# Should they teach firearm safety in schools?



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Do you think teaching firearm safety in schools is a good idea? Personally I do. I wish that the basic hunter safety course I teach would be mandatory in all schools. Not only would it teach firearm safety but also encompass conservation, ethics, and first aid. I figure seventh grade for the full shot And first AND second grade for the NRA Eddie Eagle program.

Your thought please?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

JJ Grandits said:


> Do you think teaching firearm safety in schools is a good idea? Personally I do. I wish that the basic hunter safety course I teach would be mandatory in all schools. Not only would it teach firearm safety but also encompass conservation, ethics, and first aid. I figure seventh grade for the full shot And first AND second grade for the NRA Eddie Eagle program.
> 
> Your thought please?


Absolutely not. The curriculum is already a mile wide because people keep adding more and more of their pet ideas into what we are required to teach. There are always people trying to catch the ear of the powers that be to add more and more (without asking the folks who are actually in charge of delivering the instruction btw). Enough already!

If you believe that your children should learn firearm safety, then by all means teach it to them. But don't ask me to pile yet another thing on my already overfull plate.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

I think all kids should have to take a firearms safety course, though not necessarily in school.
Kids need to be taught that guns are not scary, but they can be dangerous, and they need to be taught to respect firearms, not fear them.
Guns need to be a normal part of life again, not some menacing monster that eats children and old people.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

I agree with you in principal, but the only thing, I can see coming out of this will be a firestorm, of controversy.

Then, when the first distraught teen, who completes the course, puts a gun barrel, in his/her mouth - look out!

If the year, was 1965, then sure, why not? Things are much different now, not necessarily better.


----------



## farmerDale (Jan 8, 2011)

Yes. I do. I think it should be mandatory. In a school shooting scenario, I often wonder if the kids had a stronger ID on the firearm that is being used, they may have more confidence in how to respond. IE, if it is a 30-30 Winchester lever action, they would know the limitations in capacity. When kids have no clue, I think the panic potential and the end result is far more scary, than if they were trained properly.

Rather than irrational fear of firearms, kids should have knowledge and a healthy respect about the tool that is a firearm.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

JJ Grandits said:


> Do you think teaching firearm safety in schools is a good idea? Personally I do. I wish that the basic hunter safety course I teach would be mandatory in all schools. Not only would it teach firearm safety but also encompass conservation, ethics, and first aid. I figure seventh grade for the full shot And first AND second grade for the NRA Eddie Eagle program.
> 
> Your thought please?


Absolutely! We had a shooting team at my high school. The shooting range was in the basement. 22's only! No one gave a second look at the rifles in racks in the trucks windows. A dozen or so, everyday. I recently asked the principal if it was still there, he had that deer headlight look. He really had a hard time believing it! What has changed since then? Liberal take over of public education. It really is that simple.


----------



## simi-steading (Sep 27, 2012)

YES!

I was taught firearm safety in school. It was part of our Gym class in grade school.. They even brought in BB guns and we did target shooting. It was usually a week long ordeal. They did that for a few years I was in school. It taught me a lot of respect for guns, and it also got me involved with ROTC in HS, and allowed me to join the Marksmanship club in HS.. I was also a member of the drill team, and I can still toss and twirl a mean rifle.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

My DW was teaching a summer school enrichment program to disadvantaged elementary youth in about 1991. There was no set curriculum. Previously it had been basically a supervised free day care. But her being a hands on type science teacher, she wanted it to truly be educational. So she did all sorts of fun programs and activities. In addition, she looked to friends to come in as experts to teach about different careers, mostly science and engineering related, but others as well. 

One guest she brought in was a cop. He was not in uniform. He told about the job and delivered a gun safety lecture. He unloaded the gun and allowed the kids to touch the guns and bullets it in an attempt to remove the mystery, making sure they understood that even an unloaded gun does not get pointed at people. It was a successful day, the kids learned, they went home and excitedly told their parents. 

DW was fired a few days later. It is the only time in her life she has ever been fired. Allowing children to touch a gun and to have a gun in a classroom was too dangerous. This was prior to when it became common to have an in school armed cop.

BTW - the NRA has Eddie Eagle which is a program for young elementary to learn about gun safety. It it banned in many schools because you can't say the "G" word. G-words are dangerous. https://eddieeagle.nra.org/


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

The purpose for the thread was to demystify firearms for children. Most accidents happen out of curiosity on the child's part and darn stupid negligence on the parents part. My children were educated about firearms at a very young age. That is why they have been safe around them. As a former homeschooler it is very easy to add ethics, conservation and even first aid to a curriculum with at most minor changes. First aid would go under health, Conservation under science. The only thing they would have to adjust for would be ethics, which considering the state of our schools would be a challenge for the administrations and faculty.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

Firearms safety class in every school is a good idea but I don't think a one shot class could counteract the daily message from teachers that guns are evil and will shoot you. We need to have teachers that do not try to impose their beliefs on the impressionable kids. 

The gun grabbers strategy is to raise an entire generation of citizens that are opposed to guns and then do away with the second amendment and disarm the populace.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

I think it is the parent/family's responsibility and not the school's. 

If a local school or district could afford the insurance and the other associated costs, and the community was on board, great. Have a marksmanship program or club. But don't try to make it mandatory. One size does not fit all.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> I think it is *the parent/family's responsibility* and not the school's.
> 
> If a local school or district could afford the insurance and the other associated costs, and the community was on board, great. Have a marksmanship program or club. But don't try to make it mandatory. One size does not fit all.


The problem with that approach is many families are simply ignorant about firearms. 

Leaving it up to "public approval" is how it got to the dismal state it's in now

The schools can bring in people who actually know something about the topic, and they don't have to use real guns to teach *safety*. 

That does "fit all".

The title isn't about "marksmanship"



> Should they teach *firearm safety* in schools?


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Why do they teach poison safety in school? They teach kids to recognize the poison symbol and to not drink or eat the stuff. Why do they teach kids not to play in the road, to stay on the sidewalk, to ride your bike with the flow of traffic?

NRA's Eddie Eagle program doesn't require insurance, designing a course curriculum, or much of any effort on the part of the teacher or school. It is there, free, paid for by those of us who pay our NRA dues.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

JJ Grandits said:


> Do you think teaching firearm safety in schools is a good idea? .....
> 
> Your thought please?


No. There should be separate schools that teach only firearms courses to people of all ages, but not in or near public schools, and it shouldn't be mandatory for school students of any age.

A separate school designated and equipped specifically for firearms courses can teach more courses than a public school is equipped for (including family courses) and the school can be better located and equipped and can have more open hours day or evening for conducting different courses.

Firearms courses should not be mandatory for children, that decision should always be up to the parents. It's an important family decision and it needs to be up to the parents to make the arrangements for their children to attend courses at the firearms school if and when *the parents* feel their children are ready to take such courses, not some school system.


----------



## MO_cows (Aug 14, 2010)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The problem with that approach is many families are simply ignorant about firearms.
> 
> Leaving it up to "public approval" is how it got to the dismal state it's in now
> 
> ...


Well if you are interested in that for your local school district, I suggest you see what is available in your area thru the CMP. www.thecmp.org
They do a better job with safety and marksmanship training for young people than some volunteer or teacher trying to squeeze it in along with the rest of their workload. No need to reinvent the wheel, there might be a program that already exists. They have an air rifle program that is very popular and their "range" at the Anniston facility is way cool. 

Trying to teach gun safety without a real gun, and with no purpose to use what they learned, would not be meaningful or successful, IMO. If they got to shoot after they mastered the safety training, you would have a much more motivated kid.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

MO_cows said:


> Well if you are interested in that for your local school district, I suggest you see what is available in your area thru the CMP. www.thecmp.org
> *They do a better job with safety and marksmanship training for young people than some volunteer or teacher* trying to squeeze it in along with the rest of their workload. No need to reinvent the wheel, there might be a program that already exists. They have an air rifle program that is very popular and their "range" at the Anniston facility is way cool.
> 
> Trying to teach gun safety without a real gun, and with *no purpose to use what they learned*, would not be meaningful or successful, IMO. If they got to shoot after they mastered the safety training, you would have a much more motivated kid.


Did you even read what I said?:



> The schools *can bring in people* who actually know something about the topic, and they don't have to use real guns to teach safety.


They teach fire safety without burning anything.
They teach sex education without getting naked
They can easily teach gun safety with replica firearms

The "purpose to use what they learn" is to know how NOT to handle a gun, and how to avoid shooting something you don't intend to.

It's not a shooting class. It's a safety class.
It's the main reason the NRA exists

You're not likely to see a return of "marksmanship" to public schools, but that's not what the OP asked


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

I would prefer something outside the school like Fennick's idea. I agree with MOcows that the kids would be more motivated if they actually get to handle and shoot a real gun. I understand the idea of a pure safety class just so kids can learn to handle a gun using a model but I think overall handling a real one is a better idea all around. I am not sure how much you would really retain from a one day class handling a model. Taking it out and shooting it gives real weight to the lesson. 

Our local 4H has a gun class. They do safety and marksmanship. I don't think a school would ever do it just because of the liability issues.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Our hunter training safety course is free. students do get to handle and fire guns at the end of the class. Our basic class runs 12-14 hrs. split over two days. marksmanship is only briefly covered. The topic is understanding guns, how they were developed, how the function, and above all else safe behavior with them. aside from firing live ammo there is no reason why it can not be taught in schools. Possibly graduates could get a certificate that could be presented at a local gun club that allows them supervised use of the rifle or trap range. That is where they fire real guns. Our local sportsmen's federation provides activities for young shooters. My club just had one a couple of weeks ago. I can see no situation where gun clubs would have a problem with this. We are very interested in our sport, support it, and take every action to pass our knowledge on. 
And it could save some kids life. Isn't that important?


