on old documents really. Half the founding fathers were slave owners, some denied Newtonian physics was real on the grounds that it contradicted god. And some were freethinking leftists too. What made the cut was what made the cut, doesn't mean anyone today NEEDS to get shot for it to have been worth writing.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Let's look at it this way
Suppose it said this

"A well regulated scholarly group, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and use books, shall not be infringed."

Would you say that that sentence meant that only scholarly groups may possess books?
Or that the idea was that book ownership as a whole was good for a free state?

And if there are 10 Million registered guns, and 30,000 deaths (States numbers, per year), that means that 99.7% of guns weren't used to kill people that year, assuming that it was one death per kill, which it would not be. I think punishing a lawful people because of .3% is deplorable.

And again, banning guns will do nothing, because people will find a way around it. Why stop at guns? Guns only kill people in cold blood when use inncorrectly. Their real use? Shoot a projectile for use in lawful self defense. If we can ban something by that merit, turn in your cars, pens, bath tubs, and any sharp objects.

Yea, this will show my asshole dad a thing or two, and that asshole bully wont bother me anymore, girls like dangerous boys anyway, maybe I'll just rape that popular girl, I have this gun!

Excuse me while I make a quote, ahem.

"Check it out. Dustin Hoffman, 'Rain Man,' look retarded, act retarded, not retarded. Counted toothpicks, cheated cards. Autistic, sho'. Not retarded. You know Tom Hanks, 'Forrest Gump.' Slow, yes. Retarded, maybe. Braces on his legs. But he charmed the pants off Nixon and won a ping-pong competition. That ain't retarded. Peter Sellers, "Being There." Infantile, yes. Retarded, no. You went full retard, man. Never go full retard. You don't buy that? Ask Sean Penn, 2001, "I Am Sam." Remember? Went full retard, went home empty handed..."

BioHazardMan:
This is the stupidest idea I've ever heard, PLEASE DO NOT REPRODUCE.

I'm sorry if suggesting educating people offended you so much. I will just go in the corner and cry. :(

No. I'm a big proponent of firearms(NRA Life Member, gun owner, and taught a lot of my friends/family to shoot) and that's not a good idea.

Far too many kids aren't responsible enough. And in my school too many kids flat out wouldn't pay enough attention. If there was just a shooting club sure, then it would be voluntary and under heavy supervision. Besides some people just don't like guns and forcing their kids to undergo firearms training could be damage the relationship between the parents and school. At most show some basic safe handling methods: how to tell if it's loaded, check safeties(if any), always treat them as if loaded, and just don't fuck with em.

Everyone is different. Some kids would take to it, pay attention, and not abuse it. Others would fuck around, be a distraction, and abuse it. IMO if the parents want their kids to have some firearms training they should either teach them themselves(if they have the knowledge and experience) or take the kids to the range and have the instructors teach them.

spartan231490:

JacobShaftoe:

spartan231490:

Send it in a message. Now I'm curious. If you really thought that "guns don't kill people, people kill people" than what do guns have to do with it? Especially in a controlled and supervised environment. It wouldn't be hard to create a controlled environment that would be perfectly safe.

I'd be scared if someone offered compulsory pen-stabbing courses too :p

Except that both guns and pens are easy to use as weapons. With a pen, just stick the pointy end in someone you don't like. And colt is the original point and click interface. The hard part about guns is maintenance and choosing the right rifle/bullet for each specific situation, not shooting them. If you taught people how to shoot, clean, and maintain guns, as well as some basics about ballistic trajectories and bullet energy comparing different calibers and twists and barrel lengths would be a very beneficial. Might teach people to respect and understand guns instead of fearing them and blaming them for the decisions made by the people using them.

Have you ever studied a martial art? The difference between physically violent incidents and gunshots is the victim gets a chance to stop you doing that. It takes a very special breed of person (I know, I've been one most of my life) to stand still and stare dumbly while someone punches you in the face with a handful of keys...

Because the gumbo wasn't bad enough. Only restriction on guns is before you can get a permit you should take a firearms course. Pay for it through the government, make a few jobs, boot a little ignorance out the door.

But firearms training in school? no just no. I agree some self defense training would be good; lets see how a bully likes to pick on the kid with glasses when that kid knows how to beat him the fuck up. Pretty sure someone once said "An armed society is a polite society" well lets NOT give them a weapon and give them knowledge to be a weapon for defense.

