[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]

/townhall/ - Townhall

A place for civilized animals
Name
Email
Subject
Comment
File
Flags  
Embed
Password (For file deletion.)

[Return][Go to bottom]

 No.6666

File: 1599231640415.jpg (362.38 KB, 1280x1064, 160:133, Woodlawn-rifle-team-1956.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

Should high schools teach basic gun safety, marksmanship, and firearms technology?                                                                                 

 No.6668

>>6666
Nice quads.

Yes. Education on dangerous equipment helps instill respect for that equipment.
Teaching kids guns aren't hollywood toys, but rather something which can cause serious injury to both the user and whatever may be down range would be a net gain I think.
it would also help get rid of a lot of the confusion around firearms that I see prevalent throughout the country.

 No.6669

Generally speaking I think children shouldn't have guns.  If we don't trust them to choose who they have sex with, we shouldn't trust them to choose who they want alive.  This goes double for kids in a school setting, shoved into proximity with up to a thousand people that probably all hate each other.

 No.6670

>>6669
in this case, the kids wouldn't own the guns, and of course, it goes without saying, the firearms would be used in explicitly supervised situations.
While your concern is justified in regards to kids having the guns on their own, I don't see it as much an issue as long as it's in a classroom and controlled setting.

 No.6671

>>6670

I'm not sure a sufficiently controlled classroom can exist, not in a public high school.  Best to leave it as classes outside of school, preferably once freed from the stresses of school itself.

 No.6672

>>6671
I would presume they'd be going to a range of some kind, to actually shoot.
In the classroom itself, given you wouldn't be expecting to shoot, you wouldn't have the firearm loaded. Which in turn shouldn't cause any danger, beyond a hand getting caught in the action

 No.6673

On another completely different note, is there enough gun safety to be taught such that it would take up a semseter's worth of course time?

 No.6674

File: 1599278075734.jpg (59.12 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 7pOXunRYJIw.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6673
No, but there is enough firearms technology to take up a semester, especially if the necessary physics needs to be taught as well.  But more likely I'd suggest such a short mini-course covering the essentials.

>>6669
>Generally speaking I think children shouldn't have guns.
I disagree.  There's no reason why 13-year-olds shouldn't get a .22LR rifle if they're responsible enough and have demonstrated an ability to act safely.  Given, a lot of teens are coddled a lot nowadays and don't develop the responsibility that they are capable of.  But that's a whole other can of worms.

 No.6675

>>6674
>There's no reason why 13-year-olds shouldn't get a .22LR rifle if they're responsible enough and have demonstrated an ability to act safely.

But we're talking about a high school course, not a theoretical.  How do you determine what kids are responsible enough and have demonstrated an ability to act safely?

 No.6676

File: 1599280269899.png (19.77 KB, 300x100, 3:1, 1593036579175.png) ImgOps Google

>>6675
In >>6674, I was talking about having a gun unsupervised.  For the school course, the students would presumably all be heavily supervised whenever they have firearms at the range.

>How do you determine what kids ... have demonstrated an ability to act safely?
Probably (1) a written exam and (2) dry runs with unloaded guns, to make sure they follow the safety rules in practice.

 No.6684

Were you born after Columbine? Because no one born before it would ask this question seriously.

 No.6694

>>6684
>Were you born after Columbine?
No.

>>6684
>Because no one born before it would ask this question seriously.
Non sequitur.

 No.6699

>>6694
Well then you must not know much about it. I'll explain. You see, it's not a non-sequitur. "Columbine" here is referring to the Columbine school shooting that happened in April of 1999. Two students, students Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, murdered 12 students and one teacher. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre)

This was not the first of what would come to be known as "school shootings", but it was one of the most prolific and deadly of them. School shootings continue to happen to this day, a fact I'm sure you must not be aware of given your original premise of this thread. So I would suggest you do some research on school shootings before you suggest such things.

 No.6705

File: 1599677761426.png (362.43 KB, 700x700, 1:1, 1472905845764.png) ImgOps Google

>>6699
The existence of school shootings doesn't mean gun safety and marksmanship shouldn't be taught in school.  That's the non sequitur.  The perps of the Columbine shooting also brought home-made explosives (which failed to detonate).  Does that mean that chemistry shouldn't be taught in school?

 No.6707

>>6705
How does it not? I'm not sure how you are not connecting the dots between "People are being shot at schools" and "why should schools teach people how to shoot?" I don't know why this is confusing you that one would likely lead to or exacerbate the other with almost no benefit.

 No.6708

>>6707
You ignored my counterargument: The perps of the Columbine shooting also brought home-made explosives.  Does that mean that chemistry shouldn't be taught in school?

>with almost no benefit.
I disagree with that, and so do the founders of the country.  There is a great benefit of learning gun safety and marksmanship.  

 No.6716

>>6708
Chemistry isn't explicitly for making bombs. It can be used that way, but not easily because no school is going to offer specific bomb-making classes. But a shooting class is going to teach you exactly what you need to... shoot things.

This is a bad faith argument.

 No.6717

>>6716
Firearms instruction isn't explicitly for murdering people. It can be used that way, but not easily because no school is going to offer specific people-murdering classes.

 No.6719

>>6717
It is easier to pivot from shooting one thing to shooting another type of thing than it is to pivot from basic high school chemistry to making improvised explosives.

 No.6726

File: 1599867091847.png (308.03 KB, 750x850, 15:17, 1560561527004.png) ImgOps Google

>>6719
Eh, I think most humans usually have strong inhibitions against intentionally killing other humans.  And IIRC, most school shooters shot their victims at pretty close range.  Marksmanship skills aren't really relevant at that distance.  CQB skills would be a lot more relevant, and my OP suggestion was definitely not about teaching CQB gun-fighting to high-schoolers.  

 No.6728

This isn't inherently a terrible idea, yet it raises a bunch of really tricky questions, with three coming to mind immediately:

Since American public schools already fail comprehensively in effectively punishing students who engage in all variety of horrid behaviors from battery to sexual assault and more, then how would schools manage to punish those effectively who use firearms unsafely?

Since current social conventions holds that individuals perceived as either mentally ill or with severely disturbed beliefs shouldn't be allowed to use firearms, then how would this apply to public schools, especially when some large percent (maybe a fifth or more) of kids suffer from issues such as depression, gender identity dysphoria, grief, schizophrenia, and the like?

How would American public schools' class, ethic, and racial segregation that's de facto ironclad although de jure banned impact how kids get treated when they use firearms, especially given the certainty of radically disparate school funding and internal school policing?

 No.6730

File: 1599873279249.jpg (41.24 KB, 500x312, 125:78, blissfully-cute-baby-anima….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6728
>how would schools manage to punish those effectively who use firearms unsafely?
Probably they would supervise students at the range much more closely.

>current social conventions holds that individuals perceived as either mentally ill or with severely disturbed beliefs shouldn't be allowed to use firearms
I disagree with that.  I have a couple of diagnosed mental illnesses myself (specifically, ADHD and Aspergers), and certainly take issue with anyone claiming I should be denied by 2A rights on account of that.  The only mental-health disqualifers under federal law are being “adjudicated as a mental defective” and being involuntarily “committed to a mental institution”.  https://www.atf.gov/file/58791/download
If someone is mentally well enough that they can take high-school geometry without jabbing a pencil in someone's arm, they should okay with heavily supervised range time.

>How would American public schools' class, ethic, and racial segregation that's de facto ironclad although de jure banned impact how kids get treated when they use firearms, especially given the certainty of radically disparate school funding
I don't think that this would be any different for marksmanship instruction than for any other subject.  

>and internal school policing?
I guess the OP didn't fully specify this, but I wasn't envisioning students taking their guns with them.  They would be using school-owned .22LR rifles that students would never take off the range.

 No.6735

>>6730
>Probably they would supervise students at the range much more closely.

How? There's going to be both a group of students who actively appear to want to misuse their weapons dangerously, and there will be those who struggle with learning sincerely but wash out. How does one sort between them and get both them straightened out? We're assigning schools via this change not just an additional burden in terms of regular teaching but a kind of character education gets required as well. What happens when kids, and there will be a large number of cases where this happens, try to take their guns off range? And what happens when they succeed in doing so and are only belatedly caught?

 No.6736

>>6730
>mental illnesses

Wait, so you're saying that even individual kids with serious problems should be allowed to use firearms? What happens in cases where, inevitably, the weapons get misused? What's the result of all of those press reports that read something like "Schizophrenic Student Heard Voices Telling Her to Slay Teacher", then?

I personally agree that mental illnesses shouldn't be a barrier to exercising 2nd amendment rights, but isn't this going to be a gigantic can of worms? Or worse? What if, to add another complication, parents view a child as unruly and mentally ill but he/she/they insists that he's/she's/they're fine?

 No.6738

File: 1599882638946.jpg (54.75 KB, 512x512, 1:1, nepl3Q7Ijah.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6735
>How? There's going to be both a group of students who actively appear to want to misuse their weapons dangerously, and there will be those who struggle with learning sincerely but wash out. How does one sort between them and get both them straightened out?
I guess the same way they do it for driver's education, woodshop, or other dangerous activities?

>What happens when kids, and there will be a large number of cases where this happens, try to take their guns off range?
I guess this wasn't clear in the OP, but I thinking of only rifles, not handguns.  And before students are dismissed, the range safety officer(s) can count the returned rifles, and if any are missing, the students can be searched prior to leaving.  It's kinda difficult to conceal a non-SBR rifle in your clothes.

>>6736
>Wait, so you're saying that even individual kids with serious problems should be allowed to use firearms?
I'd use the same criteria of who is allowed to take driver's ed or woodshop.

>What happens in cases where, inevitably, the weapons get misused?
The same as what happens when a student driver crashes.

>What if, to add another complication, parents view a child as unruly and mentally ill but he/she/they insists that he's/she's/they're fine?
One option would be to give parents veto power over their children attending marksmanship class.  But I don't like that option, because I feel that too many parents will abuse it just because they hate guns.  I dunno, maybe there should be some sort of a hearing where the child's eligibility is adjudicated.

 No.6739

File: 1599884422186.jpg (72.33 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, snake.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

>>6726
I mean, honestly, I wouldn't be against teaching kids the basics of CQC

 No.6744

>>6738
It seems that the only way that this works is if it involves rifles and shotguns, not far easily concealable / smuggled / lose-able / et cetera handguns?

But then what's the point? Most ordinary people buy pistols to defend themselves. Not rifles. Not shotguns.

Isn't this entire thing meant to be a rite of masculine passage for young boys in order to educate them about self-defense and fighting back against others when they're older?

 No.6745

>>6744
Pistols don't have a radically different method of operation to rifles. Much of the basics for a rifle will help you with a pistol. Moreover, all of the safety considerations will cross over.

Rifles are easier to use, by far, as well. Much simpler to teach someone completely new on a rifle, than a pistol. You can essentially grab the rifle how you would naturally, and be pretty close to perfect, while pistols have specific techniques for proper stable holds.

>Isn't this entire thing meant to be a rite of masculine passage for young boys in order to educate them about self-defense and fighting back against others when they're older?
Not necessarily.
Is Football to teach young boys how to bull over others, avoid getting knocked over, or how to tackle someone fleeing you?
No.

There's more to firearms than killing people.

 No.6747

>>6744
>Most ordinary people buy pistols to defend themselves. Not rifles. Not shotguns.
Only for defense outside the home.  For home defense, a rifle or shotgun is greatly preferable over a handgun.  

And also this >>6745:
>Much simpler to teach someone completely new on a rifle, than a pistol.
Handguns are a more advanced skill, ideally taught after learning how to use a rifle.

>>6744
>Isn't this entire thing meant to be a rite of masculine passage for young boys in order to educate them about self-defense and fighting back against others when they're older?
I was thinking more along the lines of a well-regulated (i.e., well-trained) militia.  (See https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 for the composition of the militia of the United States.)

 No.6766

File: 1600229574416.jpg (10.42 KB, 340x324, 85:81, lead.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google

I guess another issue is lead poisoning, especially for young developing brains.  Can mitigate air quality with HEPA filters.  (The indoor range I that visit does that.)  And must supervise students to make sure that they wash their hands well afterwards, getting any lead out.  And also make sure they don't bring any food to the range.

 No.6783

>Should high schools teach basic gun safety, marksmanship, and firearms technology?
Absolutely yes.

Firearms are something that everyone should be familiar with to some degree so that they know how to safely handle them, and so that they understand the dangers and risks involved with using them. Teach the basics of how firearms work, and teach the fundamental rules that everyone who gets firearms should learn: 1- It's always loaded, 2- Only point it at something you're willing to destroy, 3- Know your target and what's behind it, etc.

It's also good to have them be familiar enough with firearms to actually have a discussion about how and if they should be regulated in certain ways. Far too much of the current discussion surrounding firearms regulation is coming from a complete lack of familiarity with firearms, and making arguments based on the resulting misunderstandings.

Now, it's certain that public schools will never allow such education, especially since the main purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to overthrow their own government if need be.

However, I definitely think that everyone should get firearms education at some point in their youth.

 No.6786

>the main purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow the people to overthrow their own government if need be

I'm going to clarify that I don't personally abide by the following argument, but I want to see it proposed and challenged. That said. Well...

I hear a lot that the 2nd amendment specifically and civilian weapon ownership broadly are to protect against dictatorship. But this all seems to defy common sense. Isn't that view clearly obsolete due to the socio-political beliefs of many, prehaps most gun owners as things have worked out?

If America becomes a dictatorship, then the number one most enthusiastic power base in support of the government is going to be, well, hardcore right-wing activists. People who are most likely to believe in replacing pluralistic, multicultural democracy with a theocratic, domineering authoritarian state. That is: the NRA. The types of people most likely to own guns. They will be the core power base counted on to support the dictatorship.

Dictatorial America going after transgender people, going after Muslims, going after atheists, going after feminists, and so on will be taking on the exact same individuals that many gun owners have propagandized against and worked to enact discrimination upon for decades upon decades now. It defies credulity in the extreme to claim that that the exact same gun owners damning "social justice warriors", "cultural Marxists", et cetera now will in the future be willing to literally put their lives on the line to save those types. What evidence is there?

In all seriousness, do you really think that when the hypothetical U.S. Gestapo comes to, say, a transgender support group meeting at a community center that the local gun owners will shoot the U.S. Gestapo in the defense of those victims? When the U.S. Gestapo is itself made of deputized gun owners working to save the country, their motivation being patriotic fervor? When the governments core constituency that it counts on for public support includes those local gun owners? When those local gun owners likely voted the U.S. Gestapo into place in the beginning to "save the children" from LGBT types and others?

Hell, the non-response and lack of empathy from U.S. gun owners generally to events such as the Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando kind of speaks for itself. And that was the act of a monstrous lone work terrorist, not that of a legitimately elected dictatorship enacting its popular will against a widely hated and popularly seen to be evil minority. Iconic 2nd amendment advocate Alex Jones in particular said after the Pulse attack that those who died deserved to die since the event was God's punishment for the victims' bisexuality/homosexuality/transgenderism.

Am I really supposed to think that Alex Jones and his ilk will fight back against a dictatorship that does in a systematic basis what the Pulse terrorist did alone? When Jones believes as he does? Nah.

 No.6788

>>6786
>If America becomes a dictatorship, then the number one most enthusiastic power base in support of the government is going to be, well, hardcore right-wing activists.
This is quite an assumption. There are many people that would say quite the opposite, that an authoritarian government is likely to be hardcore leftist. I personally believe that an authoritarian government is neither right nor left, and is simply in power for power's sake.

Also, most gun owners are not authoritarians by any stretch. They are overwhelmingly libertarian.

>In all seriousness, do you really think that when the hypothetical U.S. Gestapo comes to, say, a transgender support group meeting at a community center that the local gun owners will shoot the U.S. Gestapo in the defense of those victims?
Personally knowing many gun owners, the answer is absolutely yes. The overwhelming majority would come to defend that community.

>Hell, the non-response and lack of empathy from U.S. gun owners generally to events such as the Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando kind of speaks for itself.
Being immersed in gun-owner culture and being family and friends with a large number of gun owners, the only response I saw from gun-owners was devastation and anger at the attacks. You are clearly missing out.

---

Judging from your reply, you seem to have a misconception about the views of gun owners.

Most gun owners are hard libertarians and conservatives that are strongly opposed to authoritarian power, regardless of the political positions of that power. And most gun owners would swiftly come to the defense of any group being attacked or rounded up by a government power, even if they strongly disagreed on things like sexuality and gender rights.



PS: We conservatives also think that Alex Jones is a nutjob. He does not represent the right at all.

 No.6790

>>6788
Those are interesting points, but I still wonder about multiple things.

That most gun owners are hard libertarians or hard conservatives, yeah. That's the core point. What if, as would most likely be the case, the dictatorship IS a "libertarian" and "conservative" dictatorship? One that is is attacking minorities in order to "spread liberty"? After all, it's very easy to damn LGBT people as being "enemies of religious liberty". Same thing for atheists, Jews, and Muslims. They're "threats to Christian freedoms".

Feminists? "Danger to free masculinity". Etc. It goes on.

In terms of the hypothetical assault on the transgender support group meeting, the issue is still there that the U.S. Gestapo would be the fairly elected patriotic representative claiming to act on the behalf of gun owners, doing God's will and the will of the popular majority by taking out a hating minority. A minority that's been condemned numerous times by the NRA. And that U.S. Gestapo would be made up of deputized gun owners themselves. Strong, god-fearing, patriotic Americans working to "save the children" from those that would take away their liberty.

You're really saying that most gun owners would act in the defense of that transgender group? Despite the NRA? Despite the will of the people in their elected representatives? Despite the will of God? Despite that those transgender individuals are the "enemies of freedom"?

 No.6793

>>6790
>What if, as would most likely be the case, the dictatorship IS a "libertarian" and "conservative" dictatorship?
It is impossible for that to be the case. In fact, a dictatorship can't possibly be libertarian or conservative.

The moment a dictatorship occurs (right or left wing) is the moment that gun owners revolt.

If the government starts rounding up LGBT individuals, the overwhelming majority of gun owners would come to fight the government and defend the LGBT community.

>You're really saying that most gun owners would act in the defense of that transgender group?
Yes. Absolutely.

>Despite the NRA?
Most gun owners actually dislike the NRA. The NRA plays too many political games.

>Despite the will of the people in their elected representatives?
Yes. Elected or not, once they become a dictator, any sense of "this is what the people want" goes out the window.

>Despite the will of God?
Most religious gun-owners do NOT believe it is the will of God to attack anyone, including LGBT individuals. Anyone who thinks that is considered crazy and dangerous and not fit to own weapons. In fact they would probably be sent to a psychiatric facility.

>Despite that those transgender individuals are the "enemies of freedom"?
No one on the right would label them that. Simply being LGBT doesn't make one an "enemy of religious liberty".

In order to get that label, you would have to actively attack religious liberties, prevent churches from meeting, attacking christians for simply being christian, mandating that certain religious beliefs are illegal or that citizens can be sued and penalized for exercising their religious beliefs, etc.

Most LGBT people don't do that, and most gun-owners know that.

---

Honestly, I don't know what sort of bizarre boogey-straw-man has been presented to you to the point that you believe it actually exists. But I'm telling you it isn't real. It doesn't exist. There is no right-wing existential threat to LGBT individuals.

Sure, there are the rare extremists, but both sides have extremists. Funnily enough, most people don't hear about the extremists on their own side of the aisle. Only those on the opposite side. And the focus of most media tends to be on those extremes.

These days technology encourages bubbles that only ever see the most extreme and idiotic news about the opposing side of the aisle. This makes for some really terrifying strawmen like the one you continue to focus on.

The good news is that that strawman isn't real.


So to return to the original discussion about the purpose of the 2nd amendment: Yes, knowing gun owners and being a gun owner myself, most gun owners would absolutely fight to overthrow an authoritarian government and defend the people against said government, even if they somewhat agreed with the government's supposed political stances. The disagreement with the government's extreme method of enforcement would override all agreement on anything else.

 No.6836

>>6786
>If America becomes a dictatorship, then the number one most enthusiastic power base in support of the government is going to be, well, hardcore right-wing activists.
>People who are most likely to believe in replacing pluralistic, multicultural democracy with a theocratic, domineering authoritarian state.
Definitely not.
Frankly, this is a presumption made in ignorance.

Most 2A big supporters are massive pro-freedom types. Maybe they're less inclined to care about matters far away from them, as is only natural, but nonetheless hardly some goose-stepping authoritarians as you seem to presume.
That presumption is something I can only interpret as ignorant stereotyping based on false information. It is something that does not seem to reflect the reality I have experienced as someone within that community.

Incidentally, in relation to the NRA, most gun owners I know hate that organization, but support it by simple virtue of at least sometimes fighting for our rights.
But that may well be dependent on if you mean the lobyist group or the more 'club' like part of it.

> It defies credulity in the extreme to claim that that the exact same gun owners damning "social justice warriors", "cultural Marxists",
Leaving aside the immediate issue that I do not think some major facet of the 2nd Amendment supporters are actively "damning SJWs", those are authoritarians anyway, so how does that help your case?
Is an authoritarian of a different 'team' "just"?

>do you really think that when the hypothetical U.S. Gestapo comes to, say, a transgender support group meeting at a community center that the local gun owners will shoot the U.S. Gestapo in the defense of those victims?
Depends.
Is it in the city?
Probably not. Not because 2A types wouldn't, but rather, because they are not there and don't really have any tie to cities often enough.
Is it in their metaphorical back yard, with their local community?
Absolutely. No doubt within my mind whatsoever at it.

>Hell, the non-response and lack of empathy from U.S. gun owners generally to events such as the Pulse nightclub attack in Orlando kind of speaks for itself.
Yeah, now I know you're not actually speaking as someone who's actually engaged with the gun community.
You're speaking purely as someone who's heard from others about the gun community. Who looks at circles they assume are a part of the gun community, while not going to any besides, and extrapolates that on the gun community.

I'm sure if I only watched Fox News and got the rest of my information from Billybob down the street, I'd think that transgenders are out to eat my babies and commune with Satan.
It'd still be pretty dumb of me to assume that's the way it is without actually looking further myself.

I can tell you the immediate reaction from 2A types by large is the rather classic "If they tried that here, I'd've shot him".

>. Iconic 2nd amendment advocate Alex Jones
M8, wot?

Alex Jones is not an "iconic 2nd ammendment advocate".
Where in the world did you come up with this nonsense?
Or did you just assume "2nd ammendment advocate" and "right winger" were synonymous, one in the same, and homogeneous no less?


[]
[Return] [Go to top]
[ home ] [ pony / townhall / rp / canterlot / rules ] [ arch ]