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

JJ Grandits said:


> Our hunter training safety course is free. students do get to handle and fire guns at the end of the class. Our basic class runs 12-14 hrs. split over two days. marksmanship is only briefly covered. The topic is understanding guns, how they were developed, how the function, and above all else safe behavior with them. *aside from firing live ammo there is no reason why it can not be taught in schools*. Possibly graduates could get a certificate that could be presented at a local gun club that allows them supervised use of the rifle or trap range. That is where they fire real guns. Our local sportsmen's federation provides activities for young shooters. My club just had one a couple of weeks ago. I can see no situation where gun clubs would have a problem with this. We are very interested in our sport, support it, and take every action to pass our knowledge on.
> And it could save some kids life. Isn't that important?


The schools won't teach it, it doesn't perpetuate the narrative that guns kill people.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

JJ Grandits said:


> Our hunter training safety course is free. students do get to handle and fire guns at the end of the class. Our basic class runs 12-14 hrs. split over two days. marksmanship is only briefly covered. The topic is understanding guns, how they were developed, how the function, and above all else safe behavior with them. aside from firing live ammo there is no reason why it can not be taught in schools. Possibly graduates could get a certificate that could be presented at a local gun club that allows them supervised use of the rifle or trap range. That is where they fire real guns. Our local sportsmen's federation provides activities for young shooters. My club just had one a couple of weeks ago. I can see no situation where gun clubs would have a problem with this. We are very interested in our sport, support it, and take every action to pass our knowledge on.
> And it could save some kids life. Isn't that important?


And how many reading, writing, math, science and social studies topics do I NOT teach in order to get 12-14 instructional hours free to teach hunter safety?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)




----------



## flewism (Apr 2, 2007)

That's the family's job, how many more skills are we willing to pawn off on an overtaxed school system?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Fennick said:


> No. There should be separate schools that teach only firearms courses to people of all ages, but not in or near public schools, and it shouldn't be mandatory for school students of any age.
> 
> A separate school designated and equipped specifically for firearms courses can teach more courses than a public school is equipped for (including family courses) and the school can be better located and equipped and can have more open hours day or evening for conducting different courses.
> 
> Firearms courses should not be mandatory for children, that decision should always be up to the parents. It's an important family decision and it needs to be up to the parents to make the arrangements for their children to attend courses at the firearms school if and when *the parents* feel their children are ready to take such courses, not some school system.


Another reason we have nearly an entire generation afraid of guns.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Did you even read what I said?:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Post of the day award.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

JJ Grandits said:


> Do you think teaching firearm safety in schools is a good idea? Personally I do. I wish that the basic hunter safety course I teach would be mandatory in all schools. Not only would it teach firearm safety but also encompass conservation, ethics, and first aid. I figure seventh grade for the full shot And first AND second grade for the NRA Eddie Eagle program.
> 
> Your thought please?


Yes.
I think school should offer / teach REAL WORLD things.

Home Economics, or "Life Science"
Shop; teach them how to be carpenters, how to fix engines, how to work metal, etc.
How to Farm.
How to be an entrepreneurism 
How to balance a check book, live on a budget, how to be smart shoppers...
Civics. How to be a positive productive citizen.
CPR / AED certified.
Hunters Education Class

Hang on.......that sounds like what home schooled kids get? 
OR
Kids whose parents are actually involved and engaged in their lives.......
BUT since most parent(s) have checked out; yeah, I would love to see my tax dollars spent teaching kids real world skills.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

flewism said:


> That's *the family's job*, how many more skills are we willing to pawn off on an overtaxed school system?


How would they teach something they don't know?
The NRA offers it free of charge for the Eddie Eagle materials


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Fennick said:


> No. There should be separate schools that teach only firearms courses to people of all ages, but not in or near public schools, and it shouldn't be mandatory for school students of any age.
> 
> A separate school designated and equipped specifically for firearms courses can teach more courses than a public school is equipped for (including family courses) and the school can be better located and equipped and can have more open hours day or evening for conducting different courses.
> 
> Firearms courses should not be mandatory for children, that decision should always be up to the parents. It's an important family decision and it needs to be up to the parents to make the arrangements for their children to attend courses at the firearms school if and when *the parents* feel their children are ready to take such courses, not some school system.





Yet if I said the same thing about Gays, lesbians, transsexuals studies/classes, that it should be up to the parents/family to teach, you (as in a general you, not a personal you) would cry foul and tell me how bigoted and homophobic I was..
And yet it's been forced into our school curriculum 

Ironic how that works!

So I have to disagree and say yes it should be brought back into our schools and taught.

Firearm safety should always be taught!

If you want to leave it to the parents/family, then do that with all of the "social" issues and not just the ones one political agenda wants..

But I do understand the so called "tolerant" ones aren't very tolerant..


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

They did when I was a kid. Like lots of kids I was in the rifle club.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

SLFarmMI said:


> And how many reading, writing, math, science and social studies topics do I NOT teach in order to get 12-14 instructional hours free to teach hunter safety?



Well if it's like the classes I was in you could take 5 hours out of any day and not miss a thing. 
But what if it was a option during gym or recess ?


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Wouldn't hurt to have a couple days of basic firearms instruction and safety in phys ed class about 7th or 8th grade, particularly in rural areas. 

Many kids are more likely to take up shooting or hunting later in life than they are some of the other sports taught.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Fishindude said:


> Wouldn't hurt to have a couple days of basic firearms instruction and safety in phys ed class about 7th or 8th grade, particularly in rural areas.
> 
> Many kids are more likely to take up shooting or hunting later in life than they are some of the other sports taught.


Urban areas would be better served with gun safety classes. Rural folks grow up with it.


----------



## Ana Bluebird (Dec 8, 2002)

I think time would be better spent teaching parenting skills (and how to prevent getting there) and life skills like balancing budget, filling out a job application, etc.


----------



## Jim Bunton (Mar 16, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> Yes.
> I think school should offer / teach REAL WORLD things.
> 
> Home Economics, or "Life Science"
> ...


 The schools can not teach kids whose parents have checked out every thing that it would be nice for them to know so I don't think fire arm safety would be very high on my list. Many people will go through their whole life without ever handling a gun.

Jim


----------



## Michael W. Smith (Jun 2, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They teach fire safety without burning anything.
> They teach sex education without getting naked
> They can easily teach gun safety with replica firearms
> 
> It's a safety class.


With that train of thought, EACH & EVERY school should be required to have a swimming pool so kids are taught how to swim. I'm sure your local school district can afford it - $ Hundred of thousands to install it and $ thousands to maintain it yearly. 

It's bad enough that the Federal & State governement keep changing what is taught and HOW things are taught. They keep adding more and more things onto the plate, only in a year or two to change things up again. (And usually quit funding the programs so it's funded by the local taxpayer.)

Have a high school student write something in cursive. Chances are they don't know how or you won't be able to read it because (at least around here) cursive writing is only taught in elementary and usually only a little bit. With computers, Ipads, Iphones, etc - the skill of writing has gone down the drain.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AmericanStand said:


> Well if it's like the classes I was in you could take 5 hours out of any day and not miss a thing.
> But what if it was a option during gym or recess ?


When my kids were in school, outdoor ed was an optional part of the phys ed program but it was quite a bit broader than firearms. Our county stopped the program when one of the kids managed to wound herself fairly severely with a hatchet while chopping firewood so I would suggest that perhaps liability may be a significant reason why schools stopped such programs.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

My guess is a number of folks would volunteer time, and material to teach gun saftey to schools for free.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

Tricky Grama said:


> Another reason we have nearly an entire generation afraid of guns.


Your post doesn't make sense to me. Did you actually read what I said? Did you just skim over it or did your comprehension skills take a nose dive or something? You'll have to explain your own reasoning about exactly how you got that _'fear of guns'_ thing from my post. 

My post was about supporting and advocating proper firearms courses for everyone of all ages in a facility that is specifically designed and better set up and equipped for conducting such courses, better than any public school could ever do. How do you find fault with that?

Are you also saying you think the government and school boards should take all responsibilities and decision making away from parents with regard to their childrens' education and activities?


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Fennick said:


> Your post doesn't make sense to me. Did your comprehension skills take a nose dive or something? You'll have to explain your own reasoning about exactly how you got that _'fear of guns'_ thing from my post.
> 
> My post was about supporting and advocating proper firearms courses for everyone of all ages in a facility that is specifically designed and better set up and equipped for conducting such courses, better than any public school could ever do. How do you find fault with that?
> 
> Are you also saying you think *the government and school boards should take all responsibilities and decision making away from parents* with regard to their childrens' education and activities?


You mean like sex ed?


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

HDRider said:


> You mean like sex ed?


What does sex education, or social studies as beowoulf90 suggested, have to do with weapons training and handling? I'm not getting the connection. :shrug:


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> BUT since most parent(s) have checked out; yeah, I would love to see my tax dollars spent teaching kids real world skills.



I don't agree that most parents have checked out


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Fennick said:


> What does sex education, or social studies as beowoulf90 suggested, have to do with weapons training and handling? I'm not getting the connection. :shrug:


We let the school take over sex education. And some are OK with that.

Why would it not be OK for schools to teach gun safety?

Do you see the connection? Or maybe correlation is a better word.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

HDRider said:


> We let the school take over sex education. And some are OK with that.
> 
> *Why would it not be OK for schools to teach gun safety?*
> 
> Do you see the connection? Or maybe correlation is a better word.


I have already explained that in my first and second posts.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Fennick said:


> I have already explained that in my first and second posts.


OK, then, to be blunt. I thought you understood, I don't agree with you.


----------



## Nimrod (Jun 8, 2010)

I used to teach the MN DNR Firearms Safety course in a junior high school right in the middle of St. Paul until I had to quit 6 years ago for medical reasons. The course was offered after hours while the school was open for Continuing Ed classes. We did range day at the gun club.

The law in MN was that you could bring real firearms into a public school for instructional purposes. I think it's still in effect. The DNR does not permit any live ammunition, or even ammunition that looks live, in the class. The St Paul Public School had a few more rules and you had to have the principal's permission. Unless things have changed, you could do a full blown Firearms Safety course in a MN school and use real guns. 

You could certainly do the Eddie Eagle class without using real guns and without costing the school liability insurance. This is an excuse the anti-gunners wheel out to prevent any viewpoint but theirs from reaching the kids. Probably won't happen but should be attempted.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

HDRider said:


> My guess is a number of folks would volunteer time, and material to teach gun saftey to schools for free.


I'd do it in a heartbeat. In NY we have a powerpoint presentation that is incredible.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

HDRider said:


> OK, then, to be blunt. I thought you understood, I don't agree with you.


Oh. Is that all? What else is new? LOL. 

That's okay then. I don't agree with you either so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Carry on.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Fennick said:


> Oh. Is that all? What else is new? LOL.
> 
> That's okay then. I don't agree with you either so we'll just have to agree to disagree. Carry on.


Just curious. Are you Canadian?


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> The schools won't teach it, it doesn't perpetuate the narrative that guns kill people.


They don't teach anything really useful any more. Ask those kids at Yale about the 1st amendment, most were ok with the repeal!!! Dumb asses! The liberal teaching points are coming back to bite them bug time, and it's just so sad that these kids are being indoctrinated and they don't even know it....fools.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I do have an agenda.
First, education. Solid sound reliable information with the intent on preventing firearm "accidents".
Secondly, to encourage a new generation of responsible shooters. I have never once taken anyone to the trap field or rifle range and instructed them in safe responsible shooting and have anyone complain that they did not have a good time. To be honest I've never had anyone who did not end up being extremely enthusiastic about it. Even people who originally "did not like guns" had a good time.
Yep, that's me, *******, conservative, Christian, gun nut twisting the minds of America's youth.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

JJ Grandits said:


> I do have an agenda.
> First, education. Solid sound reliable information with the intent on preventing firearm "accidents".
> Secondly, to encourage a new generation of responsible shooters. I have never once taken anyone to the trap field or rifle range and instructed them in safe responsible shooting and have anyone complain that they did not have a good time. To be honest I've never had anyone who did not end up being extremely enthusiastic about it. Even people who originally "did not like guns" had a good time.
> Yep, that's me, *******, conservative, Christian, gun nut twisting the minds of America's youth.


I have taken a number of non-shooters shooting. Pinging cans with a 22, shooting an AR a hundred yards with a red dot, shotgun shooting trap, whatever. They loved it, to a one they loved it. Some were border line rabid anti-gun, and they converted. Many had never touched a gun. I can't tell you how many said these exact words "Oh, we don't allow guns in our house." Some have circled back and ask me to help them pick out a gun.

Learning opens eyes. Experience breeds comfort.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Just curious. Are you Canadian?


I have multiple citizenships with 4 countries and I live and pay taxes in both USA and Canada and I'm a firearms owner / operator in both countries.

What else do you want to know about my personal life and why are you curious about my citizenship and what does anyone's citizenship have to do with this topic?


----------



## susieneddy (Sep 2, 2011)

I hope you get someone better than this guy:

"Modesto Police say they were acting out a scenario when a loaded gun the instructor was holding accidentally went off. They say they gun fired at the end of class after the instructor put a mock gun down and picked up his real loaded gun.

Police say so far it's unclear if the instructor believed he was using the mock gun he had been using to teach the class."

eep:


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

Hate to say it, but cops basically are not that good with guns. Many only fire them when they have to "Qualify". Outside of qualifying some have gone their entire careers without firing a gun.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> But what if it was a option during gym or recess ?


Gym (or more correctly, physical education) has a curriculum with skills that are required to be taught and tested. So what skills do they eliminate to teach hunter safety? 

Recess is supposed to be time for students to get free physical activity. They need that movement and the mental break every day. Putting a mandatory class during recess is not a good idea. Plus, recess is only 15-20 minutes -- not enough time for a class.

People need to stop with the whole "the schools should teach this or that" when the things they are requesting are the parents' responsibility. I have enough to do to do my own job.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Fennick said:


> I have multiple citizenships with 4 countries and I live and pay taxes in both USA and Canada and I'm a firearms owner / operator in both countries.
> 
> What else do you want to know about my personal life and why are you curious about my citizenship and what does anyone's citizenship have to do with this topic?


Sounded Canadian. That's all.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> Gym (or more correctly, physical education) has a curriculum with skills that are required to be taught and tested. So what skills do they eliminate to teach hunter safety?
> 
> Recess is supposed to be time for students to get free physical activity. They need that movement and the mental break every day. Putting a mandatory class during recess is not a good idea. Plus, recess is only 15-20 minutes -- not enough time for a class.
> 
> People need to stop with the whole "the schools should teach this or that" when the things they are requesting are the parents' responsibility. I have enough to do to do my own job.


There seems to be a consensus that volunteers might fill the need.

We sure don't need another bitter teacher, especially one with a gun.


----------



## logbuilder (Jan 31, 2006)

In the public schools in my area, if a course in firearm safety were to be designed, it would be very short. Here it is:

See a gun, don't touch it, run away, report it to authorities.


----------



## Fennick (Apr 16, 2013)

HDRider said:


> Sounded Canadian. That's all.


What does a Canadian sound like? Do you mean I sound Canadian the way Canadian FarmerDale and Canadian WR sound Canadian because we are all so intelligent, practical, well educated and knowledgeable about so many things? :heh:

All three of us have indicated different responses from each other on this topic of children being taught weapons training and handling in schools. Which one of us do you think sounds more Canadian than the others? Be honest now, curious minds want to know what a real Canadian sounds like. :whistlin:


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Fennick said:


> What does a Canadian sound like? Do you mean I sound Canadian the way Canadian FarmerDale and Canadian WR sound Canadian because we are all so intelligent, practical, well educated and knowledgeable about so many things? :heh:
> 
> All three of us have indicated different responses from each other on this topic of children being taught weapons training and handling in schools. Which one of us do you think sounds more Canadian than the others? Be honest now, curious minds want to know what a real Canadian sounds like. :whistlin:


I would say WR and Dale..they are polite


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

Fennick said:


> What does a Canadian sound like? Do you mean I sound Canadian the way Canadian FarmerDale and Canadian WR sound Canadian because we are all so intelligent, practical, well educated and knowledgeable about so many things? :heh:
> 
> All three of us have indicated different responses from each other on this topic of children being taught weapons training and handling in schools. Which one of us do you think sounds more Canadian than the others? Be honest now, curious minds want to know what a real Canadian sounds like. :whistlin:


Some have this nasally, arrogant tone. Not all of them, but you hear it with some.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

logbuilder said:


> In the public schools in my area, if a course in firearm safety were to be designed, it would be very short. Here it is:
> 
> *See a gun, don't touch it, run away, report it to authorities.*


Probably not bad training, for kids who don't shoot guns. (not sure about running)

At least it's safe.

In all reality, teaching firearm safety to a group of kids, who likely don't hunt or shoot guns, is mostly a waste of time and effort.

They would probably forget most of what they learned.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> Probably not bad training, for kids who don't shoot guns. (not sure about running)
> 
> At least it's safe.
> 
> ...


Exactly. Stupid little buggers. Why bother to teach them anything? Math, science? They are just going to forget that stuff. And if they are girls, they just need to learn how to cook and clean, right? 

:facepalm:

/sarc off/


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

plowjockey said:


> Probably not bad training, for kids who don't shoot guns. (not sure about running)
> 
> At least it's safe.
> 
> ...


They should at least be taught not to fear guns


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

HDRider said:


> There seems to be a consensus that volunteers might fill the need.
> 
> We sure don't need another bitter teacher, especially one with a gun.


You are still missing one of my main points. For those of you pushing this mandatory hunter safety course to be taught in school, where do you think these 12-15 hours of instructional time that someone proposed are going to come from? What educational topics are going to be sacrificed in order to free up time for someone to teach hunter safety? 

Are you planning on making the school day longer to cover it? My students already attend school from 8:30 to 4:00. That's already a very long day, especially for the younger ones. If you do make the school day longer, how are you planning on compensating the staff who will be required then to extend their work days? You can't have volunteers in the building with children unless there is staff present. Are you planning on making staff work extra hours for free? We already do enough of that.

You made a remark about "bitter" teachers. It's not bitterness, it's frustration. It's extremely frustrating when people start spouting off about "the school should ..." without considering the repercussions or even bothering to ask the opinions of those upon whom they intend to dump the suggested task.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> You are still missing one of my main points. For those of you pushing this *mandatory* hunter safety course to be taught in school, where do you think these 12-15 hours of instructional time that someone proposed are going to come from? What educational topics are going to be sacrificed in order to free up time for someone to teach hunter safety?
> 
> Are you planning on making the school day longer to cover it? My students already attend school from 8:30 to 4:00. That's already a very long day, especially for the younger ones. If you do make the school day longer, how are you planning on compensating the staff who will be required then to extend their work days? You can't have volunteers in the building with children unless there is staff present. Are you planning on making staff work extra hours for free? We already do enough of that.
> 
> You made a remark about "bitter" teachers. It's not bitterness, it's frustration. It's extremely frustrating when people start spouting off about "the school should ..." without considering the repercussions or even bothering to ask the opinions of those upon whom they intend to dump the suggested task.


 I missed that.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Absolutely! We had a shooting team at my high school. The shooting range was in the basement. 22's only! No one gave a second look at the rifles in racks in the trucks windows. A dozen or so, everyday. I recently asked the principal if it was still there, he had that deer headlight look. He really had a hard time believing it! What has changed since then? Liberal take over of public education. It really is that simple.


Where I lived when in high school, we were actually allowed time off for opening day of gun season for deer. We also were allowed time off for any type of harvest. Gun racks were the norm and iirc we had shooting team along with golf . I don't think I hear of any of that now. We also never had shootings at schools just bomb threats That meant nothing.


----------



## 7thswan (Nov 18, 2008)

JeffreyD said:


> Absolutely! We had a shooting team at my high school. The shooting range was in the basement. 22's only! No one gave a second look at the rifles in racks in the trucks windows. A dozen or so, everyday. I recently asked the principal if it was still there, he had that deer headlight look. He really had a hard time believing it! What has changed since then? Liberal take over of public education. It really is that simple.


Where I lived when in high school, we were actually allowed time off for opening day of gun season for deer. We also were allowed time off for any type of harvest. Gun racks were the norm and iirc we had shooting team along with golf . I don't think I hear of any of that now.We also never had shootings at schools just bomb threats That meant anything,just get out of class stuff.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> You are still missing one of my main points. For those of you pushing this mandatory hunter safety course to be taught in school, where do you think these 12-15 hours of instructional time that someone proposed are going to come from? What educational topics are going to be sacrificed in order to free up time for someone to teach hunter safety?


 When I was in Jr high in the 70s, the school system boasted of a "new" concept called home room and each day, for a half hour, all kids went to home room. The time was supposed to be filled with enrichment learning, team building, values education, etc. After a few weeks of that we played cards instead as long as we didn't bother the un-teacher.

My DW was a teacher. In Ohio in the late 80s they came up with a "new" concept called "ACES," she can't remember what it stood for. It was a home room with all the promises of enrichment learning...yadda yadda. They played cards in most rooms but DW did activities most days.

In the mid 90s, as a teacher in Florida, they introduced a "new" concept called "ACE" which was a slightly different acronym for the same old bad idea repackaged again. 

In Virginia in the 2000s they did the same dang thang all over again in my DD's high school. Another half hour of no education while teachers graded papers, did lesson plans, and the kids entertained themselves. 

I have no idea what they are doing for home room type things today, but there is your time for gun safety training.


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

When I was in school in the 1970s, firearm safety was taught to us by the local game and fish officer and the county S.O deputy who was the NRA certified range instructor as a part of the extracurricular sportsman's club in junior high and high school.

In our junior high years, the game warden concentrated more on fishing creel limits and game bag limits and the shooting range master deputy explained basic firearm and air rifle safety as at that age while we could use an air rifle without permit to hunt rabbits and squirrels without our own hunting license, if using firearms we had to be escorted by an adult responsible for us.

Creel limits for fishing we had to know because although we could fish on an accompanying adults license when we turned 12 we were required to have our own fishing license.

When we turned 16 we were required to have our own hunting license also and many of us would carry our firearms with us to school unloaded and hidden behind our truck seats so we could go straight from school to the hunting areas for a hour or two of hunt time during the school week before dusk.

The reason our principal in high school required that we hide our shotguns and rifles in our vehicles was because our school parking lot was open and rear window racked hunting gear was stolen a few times during school hours.

When we turned 16 most of us continued to participate in the Sportsman's Club because doing so gave us the firearm certification for our hunting licenses in addition to discounts on the fees for both our fishing and hunting licenses.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

HDRider said:


> We let the school take over sex education. And some are OK with that.
> 
> Why would it not be OK for schools to teach gun safety?
> 
> Do you see the connection? Or maybe correlation is a better word.


Sex education is taught as a part of health classes. It's a basic human function, everybody needs to know about it and not all parents will teach about it. Guns on the other hand are 100% optional. A lot of people will never own one, will never be exposed to one and the knowledge is unnecessary. 

If you are a family that owns guns I would hope you would teach your children about them. I think the responsibility is solidly on the parents shoulders.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Fennick said:


> I have multiple citizenships with 4 countries and I live and pay taxes in both USA and Canada and I'm a firearms owner / operator in both countries.
> 
> What else do you want to know about my personal life and why are you curious about my citizenship and what does anyone's citizenship have to do with this topic?


They like to tell Canadians to shut up and stay out of American politics.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

DEKE01 said:


> Exactly. Stupid little buggers. Why bother to teach them anything? Math, science? They are just going to forget that stuff. And if they are girls, they just need to learn how to cook and clean, right?
> 
> :facepalm:
> 
> /sarc off/


That's just silly. You have to draw a line somewhere when you pick subjects to teach in school. Schools have limited time and resources and they have to hit the important and necessary subjects first. Guns are not a necessary part of life for most Americans. Kids have plenty of options outside of school to learn extracurricular stuff. If it's so important to y'all start an afterschool club, teach a class through your local Y or 4H or Boy's and Girl's club.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> They should at least be taught not to fear guns


I understand your point but it's not that kids fear firearms. The need to learn to respect them. 

Logically, I don't feel that mandatory firearms safety courses in schools are feasible because I suspect that liability insurance may make it prohibitive but there's that nagging little voice in the back of my head that wonders if we really need to teach baby gang members better accuracy. 

I'm not fully abreast of how your school system works but ours offer extra credits for various programs so perhaps a less complex solution would be additional credits for high school kids that complete a certain number of confirmed hours at a program with a licensed range.


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

I find it quite interesting that nobody has really addressed the main reason for the course which is safety for children. apparently the opposition have no problem with Jr. accidentally getting shot by his sister. It is the time or the money that is their only concern.

It's very telling.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> You are still missing one of my main points. For those of you pushing this mandatory hunter safety course to be taught in school, where do you think these *12-15 hours* of instructional time that someone proposed are going to come from? *What educational topics are going to be sacrificed* in order to free up time for someone to teach hunter safety?


They have 9 months to work it into the schedule.
This *is* an "educational topic" so none would be sacrificed at all.
They could work it into a science class as a physics lesson

It only takes *8 minutes* to watch the Eddie Eagle video



> &#8220;The Eddie Eagle GunSafeÂ® program, it doesn&#8217;t teach parents about guns. But it does teach parents about gun safety and how to relay that information to their kids correctly in a method that&#8217;s really memorable to kids. It&#8217;s the gun equivalent of stop, drop and roll. My kids can recite it.&#8221;
> &#8212;LISA L., MOM


https://eddieeagle.nra.org/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

wr said:


> I understand your point but it's not that kids fear firearms. The need to learn to respect them.
> 
> Logically, I don't feel that mandatory firearms safety courses in schools are feasible because I suspect that liability insurance may make it prohibitive but there's that nagging little voice in the back of my head that wonders if we really need to teach baby gang members better accuracy.
> 
> I'm not fully abreast of how your school system works but ours offer extra credits for various programs so perhaps a less complex solution would be additional credits for high school kids that complete a certain number of confirmed hours at a program with a licensed range.


"Gun safety" isn't the same thing as "shooting lessons"
It can be taught without firing a gun, and using only replica firearms
There's no need for extra insurance, and it needs to be taught long before High School


----------



## JJ Grandits (Nov 10, 2002)

We use 24" of 1/2" PVC pipe spray painted black and attached to a plastic gun stock with electrical tape. Works great.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> They have 9 months to work it into the schedule.
> This *is* an "educational topic" so none would be sacrificed at all.
> They could work it into a science class as a physics lesson
> 
> ...


Gun safety is certainly not appropriate as a physics lesson. Gun mechanics perhaps if it fits into the physics standards but not gun safety. BTW, parents have 18 years to work gun safety lessons into their schedule so perhaps they could step up and take care of it. I seemed to have managed to work it into my parenting schedule without much effort. Pushing it onto the schools is just another way for parents to abdicate yet another of their responsibilities.

You seem to think that we have all this time in the schedule to teach all sorts of things that are not in the curriculum standards. The truth is that there are so many standards that have to be taught that we have to prioritize.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> They like to tell Canadians to shut up and stay out of American politics.


Link?


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

Fennick said:


> What does sex education, or social studies as beowoulf90 suggested, have to do with weapons training and handling? I'm not getting the connection. :shrug:


Really?
You are seriously asking what/how the connection is?

Sorry, but if you can't figure out how taking the Rights of the parents away and forcing one sides political agenda and views on LGBT's and other political hot issues, and forcing schools to teach that agenda is connected to your comment that it should be up to the parents to do. I have nothing more to say. 
You wouldn't understand.


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

7thswan said:


> Where I lived when in high school, we were actually allowed time off for opening day of gun season for deer. We also were allowed time off for any type of harvest. Gun racks were the norm and iirc we had shooting team along with golf . I don't think I hear of any of that now. We also never had shootings at schools just bomb threats That meant nothing.



Most schools in PA still do have the first day of Rifle Deer season off..


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

SLFarmMI said:


> You are still missing one of my main points. For those of you pushing this mandatory hunter safety course to be taught in school, where do you think these 12-15 hours of instructional time that someone proposed are going to come from? What educational topics are going to be sacrificed in order to free up time for someone to teach hunter safety?
> 
> Are you planning on making the school day longer to cover it? My students already attend school from 8:30 to 4:00. That's already a very long day, especially for the younger ones. If you do make the school day longer, how are you planning on compensating the staff who will be required then to extend their work days? You can't have volunteers in the building with children unless there is staff present. Are you planning on making staff work extra hours for free? We already do enough of that.
> 
> You made a remark about "bitter" teachers. It's not bitterness, it's frustration. It's extremely frustrating when people start spouting off about "the school should ..." without considering the repercussions or even bothering to ask the opinions of those upon whom they intend to dump the suggested task.


So take out the LGBT indoctrination studies.. Why are the schools teaching this in the first place? From my understanding the LGBT community is only 2-5% of the population, yet gun ownership/ owners I would bet are 50% or better.. Also since you can't teach religion, take out all the garbage on islam. Yes it is being taught here.. Yet these same teachers cry if you talk about any other religion.. Hypocritical at best , treasonous at worse..