We already have kids as a bunch of idiots that think call of duty is the best thing ever & are about as responsible as a barrel of monkeys with a truck load of shit & a rich persosn party. So why teach them guns? Besides regular classes lack too much anyways; Did you know that USA public schools(speaking for Texas mainly) do not teach the War of 1812, Korean war, Vietnam war, ignore 60% of WW II and the holocaust(pretty much 'Nazis are evil were number one! go America!") and then we have science, literature, mathematics, and basic stuff failing/not being taught so why add to it? Not an architect or an engineer but i know you don't put another floor on a building that's foundation is shit.

Judging by how similar a teenaged male's brain is to that of a psychopath...

No way. Maybe when a person is older it might be a good idea for the just incase situation.

spectrenihlus:
Oh there is plenty of ways to kill people without guns. Molotov cocktails for one or an IED (if an illiterate terrorist can make one you better believe one of this guys can).

You certainly have a hilarious skewed view of how easy it is to build a bomb, and the kinds of people who actually succeed in making them. Do you have any idea how difficult it is to make an IED? Hell, missing fingers are one of the main traits of the veterans of that field, as in the ones who are really good at building them. Do you have any idea how many stories there are about would-be terrorists blowing themselves up or rigging bombs that failed to go off?

spectrenihlus:
Also you can kill a lot of people with a knife before you are apprehended

lol, really? Your example was a 41 year old man assaulting a large group of children. He killed eight of them. Seung Hui-Cho, inversely, killed 32 able-bodied adults. I suppose you think he could have done just as well if all he'd had was a steak knife?

spectrenihlus:
We are literally surrounded by deadly improvised weapons.

Actually, no, we're not. Most people are not Jason Bourne, but a mentally-unstable adult can create a higher boy count than him if you hand him a gun.

Mrhappyface 2:
Here's another one: Chlorine bomb. www.metacafe.com/watch/526564/how_to_make_a_chlorine_bomb/
You can make them out of stuff you buy at a convenience store. You don't exactly need to be a chemist to make one either. You can kill a whole building full of people with half the budget of a firearm.

*facepalm*

Really? You think this is easy to make? "Cheap" does not equate "easy." What are the odds that the thing will just be a cobbled together POS that fails to do anything? And what are the odds that, even if it's rigged semi-properly, it doesn't just go off in the builder's face? Sorry to break it to you, but that's what happens to most people who try and build their own bombs.

CM156:

JacobShaftoe:

CM156:

My point is not a comparison. I am in no way saying that. I just find it funny that people want to prevent people from owning guns, but wnat them to be able to use pot. Which one has an Amendment, mind you?

And so what if a gun is used to kill people? Is killing people 100% wrong? 100% of the time?

I think Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness was in the MAIN part of your constitution if I'm not mistaken. Your right to bear arms, if read in full by someone with an historical understanding of English as it was used at the time sees a counrty declaring its right to what passed for an army in those days.

Then again, that's the problem on all fronts when you start to base your worldview on old documents really. Half the founding fathers were slave owners, some denied Newtonian physics was real on the grounds that it contradicted god. And some were freethinking leftists too. What made the cut was what made the cut, doesn't mean anyone today NEEDS to get shot for it to have been worth writing.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"

Let's look at it this way
Suppose it said this

"A well regulated scholarly group, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and use books, shall not be infringed."

Would you say that that sentence meant that only scholarly groups may possess books?
Or that the idea was that book ownership as a whole was good for a free state?

And if there are 10 Million registered guns, and 30,000 deaths, that means that 99.7% of guns weren't used to kill people that year, assuming that it was one death per kill, which it would not be. I think punishing a lawful people because of .3% is deplorable.

And again, banning guns will do nothing, because people will find a way around it. Why stop at guns? Guns only kill people in cold blood when use inncorrectly. If we can ban something by that merit, turn in your cars, pens, bath tubs, and any sharp objects.

Either that or just your broken constitution. Don't look at comparitive statistics with other countries, please, for your own peace of mind.

Oh, and as for your quoting of the amendment in question, do you understand that in those days, the only arms restrictions in evidence was that poor people couldn't have them. This was a law supposed to protect the poor from the rich, and instead is now used to justify the rich arming against the poor. It's funny how a regulation centuries out of date can do that.

Aroun d that same time it was only frowned upon i9n a few countries worldwide to kill a man for suggesting you might be wrong about something you felt strongly about, and if we applied those laws to the age of the interwebz...?

 Pages PREV 1 . . . 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 . . . 19 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked