Firearms Program?

http://www.wyff4.com/news/firearm-training-could-be-taught-at-south-carolina-schools/30566342

Here's what I think:

If done correctly. This could be a wonderful thing and produce good things. There will always be crazies out there, but, if we don't train people, who's gonna be there to stop the crazies hmm? There will always be that person who goes on a shooting spree, but, if we have people trained, even if they know basics and can shoot strait, then ba-bam, the crazy is stopped dead in his tracks. I know every kid is different, and not all kids have the chance to learn how to shoot guns and the basics of gun safety or anything like that. This would be good, plus, they can learn to defend themselves and others. I know there will probably be that one kid who does it just because their a bit messed up or something, but, I think the pros out weigh the cons.

Plus, I think that, if kids/teens are learning how to NOT become parents at a young age, I think we should teach them firearm classes.

So, what do y'all think?

Seems good to me. I'm for it.

Only in the US. This will be seen as an attempt to arm the nation, you are effectively giving the knowledge to kill and that is how it would go down with people from Russia and the Middle East who are extremely critical of US policy. I love how they interview the gun store owner. Why wouldn't a gun store owner disagree with such a bill, he profits from it.

Also I don't see the connection between sex education, drivers education and teaching how to use a firearm.

When foreign policy and international appearances are so important, bills like this give the wrong message.

Policy makers should be more concerned about the racial problems in the US and the rising radical Islam groups. If people want to educate their children on how to use a gun then they should do it on their own time and pay for it. The education system is not a place for guns even if it is in the precious 2nd amendment.

Arm the nation? Lad, the right to bare arms hasn't been taken away and, its a good chance all of or most of teh south and probably out west US is armed.

As for racial problems, that can never be fully fixed. There are people working to fix it though, and people will be people. Radical Islam? Um, yeah, we're trying to do stuff about that. Haven't you heard we've had troops over there for like what, the passed five, six years, sevenish years?

The problem with some people who want to learn to shoot guns and all about it, don't have access or money.

Should we really be concerned with how the Muslims see us? After all, the radicals are doing far worse. Besides, while our children learn political correctness, their's learn to kill us.

As for the connection with sex education, I don't see why young children need to know how that all works. Heck, I probably learned to shoot before I learned any of that.

Tell me... What would you do if someone broke into your house with a gun and was trying to harm your family?

If the US is ever invaded by any sort of radical,  I wan't to know, that the people who care about their family's can protect themselves.
Guns are useful for alot more then killing, They can be used for protecting, hunting, that sort of thing. If you take away guns, all your doing is leaving people as great targets for those who like to kill or other radicals and whatnot. There are far worse ways to die then a bullet to the head.

"This will be seen as an attempt to arm the nation, you are effectively giving the knowledge to kill and that is how it would go down with people from Russia and the Middle East who are extremely critical of US policy." I see nothing wrong with other countries seeing civilians in the U.S. armed. I also see nothing wrong with giving people the knowledge of gun safety.
"As for the connection with sex education, I don't see why young children need to know how that all works. Heck, I probably learned to shoot before I learned any of that."
The concept of this is no different than that of sex eduacation or driver's education. By teaching young kids sexual education/driver's education it gives them the knowledge of being safe and responsible in driving/sex. Same thing with guns. By teaching them about gun safety we are giving them the knowledge of how to be safe and responsible with firearms.

To add on to some of what Arwin said...

1: The nation is already armed. And there is a reason for that. The people, and no one else are the final check to the government's power. That's simply the way the Constitution was designed. Ideally speaking, we'll vote people out of office when they go to far. (This isn't happening, but that's another matter) But they didn't want to keep it just at that. Because if the government manages to go far enough, eventually it is possible that the people will need to rise up, and overthrow the government. Just as was needed in 1776. And well, an unarmed populace is a lot easier to grind beneath your heel than an armed populace. And well, when it comes to something as important as freedom, relying on that everything will go well, and it won't be an issue is rather naive. It's happened before, and it could happen again. Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeat it.

2: Yes. It's training that can be used to kill. But let's be honest here. Give most western kid a gun, and he'll be able to figure it out, and use it to kill someone. Sights aren't that hard to figure out, and if you're confused, there's the internet. (And there's also the possibility of just firing at point blank range.) Will you necessarily be the most accurate? Absolutely not. But well, this class is only a semester. Half of a school year. That's not enough time to turn the students into stellar shots. For that to happen, they'll need to be getting hands on experience with a gun anyways, outside of class. And if they get that... Well, they'd get that anyways. This right here would toss on some more professional training, which doesn't hurt anything.