So maybe you could cut some of the hours that they normally use to "teach to the test".. It seems to be a waste anyway, because we know that they will just lower the standard so everyone passes... 

Public schools are already indoctrination centers for Liberal political agendas..
How else do you explain time and time again, when college students sign petitions to give away their Rights.. This shows that they weren't taught their Rights or the Constitution is school.. But yet the school has time to teach how daddy and daddy have sex and how they are better parents than daddy and mommy...
Oh and I've had a teacher teach my children that the US Civil war started at Fort Sumter, VA
Yes you read that correct, it says Virginia.. When the kids corrected her they were told to leave the room and sent to the principals office.
Our kids were raised around Civil War reenacting and have been to Fort Sumter SC many times and other battlefields. So imagine my frustration when I get to the school and find out the reason they were sent to the office.

So I say there is plenty of time to teach gun safety. 
Bit, I know it won't happen, that indoctrination can't and won't tolerate anything that goes against a child's indoctrination..


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> Sex education is taught as a part of health classes. It's a basic human function, everybody needs to know about it and not all parents will teach about it. Guns on the other hand are 100% optional. A lot of people will never own one, will never be exposed to one and the knowledge is unnecessary.
> 
> If you are a family that owns guns I would hope you would teach your children about them. I think the responsibility is solidly on the parents shoulders.


That totally misses the point. Kids from non-gun families occasionally find them in public places and the homes of friends. Recently a cop left her gun in a public toilet because she forgot to reholster after she pulled her pants up. 

OTOH, if you libs don't think guns are not all that dangerous, fine. We can do away with all those silly gun banning/limiting/infringing laws. 

I think the best argument against teaching gun safety in schools is that gun hating teachers would have the opportunity to further demonize guns and gun owners.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Patchouli said:


> That's just silly. You have to draw a line somewhere when you pick subjects to teach in school. Schools have limited time and resources and they have to hit the important and necessary subjects first. Guns are not a necessary part of life for most Americans. Kids have plenty of options outside of school to learn extracurricular stuff. If it's so important to y'all start an afterschool club, teach a class through your local Y or 4H or Boy's and Girl's club.


You make valid points there, it is a legit line of reasoning. But you missed sarcastic point to Plowjockey. I was only pointing out the foolishness of the idea that to not try to educate because kids will forget can apply to everything.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Bearfootfarm said:


> "Gun safety" isn't the same thing as "shooting lessons"
> It can be taught without firing a gun, and using only replica firearms
> There's no need for extra insurance, and it needs to be taught long before High School


Perhaps my comment missed the mark because of different regulations. Our ranges are possibly a bit broader than yours and offer a variety of classroom firearms safety courses as well as standard firearms courses required to purchase firearms & ammo. They also have staff legally trained coach and reinforce proper safety for those who wish to advance to actual target practice.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

beowoulf90 said:


> So take out the LGBT indoctrination studies.. Why are the schools teaching this in the first place? From my understanding the LGBT community is only 2-5% of the population, yet gun ownership/ owners I would bet are 50% or better.. Also since you can't teach religion, take out all the garbage on islam. Yes it is being taught here.. Yet these same teachers cry if you talk about any other religion.. Hypocritical at best , treasonous at worse..
> 
> So maybe you could cut some of the hours that they normally use to "teach to the test".. It seems to be a waste anyway, because we know that they will just lower the standard so everyone passes...
> 
> ...


I thought about telling you what schools and teachers are really like based on my more than 2 decades experience in the field. Then I realized that it would be pointless. The truth just doesn't fit with your narrative.


----------



## plowjockey (Aug 18, 2008)

DEKE01 said:


> Exactly. Stupid little buggers. Why bother to teach them anything? Math, science? They are just going to forget that stuff. And if they are girls, they just need to learn how to cook and clean, right?
> 
> :facepalm:
> 
> /sarc off/


I don't know about you, but I have used both math and science - on some level, nearly every day of my life, since kindergarten.

My point was that if kids take a firearms safety course and then they don't posses (in the home) or shoot guns - for any reason, they might not retain much of the information.

Cooking and cleaning is something _both_ boys and girls should learn, since presumably they eat and live every day.

Gun safety course, seems to be more useful, to those kids that are around guns.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

plowjockey said:


> I don't know about you, but I have used both math and science - on some level, nearly every day of my life, since kindergarten.
> 
> My point was that if kids take a firearms safety course and then they don't posses (in the home) or shoot guns - for any reason, they might not retain much of the information.
> 
> ...


To which I repeat the first paragraph of my msg 83


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> Gun safety is certainly not appropriate as a physics lesson. *Gun mechanics perhaps if it fits into the physics standards but not gun safety.* BTW, *parents have 18 years to work gun safety lessons into their schedule *so perhaps they could step up and take care of it. I seemed to have managed to work it into my parenting schedule without much effort. Pushing it onto the schools is just another way for parents to abdicate yet another of their responsibilities.
> 
> You seem to think that we have all this time in the schedule to teach all sorts of things that are not in the curriculum standards. The truth is that there are so many standards that have to be taught that we have to prioritize.


Part of understanding the safe operation of anything involves understanding the mechanics involved.

Many have argued "guns aren't a part of the life" of lots of folks, but yet they expect those same parents to be capable of teaching the subject.

One can't teach something one doesn't know. 

Accidental shootings are reduced by education, not ignorance


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Part of understanding the safe operation of anything involves understanding the mechanics involved.
> 
> Many have argued "guns aren't a part of the life" of lots of folks, but yet they expect those same parents to be capable of teaching the subject.
> 
> ...


And where does it end?
Some parents don't know how to garden. Does that now become my job to teach it?
Some parents don't know how to cook. Does that now become my job to teach it?
Some parents don't know how to clean a bathroom. Does that now become my job to teach it?

In my parenting lifetime, I've had to learn new skills in order to be able to teach them to my children. Don't know how to do something that you think is valuable to your children? Read a book. Watch it on YouTube. Take a private lesson. Figure it out but stop pushing more and more onto the schools. Enough is enough!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> And where does it end?
> Some parents don't know *how to garden*. Does that now become my job to teach it?
> Some parents don't know *how to cook*. Does that now become my job to teach it?
> Some parents don't know *how to clean* a bathroom. Does that now become my job to teach it?
> ...


All those things are taught in schools.
It's science and Home Economics
No one is asking "you" to do anything at all.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Bearfootfarm said:


> All those things are taught in schools.
> It's science and Home Economics
> No one is asking "you" to do anything at all.


Home Ec and gardening are not in the curriculum. At least not here and they haven't been for quite some time. And, yes, every time someone gets a bee in their bonnet about "this or that topic should be taught in school" I am, in essence, being asked to add yet another thing onto my already overloaded plate.


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

Elective is fine but mandatory I say no.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

our local schools last day of the year was today. The Kinders were allowed to wear PJs. The day was optional because mostly it was just going to be a day when movies are shown. 

I just found an entire school day that is available to teach gun safety. 

SLFarm, I know nothing of your particular school district, but I know a bit about several districts. It gets old hearing about how over worked the teachers are. My DW was a middle school science teacher so I knew lots of good and lots more bad teachers. Even among the best teachers I've never seen one that teaches every school day of the year. And if teachers really are so overworked, then having a class divert to a gun safety class would give the teacher some non-student time to work on grading, planning, etc.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> And where does it end?
> Some parents don't know how to garden. Does that now become my job to teach it?
> Some parents don't know how to cook. Does that now become my job to teach it?
> Some parents don't know how to clean a bathroom. Does that now become my job to teach it?


Where does it end? How about at any topic that the gov't thinks is such a danger to the general populace that the gov't considers it reasonable to curtail civil rights under the guise of making us safe.

Or how about when a few hundred kids start dying of accidental gardening each year.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

DEKE01 said:


> our local schools last day of the year was today. The Kinders were allowed to wear PJs. The day was optional because mostly it was just going to be a day when movies are shown.
> 
> I just found an entire school day that is available to teach gun safety.
> 
> SLFarm, I know nothing of your particular school district, but I know a bit about several districts. It gets old hearing about how over worked the teachers are. My DW was a middle school science teacher so I knew lots of good and lots more bad teachers. Even among the best teachers I've never seen one that teaches every school day of the year. And if teachers really are so overworked, then having a class divert to a gun safety class would give the teacher some non-student time to work on grading, planning, etc.


You need to get out more. Friday was our last day before break. It was not an optional day. There is no such thing here. If our doors are open, the kids are expected to be here. And while many classes were indeed in pjs, the kids were working. There were no classes having movies all day. Many classes were having tests. The maximum amount of time that any holiday party is allowed to continue is an hour. 

I had to laugh at your idea of a full day of non-student time. You really don't know how it all works do you? Unless the students are at lunch or at an enrichment class, they are required to be with their classroom teacher. Many, many times, even the enrichment classes are cancelled so that the enrichment (art, music, PE, etc) teachers can be pulled to sub in other classes because there is a substitute shortage. 

And, yes, the workload is crushing. Overworked would be a good description. This year is the first in more than 12 years that I have not brought home a crate of work to do over break. And the only reason that I don't have that crate is because I have been coming in every day an hour and a half early for the last 2 months. That is in addition to the time I spend after school. And I am not the first teacher in the building nor am I the last one out. So we do not have time for yet another thing to be added to our workload.

If you feel that teaching gun safety to children other than your own is that important, then, by all means, feel free to teach it on your time, on your dime and at your facility. But don't attempt to force teachers to take on yet another requirement.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> But don't attempt to force teachers to take on yet another requirement.


No one is asking you to do anything at all.


----------



## HDRider (Jul 21, 2011)

SLFarmMI said:


> You need to get out more. Friday was our last day before break. It was not an optional day. There is no such thing here. If our doors are open, the kids are expected to be here. And while many classes were indeed in pjs, the kids were working. There were no classes having movies all day. Many classes were having tests. The maximum amount of time that any holiday party is allowed to continue is an hour.
> 
> I had to laugh at your idea of a full day of non-student time. You really don't know how it all works do you? Unless the students are at lunch or at an enrichment class, they are required to be with their classroom teacher. Many, many times, even the enrichment classes are cancelled so that the enrichment (art, music, PE, etc) teachers can be pulled to sub in other classes because there is a substitute shortage.
> 
> ...


You don't seem to enjoy your job very much


----------



## tamarackreg (Mar 13, 2006)

My kids watched a LOT of non-educational movies in school. Those poor teachers.......

I don't see a problem with an hour or two of gun safety in a civics program.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Cornhusker said:


> Link?


Huh, still no link? 
More lies about conservatives...?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> I thought about telling you what schools and teachers are really like based on my more than 2 decades experience in the field. Then I realized that it would be pointless. The truth just doesn't fit with your narrative.


I think you are mistaken about "narrative". 
Seem some, mainly on the left side of the firearms argument, have the idea that whole courses on putting on condoms or how gays have sex are life & death matters to teach but handling guns is just not important, or even "not appropriate" or "too dangerous". After all, a gun DID go off in one instance.
Sheesh.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> Where does it end? How about at any topic that the gov't thinks is such a danger to the general populace that the gov't considers it reasonable to curtail civil rights under the guise of making us safe.
> 
> Or how about when a few hundred kids start dying of accidental gardening each year.


Post of the day award.

And pretty much a spew alert, too.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> You need to get out more. Friday was our last day before break. It was not an optional day. There is no such thing here. If our doors are open, the kids are expected to be here. And while many classes were indeed in pjs, the kids were working. There were no classes having movies all day. Many classes were having tests. The maximum amount of time that any holiday party is allowed to continue is an hour.
> 
> I had to laugh at your idea of a full day of non-student time. You really don't know how it all works do you? Unless the students are at lunch or at an enrichment class, they are required to be with their classroom teacher. Many, many times, even the enrichment classes are cancelled so that the enrichment (art, music, PE, etc) teachers can be pulled to sub in other classes because there is a substitute shortage.
> 
> ...


YOU need to get out more & perhaps change professions.
We all know many teachers work hard. We all know if anyone is reading this they should thank a teacher. I am an RN, did hospital nursing. I'll put my hard work up against yours any day. But I digress. 

Maybe you didn't catch it but nearly all advocating for this instruction are NOT saying YOU should do it. It would be PROFFESSIONALS who come in & teach it while you go grade papers, do planning, etc.
Now what's your argument?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Tricky Grama said:


> YOU need to get out more & perhaps change professions.
> We all know many teachers work hard. We all know if anyone is reading this they should thank a teacher. I am an RN, did hospital nursing. I'll put my hard work up against yours any day. But I digress.
> 
> Maybe you didn't catch it but nearly all advocating for this instruction are NOT saying YOU should do it. It would be PROFFESSIONALS who come in & teach it while you go grade papers, do planning, etc.
> Now what's your argument?


Did you miss the second paragraph of my post? Unless that gun safety professional is also authorized to teach in the public schools, the classroom teacher must stay with the class. That's the way it works. 

Did you also miss the fact that the time involved in this gun safety class doesn't just magically appear? Time must be stolen from language arts, math, science or social studies in order to make time for this class. 

I love my job but I am tired of the constant "the schools should teach" this and that attitude. My husband and I taught our children gun safety because we knew that it was OUR responsibility to do so and not the school's.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Tricky Grama said:


> I think you are mistaken about "narrative".
> QUOTE]
> 
> Oh, please! You know the narrative about public school teachers as well as I do. Spend 5 minutes looking around this site and you'll see it loud and clear.
> ...


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Jim Bunton said:


> Many people will go through their whole life without ever handling a gun.
> 
> Jim



But should they?


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> Hate to say it, but cops basically are not that good with guns. Many only fire them when they have to "Qualify". Outside of qualifying some have gone their entire careers without firing a gun.



That seems like the way it should be.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

AmericanStand said:


> That seems like the way it should be.


No, not at all. I practice, practice, practice, and retrain, retrain, retrain. Because I enjoy it but mostly because if I ever NEED to draw my weapon and fire, I want to be the guy explaining to the DA why I shouldn't be prosecuted for murder.


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

Yes. Also make police courses longer, and make it federal law for police and law enforcement officers to have a psych evaluation. Also ban assault rifles.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> Tricky Grama said:
> 
> 
> > I think you are mistaken about "narrative".
> ...


----------



## beowoulf90 (Jan 13, 2004)

SLFarmMI said:


> I thought about telling you what schools and teachers are really like based on my more than 2 decades experience in the field. Then I realized that it would be pointless. The truth just doesn't fit with your narrative.



You're right!

I wouldn't listen to those who indoctrinate and not teach..
Teachers always have an excuse for why something isn't done.
I've watched as the schools pump out students that can't even do basic math
or think the US Civil War was between Britain and the North..
I've spoken at many schools about the US Civil War and am continually amazed at what is taught and tolerated by the school. I've been doing this for over 20 years myself, so I have some experience with schools, just not the day to day items. We've had certified teachers as members of our CW Unit, so I've spent many evenings around a campfire discussing the issues.

Yes I understand that individual teachers have no power and say, but they allow their Union to push for the "dumbing down" of our kids..

I've watched the standards lowered to appease the Government.

But again you are right, I won't listen to the indoctrination.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes. Also make police courses longer, and make it federal law for police and law enforcement officers to have a psych evaluation. Also ban assault rifles.


I agree with the first part of your post. But why ban assault rifles? Last I read of stats most gun crime was using handguns.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes. Also make police courses longer, and make it federal law for police and law enforcement officers to have a psych evaluation. Also ban assault rifles.


Are you going to volunteer to be the first to knock on the doors and say ''we've come for your guns''??????


----------



## Heritagefarm (Feb 21, 2010)

no really said:


> I agree with the first part of your post. But why ban assault rifles? Last I read of stats most gun crime was using handguns.


I'd have to look that up. However, many of the heinous school crimes have been committed by disgruntled young people with easy access to semi auto and auto weaponry. Further, for self defense and hunting, semi auto and auto weapons are generally ineffective for be average person. 



TripleD said:


> Are you going to volunteer to be the first to knock on the doors and say ''we've come for your guns''??????


Your argument is ad hominem because it referenced me instead of the argument. It's also a straw man because it brought something irrelevant up instead of addressing the issue. Please rephrase your question.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'd have to look that up. However, many of the heinous school crimes have been committed by disgruntled young people with easy access to semi auto and auto weaponry. Further, for self defense and hunting, semi auto and auto weapons are generally ineffective for be average person.
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is ad hominem because it referenced me instead of the argument. It's also a straw man because it brought something irrelevant up instead of addressing the issue. Please rephrase your question.


How about just look all you want and come back with any '' AUTO'' shootings or hunting. The only one is the bank shoot-out about 20years ago that I remember.

The next thing that many would want BANNED are those evil sniper/deer rifles that are really effective at 500 plus yards.......


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

*"Crushing Workload" ????*

Last I saw, teachers get a all summer off, two weeks at Christmas, a week at spring break, a fall break, and school gets closed just about any day that threatens fog, ice or nasty weather.
A friend of mine who is a teacher told me he works about 1,100 hours per year.

I don't have any axe to grind against teachers, but don't come off like it's a sweat shop, brutal work environment.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'd have to look that up. However, many of the heinous school crimes have been committed by disgruntled young people with easy access to semi auto and auto weaponry. Further, for self defense and hunting, semi auto and auto weapons are generally ineffective for be average person.
> 
> 
> 
> Your argument is ad hominem because it referenced me instead of the argument. It's also a straw man because it brought something irrelevant up instead of addressing the issue. Please rephrase your question.


Never heard of any using full auto in a school crime. As to hunting I use either a AR-15 or an AR-10 depending on the animal. It is a well built platform made for ease of use and mine has an adjustable stock, makes it nice when in a tight area. 

Semi-auto handguns are the go to for protection I'm not sure what you are getting at, you still have to pull the trigger for each shot. 

You have to hold special licensing for full auto


----------



## coolrunnin (Aug 28, 2010)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'd have to look that up. However, many of the heinous school crimes have been committed by disgruntled young people with easy access to semi auto and auto weaponry. Further, for self defense and hunting, semi auto and auto weapons are generally ineffective for be average person. .


Semi auto can be pretty nice for a follow-up shot, but that's not the point 2A isn't about hunting.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Fishindude said:


> *"Crushing Workload" ????*
> 
> Last I saw, teachers get a all summer off, two weeks at Christmas, a week at spring break, a fall break, and school gets closed just about any day that threatens fog, ice or nasty weather.
> A friend of mine who is a teacher told me he works about 1,100 hours per year.
> ...


The school year is based on a certain number of classroom days and while I do understand your thoughts on how the school year is laid out, I don't believe that it's teachers who dictate that.

If the school board were to add an extra couple days to the curriculum, I'm sure teachers would comply but individual teachers don't have the ability to dictate what days the schools are open. 

Our definition of a legal school year is cut so close that the year my son graduated, the school had to add 5 days after exams so the students could legally qualify for their diplomas. 

I can't speak for how many hours a teacher puts in because some of mine seem to have it down to a science and others are paying out of pocket for additional lesson materials and putting in a lot of free OT just making sure that certain kids get the extra help they need so it's tough to judge the efforts of all based on the actions of a couple.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

coolrunnin said:


> Semi auto can be pretty nice for a follow-up shot, but that's not the point 2A isn't about hunting.