3: The United States of America is its own sovereign nation. We are not beholden to Russia, the Middle East, or any nation. Not even to the United Nations, except in areas we've agreed in. Some people might not like our decisions. That's always going to happen. And if people who we don't get along with are upset about our civilians knowing how to use firearms, then, if anything, that's more reason to train our populace. Not to provoke them, but the only reason they'd have to be concerned with our people knowing how to shoot is if we fight them. And really, the gun course might make some of our soldiers better shots, but it likely wouldn't make a big difference. So, it comes down to our civilians being able to fight. And being concerned about that implies invasion. And, well, I'd be just happy to know that if we get invaded by a place which prizes freedom less than we do, that even our normal people will be able to take up arms to stand up for freedom.

4: They also interviewed a gun control activist. So, someone ELSE who has an agenda. In short, they covered both sides of the picture. But, they didn't need to interview a gun store owner to get that sort of answer. They could have interviewed a member of the NRA, aka basically the opposite of the other person they interviewed. And, they would have gotten a similar answer.

5: The connection is this. Things that aren't necessary to be taught in schools, but can be useful.

6: State bill. Not a national bill. That makes a bit of a difference on the international scale. But even so, well, again. We're our own sovereign nation. If internal laws which do not violate any international law, aren't signed solely because outsiders might not like us making that law... We've just handed over our sovereignty to foreign powers.

7: Racial problems in the US? Excuse me. But that's just absurd. Does racism exist in America? Yes. It does. It exists in many other parts of the world too. We just have a more diverse populace than many, so it has more room to show up in. But take a look at the outrage that comes from people of all races in America when racism shows up. The racists are a minority. A very distinct minority. America is not just a huge nation filled with racists. We're doing pretty well in that respect.

8: I'm afraid that if you want a response other than "Uh-uh" from me, you'll need to say why a firearms class has no place in a school. Because you've just declared it to be a fact with no backing.


I'm actually rather ambivalent on this bill to be honest. I see no problem with it, (provided it required parental permission. If it didn't require parental permission I would have a very, very large problem with it. But only on that count.) as such I'd support it, but I don't consider it to be a hugely important bill either. So, if I saw someone declaring it to be the greatest thing since sliced bread in detail, I might speak up and comment that it's not that big.

I'm personally on the border with this. It's true, America has plenty of issues with shootings, criminal activity, etc. and therefore having people trained on how to use a gun would be useful.

But then, we'd be ignoring deeper roots of these problems. Why do we struggle with these amounts of shootings? Criminal activity? To say it is human nature doesn't really suffice, because obviously, if it was in our nature then as a species we would suffer far more with violence than we already do. I think it would be more useful to pour our insight into these issues, honestly. I'd rather work to prevent these problems before they develop rather than suffering increasing rates of violence and death.

And, tbh, I see no correlation with sex ed, driving, and learning how to use a gun. These subjects aren't connected in essence. While driving education isn't mandatory for survival in North American society, it's pretty necessary if one needs to get somewhere, so it's kind of expected for one to learn how at some point or another anyway. Firearms isn't particularly a necessity, because it has such unequal amounts of pros and cons. Yes, a novice in shooting a gun would be useful, but in the circumstance of a person with malicious intent coming to a school, there isn't, or shouldn't, be a student that has a gun as well to eliminate the shooter. Now, in protection of one's family? Well yes, this probably would help a lot, given the family in question owns firearms. But if that were the case, then I think on whether or not a person should be trained should be up to the individual.

Also, did I hear that correctly? Sex ed is not necessary? Most of the human population is at some point going to engage in sexual activity, and should therefore at least be educated on the means to have safe and responsible sex. North America's sex education in schools is absolutely laughable, most states don't even teach students contraception in courses provided, and teach abstinence instead, which most definitely doesn't prepare one for future sexual intercourse. Looking at the states with this form of education, such as Arizona and Texas, have some of the highest rates of teen pregnancies in America, so obviously it doesn't work. Not to mention, beyond not knowing the basics (if the school even gives the basics, and in some cases, a lot of schools don't even have to give accurate information) of sex to at least ensure some basic protection, it's highly likely that the average student, and young adult even, knows little about the dangers of having irresponsible and unprotected sex.

So no, sex ed is by no means unnecessary. America seriously needs to reevaluate it's negative attitude on sex, because it clearly does not teach safe values.

Anyway, back to firearms again, regarding national appearances and such, it's true, America is not held to the standards of other nations, but America is also not above other nations by any means. To assume America's freedom and ideals are higher than all other countries is pretty egotistical/prideful. I am not saying all aspects of American society is trash, but we really aren't that amazing either, and it's stupid to pretend we are.

Lastly, touching base on racism: America has a long way to go before taking care of it's racist issues tbh. I honestly don't think America is doing well in it's racist issues, Ferguson (which, is still going on by the way) with Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Tamir Rice, and many, many more victims are proof of this. The outrage at these injustices and manifestations of racism is equal only to the reactions by bystanders, racists, and a large amount of media attempting to justify the actions taken against these victims. So no, America really isn't doing that great in taking a stand against racism.

MD: just to clarify, I didn't mean that sex ed is unnecessary. I just think that young children don't need to know all about it. From what I hear around here, alot of kids learn about it before they even hit 10. I get giving basics. But, I just don't think that sort of thing is relevant to a young child. I get that it has importance. I just don't agree with young kids learning about it.

JJS: parietal permission I can see would deffs be a good thing.

A quick note on sex ed: It depends on what is being defined as 'young kids.' To me, a young kid is 14 and younger, but to someone in their 50s a young kid might be 16 or 17.

Zyph: ten and under? No, that's not exactly sex ed, if Im getting your meaning. It's a puberty presentation thing. They never actually mention sex, and it's done around fifth grade.

@Arwin: Those kids "hearing about it" odds are know no more than the other child whispering about it to them. In which case, misinformation is rampant. I seriously doubt any form of knowledge on the sexual parts of the human body is properly taught these kids under 10.

Would it be moral to teach kids (10-14) about sex? I personally don't see an issue with it. Kids at that age usually treat it like a joke because by the time they are hearing about it, they are usually not going to get correct information from their guardians. And as they grow older, the stigma associated with sex only nurtures itself and it makes it difficult to teach people that sex is not an inherently evil or crude topic. A lot of it is just how our society views and deals with sex.

Anyway, one of my own irl friends parents told them information when they asked, and they were never awkward, uncomfortable, or what have you about it. Should we teach younger people on these topics? Perhaps not everything, but I believe the medical knowledge is fairly vital and shouldn't be lied about or ignored due to personal, social, or religious biases aside. It just seems silly to continue this cycle in which sex is shamed, people develop stigma towards it, and then it becomes a social taboo, which can be a frustration in our nation's social progress (and cause accidents that could have been easily prevented).

Sex ed and sex in general is overrated. Those are my two cents.

MD: I see. I stand corrected, you made a good point

Wyatt: Ahh.

Flushy: When I say young kids, I mean like 11 and under

Scout:

Pfft, when I was 11 I was too busy eating Donuts to care or know about sex.

Flushy: How is that any different from now?

I should probly clarify, that the point isn't that the kids are already seriously thinking about sexual activity (or at least, I should hope not), the point is that the proper education would simply equip them with useful knowledge, regardless on whether or not they ever intend to engage in sex.

WOW, this got away from firearms quickly.

@Joe: I agree, sex is super overrated and glamourized, but I still think the sciences behind it are still necessary to understand.

I'll begin with the simple clarification. Sex-ed is important... But is it important for it to be taught in schools? Absolutely not. Parents have handled such things for years. I don't exactly see how public schools do the job better. And if you look at what I said, my exact wording was "Things that aren't necessary to be taught in schools, but can be useful." Note the bit "taught in schools." That's where my entire point lay, not in declaring something to not be useful.

I agree with you, that this wouldn't solve the root issue. And quite frankly, the only way I think it'd help prevent shootings would be it might get more people interested in guns. Which would lead to likely concealed carry permits, training, and individual practice and the like. The class itself won't be bringing down shooters. But anyways, solving such issues isn't a high school level problem, so, the firearms class wouldn't detract from that.

And once again, this class would be an optional class, chosen from a list of electives. This means that the decision to take this class would be up to the individual.

I'm not saying that America's freedom and ideals are higher than every other nation in the world. I do, however, think we're currently more free than most of the nations in the world. Mostly because we're further away from liberal totalitarianism than large portions of the West. What do I mean by this? In America, you can't be arrested for hate speech. In America you can own a firearm. In America you can homeschool. Those are the first three examples that spring to mind, and let me tell you, these concepts which I hold very dearly are rare to almost all of the West. So, call me arrogant and egotistical for thinking that the nation which allows these things is more free than the nations that don't. But I'll still stand pretty firmly on that point.
However, I'd also like to make the comment that I was fairly actively thinking about places like the Middle East, and even Russia when I wrote that. I wasn't really even thinking about the rest of the West.

Actually, I think we have bigger problems now with people assuming everything a white does to a black is racist. For example, Ferguson. Mass rioting because a white cop shot a black. None of them even waiting to hear the official accounts. Instead, they just instantly assumed that it was a racist killing.
So, quite frankly, I think people need to step away from the entire race card, and stop using it every single freaking time there's a clash between majority and minority groups. Save it for when you actually have some solid proof that racism affected the actions. Rather than just assuming someone is guilty until proven innocent, which is not how America's legal system works. (And also, I could really do with not being called racist, just because I firmly support innocent until proven guilty, and have a strong objection to people screaming for someone's head, before there's any proof.)
However, this entire matter is not something that the government is going to be able to handle that well. Because it involves changing people, and individuals with individuals will have far more success than the government will.