Some don't understand either that semi-auto is short for semi-auto loader, it has nothing to do with the amount of rounds fired with one trigger pull.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

no really said:


> Some don't understand either that semi-auto is short for semi-auto loader, it has nothing to do with the amount of rounds fired with one trigger pull.


Some would have us using sticks and stones if they could ban bows and slingshots....:bash:


----------



## oneraddad (Jul 20, 2010)

no really said:


> As to hunting I use either a AR-15 or an AR-10 depending on the animal. It is a well built platform made for ease of use and mine has an adjustable stock, makes it nice when in a tight area.


No one I know uses either of those rifles for hunting anything except for maybe coyotes. 7mm is pretty much the go to gun for big game in my area and AR's are used mostly for targets.


----------



## no really (Aug 7, 2013)

oneraddad said:


> No one I know uses either of those rifles for hunting anything except for maybe coyotes. 7mm is pretty much the go to gun for big game in my area and AR's are used mostly for targets.


Around here it's white tail, mule deer and some elk it you're really lucky. Most of the time I use my 10 which is a 308, the 15 of course is 223 and adequate for small game including white tail. Target placement..:icecream:


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

wr said:


> The school year is based on a certain number of classroom days and while I do understand your thoughts on how the school year is laid out, I don't believe that it's teachers who dictate that.
> 
> If the school board were to add an extra couple days to the curriculum, I'm sure teachers would comply but individual teachers don't have the ability to dictate what days the schools are open.
> 
> ...



Give it up WR. They're locked into their belief of what teachers are like and what goes on in schools and no matter how often they are told and shown the truth, it makes no difference. I'm not wasting my time any more. It's just an exercise in futility.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> Give it up WR. They're locked into their belief of what teachers are like and what goes on in schools and no matter how often they are told and shown the truth, it makes no difference. I'm not wasting my time any more. It's just an exercise in futility.


why do you consider an honest assessment of a teacher's work schedule to be an attack on teachers? 

Thinking you did something special because you worked an extra 1.5 hours so that you wouldn't have to work over Xmas break is absurd. Tell it to the clerks who worked on Thanksgiving day and opened their stores at 6 AM on black Friday. When I was working I never worked less than 40 hours a week unless I took vacation time and most weeks was 60 and sometimes 100 hours. 

I'm not knocking the profession at all, just the teachers who think they have it so bad and are unwilling to make changes to improve the system and curriculum.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Heritagefarm said:


> I'd have to look that up. However, many of the heinous school crimes have been committed by disgruntled young people with easy access to semi auto and auto weaponry.
> 
> *Further, for self defense and hunting, semi auto and auto weapons are generally ineffective for be average person.
> *
> ...


It's not "ad hominem" to point out that you seem to have no *real* knowledge about firearms if you think what you said is true

Semi-autos are the most common type of firearms for self defense, and anyone can learn to use them effectively with just a little instruction.

They are also used by many for hunting most types of wild game and in target competitions.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

Heritagefarm said:


> . Further, for self defense and hunting, semi auto and auto weapons are generally ineffective for be average person.


Perhaps if there was some in school training, people wouldn't say things about guns that just don't make any sense. Semi auto is the vast majority of what is used for self defense when it comes to handguns. They are far easier to use for a novice shooter than a revolver. Many use semi-auto for hunting though I doubt it is a majority. 

Full auto is very effective for self defense. That is why we arm the military with full auto. But full auto has mostly removed from the general public for decades due to strict licensing requirements.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

DEKE01 said:


> why do you consider an honest assessment of a teacher's work schedule to be an attack on teachers?
> 
> Thinking you did something special because you worked an extra 1.5 hours so that you wouldn't have to work over Xmas break is absurd. Tell it to the clerks who worked on Thanksgiving day and opened their stores at 6 AM on black Friday. When I was working I never worked less than 40 hours a week unless I took vacation time and most weeks was 60 and sometimes 100 hours.
> 
> I'm not knocking the profession at all, just the teachers who think they have it so bad and are unwilling to make changes to improve the system and curriculum.


I believe it would be the school board that would make the decision as to what is included in a curriculum and not teachers so criticizing how an individual teacher keeps up with their workload is really a non issue.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

wr said:


> I believe it would be the school board that would make the decision as to what is included in a curriculum and not teachers so criticizing how an individual teacher keeps up with their workload is really a non issue.


She made it an issue in post #2


> don't ask me to pile yet another thing on my already overfull plate


and again in post 54


> I have enough to do to do my own job.


and again in post 96


> And, yes, the workload is crushing. Overworked would be a good description. This year is the first in more than 12 years that I have not brought home a crate of work to do over break. And the only reason that I don't have that crate is because I have been coming in every day an hour and a half early for the last 2 months. That is in addition to the time I spend after school. And I am not the first teacher in the building nor am I the last one out. So we do not have time for yet another thing to be added to our workload.


If SLFarm would like to make this topic not about her, I suggest she not direct the discussion to her personally.

I admire teachers for doing a difficult job, one that I do not have the patience or mindset to do well. A good teacher is a great thing. We need more of them. A great teacher is why we took my DD's first grade teacher out to lunch when DD was in 12th grade. DD started out as a poor reader, got extra help from her 1st grade teacher, and graduated HS with top honors and a year of college credits completed. 

But I find teachers as a group to be their own worst enemy, bemoaning how hard they work as if a professional were guaranteed some sort of <40 hour week, fighting change, fighting improvements, fighting to increase teaching standards and quality, fighting to eliminate those who simply can not teach.


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

If the goal is to save lives, the gun grabbers would welcome firearms safety being taught in public schools. Of course, safety is not the goal.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Huh, still no link?
> More lies about conservatives...?


Kind of funny, the one who demands links, demands proof, never responds to a polite request to prove the blarney.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Heritagefarm said:


> Yes. Also make police courses longer, and make it federal law for police and law enforcement officers to have a psych evaluation. Also ban assault rifles.


Ban "assault rifles"?
Why?
What do you consider an "assault weapon"?


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

DEKE01 said:


> She made it an issue in post #2
> 
> and again in post 54
> 
> ...


I make it personal because it is personal. Teaching isn't just a job for me nor is it just a job for any of the teachers I know. And if it ever becomes just a job for me, I will quit and do something else.

You say teachers are bemoaning not having a <40 hour work week? I say bull. We'd like to actually have time in the work day to do everything that is asked of us. Do you know that when I evaluate a student for special education, that the paperwork alone for that evaluation takes on average 2-3 hours per child? And that that time does not include the time actually observing and testing the child? We'd like to actually be able to not take work home practically every single day. We'd like to enjoy our own children's events without having to multitask. When my own children were in school and I was in line at their parent-teacher conferences, I was actually grading papers. How's that for ironic?

You say teachers are fighting change and improvements? I say bull. I say we'd actually like to have changes that make sense and aren't change just for the sake of change. We'd actually like to be included in the conversation about improvements and not made the scapegoats for any and every problem in education. 

You say teachers are fighting against increasing standards and quality? I say bull. We would like to be included in that conversation as well. We would like standards and evaluations that make sense and are fair. Here's what I'm being evaluated on this year (keep in mind that I work with children with learning disabilities, cognitive impairments, emotional impairments, autism, among other impairments): One question only -- are they performing at grade level on the district test? It doesn't matter if they started with me 3 and 4 grade levels below, it doesn't matter if their attendance stinks, it doesn't matter how much progress they make, if they do not perform at grade level on that one test, I am deemed to be an ineffective teacher. Here's an example for you: I have a 5th grader who has a significant learning disability. She came from out of state and I've been working with her about a month. She doesn't know all of her letters or sounds, not even close. And yet, I am supposed to perform some kind of magic and get her to ending 5th grade reading level by May when we take the district test. Houdini couldn't pull that one off. Does that sound like a fair method of evaluating the quality of my teaching? 

You say that teachers fight getting rid of other teachers who aren't good teachers? I say bull. First of all, we don't have the power to get rid of any other teacher. That's a job for administration. The only thing we can do is go to administration, voice our concerns and provide any evidence/documentation we have. Which is what we do. And sometimes it works (we have 2 teachers no longer in the profession this year) and sometimes it doesn't. All we ask is for a fair system and due process. If administration doesn't do their part, what do you think the teachers can do?

And yet, in all this discussion about teaching gun safety, people still don't seem to realize a couple of key points. 1) Teaching about gun safety is the parents' responsibility. Parents seem to be able to teach their children about a myriad of safety issues (don't drink bleach, don't stick a fork in the outlet, don't throw knives at your brother). Why is it we think this one is beyond them? 2) Whenever something is added to the curriculum, it leaves less time to teach something else. And if it comes down to gun safety vs reading, I am going to make time for reading instruction, every single time.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

JJ Grandits said:


> Outside of qualifying some have gone their entire careers without firing a gun.



Sorry I should have just quoted the part above when I said " that's the way it should be ".




DEKE01 said:


> No, not at all. I practice, practice, practice, and retrain, retrain, retrain. Because I enjoy it but mostly because if I ever NEED to draw my weapon and fire, I want to be the guy explaining to the DA why I shouldn't be prosecuted for murder.


----------



## Nevada (Sep 9, 2004)

Dick Cheney might have benefited from a school gun safety course.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> You say teachers are bemoaning not having a <40 hour work week? I say bull. We'd like to actually have time in the work day to do everything that is asked of us.


Your work schedule and it's relatively fewer annual hours has already been addressed. Teachers do not work 48 40-hour weeks as is expected of most full time workers. And professionals are routinely expected to work 45 - 50 hours. You want to get paid like professionals but work part time, even if the relatively few weeks you work are long and difficult. *I acknowledge your hard work and difficult job.* But that doesn't change the fact that you don't work as much as the average full time Joe. 



> You say teachers are fighting change and improvements? I say bull.


Sadly the facts prove me correct. I don't know if you are a member of NEA but this isn't about you. NEA's official position is anti-vouchers even though they have been proven to be effective. The NEA is officially against charter schools even though they have been proven to be effective. You can post exceptions, but as a rule, vouchers and charter schools that are outside of union control produce better results. The NEA's official position is anti-merit pay. I know you can't be responsible for the quality of education of the students prior to them entering your classroom. But you know there are good teachers and bad teachers and the union fights rewarding the good ones. 



> You say teachers are fighting against increasing standards and quality? I say bull.


Sadly the NEA's official position is to fight against minimal quality standards for teachers. NEA has fought against English, math, and science tests for teachers to prove the teachers were at 8th grade proficiency. Many teachers failed but per NEA agreements, were allowed to continue to teach. The NEA is officially against any reductions in the tenure rights, preferring to keep a bad teacher with tenure over a good teacher. The NEA has repeatedly endorsed layoff policies strictly by seniority vs teacher quality. In every case, the teacher union using teacher dollars fights to keep bad teachers rather than keep the good teachers. 



> You say that teachers fight getting rid of other teachers who aren't good teachers? I say bull.


Sadly the unions protect the worst teachers, defending them with contractually required 3 year observation periods before the teacher can be fired for merely being an incompetent teacher. Yes, it is the job of the administration, but the union spends big bucks to elect union approved school boards which negotiate these sweet heart deals for the unions. 

A teacher, a big strong man, at my DW's school hit the principal, a little old lady, hard enough to knock her down. He remained on the payroll for at least a year later as the system tried to get him fired. I lost track after that year because DW changed schools. That union contract was darn hard to fight past. NYC has scores of teachers on the payroll but not working because the city can't fire them due to a union contract. When the union fights to get rid of bad teachers, get back to me. 




> And yet, in all this discussion about teaching gun safety, people still don't seem to realize a couple of key points. 1) Teaching about gun safety is the parents' responsibility.


what you don't realize is that ALL education is the parents responsibility. YOU (all teachers), or the schools, or the administration do not own the system. You work for parents. 



> 2) Whenever something is added to the curriculum, it leaves less time to teach something else. And if it comes down to gun safety vs reading, I am going to make time for reading instruction, every single time.


nonsense, I've already shown you several places there are holes in the schedule. Home room, "optional" days, all those days at the end of the year after standardized testing is completed, etc. My DD had 3 - 4 weeks at the end of each high school year where they did next to nothing. The AP testing is in May, IIRC, but the school year didn't end until June 20 or thereabouts. You say I need to get out more. I've seen the same thing in Ohio, Virginia, and Florida. You need to get out more. Maybe you are working in the greatest district ever because you would have us believe there are not movie days or other un-teaching days. I'll take your word for it. But that isn't the case where I have first hand knowledge.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

Deke

Regarding charter schools, every study I have read shows that, on average, charter schools perform comparably to public schools. And it's not like we're comparing apples to apples here. Are you aware, at least here, that charter schools get to pick and choose their students? Are you aware, at least here, that charter schools do not have to accept students with special needs, low performing students or students with behavior issues? The public schools have to accept anyone who shows up if they live within their attendance borders or use the address of someone living in the borders. Until the charter schools have to follow the same rules on student acceptance as the public schools, I believe the NEA is correct on their stance.

Regarding merit pay, show me a fair standard to use to evaluate and compare teachers and then we'll talk. How do you propose to evaluate the PE teacher vs the physics teacher vs the teacher of the cognitively impaired categorical classroom? The demands of each of those positions are vastly different and a one size fits all method won't work and is not fair. And a different set of standards for each position would be unduly complicated. So until a fair and equitable system can be devised, I believe the NEA is correct on their stance.

Regarding tenure, you seem to be under the impression that it guarantees a teacher a job. It doesn't. It merely forces administration to follow due process. But tenure is a moot point for me since the Michigan legislature has deemed it appropriate to basically strip teachers of any rights related to tenure.

However, the point of this thread is not any of the above. It is about gun safety and who should take the responsibility of teaching it. I say the parents need to step up and take care of it. You seem to believe that they should be allowed to abdicate yet another of their responsibilities and dump another job on the schools. We will never be of one mind on this issue so we will have to agree to disagree.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

SLF, thank you for proving my case. Teachers fight quality improvements, hiding behind "fair" as if there is a magic formula for fair. The real world deals with managers evaluating employees. Somehow gov't employees and their unions have made this impossible. 

I can understand why we will never be of one mind on requiring that teachers teach what the community needs taught.

BTW - you need to see real world Charter schools and not blindly accept NEA propaganda and you would see success - not in every case, but on the whole, success.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

DEKE01 said:


> SLF, thank you for proving my case. Teachers fight quality improvements, hiding behind "fair" as if there is a magic formula for fair. The real world deals with managers evaluating employees. Somehow gov't employees and their unions have made this impossible.
> 
> I can understand why we will never be of one mind on requiring that teachers teach what the community needs taught.
> 
> BTW - you need to see real world Charter schools and not blindly accept NEA propaganda and you would see success - not in every case, but on the whole, success.


The "real world" has a formula for managers evaluating employees that are relevant to their job duties. Or are you suggesting that, in the "real world", using a restaurant for an example, that the chef is evaluated on the same standard as the dishwasher? Or, could it be that they are each evaluated on the standards relevant to their individual positions? And, yet, in your mind, my suggestion that the PE teacher and the categorical CI teacher should not be evaluated in the exact same way as each other is somehow making things impossible. If merit pay is being proposed, wouldn't you agree that all teachers should have an equal shot at earning it? 

BTW -- I deal with real world charter schools all the time and I have yet to see any that are outstripping the public schools in the area in terms of success. We get many students who have been "invited not to return" to the charter school (always after count date oddly enough). The one I am currently dealing with is refusing to release any of my student's records, even though we have a signed release from the parent. Makes me wonder what they are hiding.


----------



## Phil V. (May 31, 2013)

They had them in the agriculture classes when I went to school in the early 1980's.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> And, yet, in your mind, my suggestion that the PE teacher and the categorical CI teacher should not be evaluated in the exact same way as each other is somehow making things impossible.


Your understanding of what I did not write is flawed. Unions are against merit pay. They say it is unfair, too reliant on administrator subjectivity, and I don't know what else. I did not say it is impossible, I said unions make it (seem) impossible. I say it is quite possible but the unions fight it because the unions would rather cling to the claim that all teachers are good rather than admit some of the union members are a detriment to the students. 

Of course different positions could have different criteria, that is only sensible and why I didn't bother to address that issue. Why you chose to continue to argue it as if I did is a mystery. I don't know the perfect system but you must know there are good teachers and bad teachers so there must be a way to reward those who are good. If you are not willing to admit there are bad teachers (and you can substitute any profession you want, again, I'm not knocking the profession as a whole) then you are part of the problem. 



> BTW -- I deal with real world charter schools all the time and I have yet to see any that are outstripping the public schools in the area in terms of success.


"you need to get out more." Remember, this isn't about you. Charter schools have a mixed record, many good, some bad. The great thing about them is that they invite change and new approaches which may or may not work in practice. The competitive marketplace is is how we learn what works best.

This is in opposition to union practices of fighting most everything that would improve the union's miserable record or crack the public school virtual monopoly. Most everyone seems to agree that monopolies are bad because they cause prices to go up and quality to go down. But teacher unions won't admit their monopoly is bad for America.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Tricky Grama said:


> Huh, still no link?
> More lies about conservatives...?


I wonder where Tracy Rimmer went? I seem to remember her getting bashed for daring to share a political opinion since she was Canadian. 

Here's a link for you to another one:



Paumon said:


> You just don't get it, do you? I'm the one that decides what I wish to discuss. Neither Jeffrey nor you gets to manipulate me regarding what I'm willing to discuss nor get me to change the subject. At least I'm honest about it and said I'm not interested. All you can do is fling meaningless insults. :bored:





JJ Grandits said:


> Sorry my friend but your opinion in this matter is really not desired. Not interested, and don't care. This topic is for American citizens discussing a problem with their government.


Plenty more like that around here.


----------



## TripleD (Feb 12, 2011)

Farmerga said:


> If the goal is to save lives, the gun grabbers would welcome firearms safety being taught in public schools. Of course, safety is not the goal.


If they would ask for CPR to be taught in the schools they WOULD find the time.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

TripleD said:


> If they would ask for CPR to be taught in the schools they WOULD find the time.


You'd still have to present that to the school board rather than individual teachers to get that incorporated into the curriculum. 

Boards designate curriculum and teachers plan lessons.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

Do teachers get paid salary or by the hour ?
Or something else ?
Is it the same in the USA and Canada ?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

SLFarmMI said:


> Give it up WR. They're locked into their belief of what teachers are like and what goes on in schools and no matter how often they are told and shown the truth, it makes no difference. I'm not wasting my time any more. It's just an exercise in futility.


Aw, you forgot "bla, bla, bla".
I cannot believe you're this bitter. Have you not in your 2 decades seen an incompetent teacher? Also, have you ever seen one get fired? Do you work 50 wks per year?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

DEKE01 said:


> Perhaps if there was some in school training, people wouldn't say things about guns that just don't make any sense. Semi auto is the vast majority of what is used for self defense when it comes to handguns. They are far easier to use for a novice shooter than a revolver. Many use semi-auto for hunting though I doubt it is a majority.
> 
> Full auto is very effective for self defense. That is why we arm the military with full auto. But full auto has mostly removed from the general public for decades due to strict licensing requirements.


Post of the year award.


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

Patchouli said:


> I wonder where Tracy Rimmer went? I seem to remember her getting bashed for daring to share a political opinion since she was Canadian.
> 
> Here's a link for you to another one:
> 
> ...


Yet you chose to lie & say we said: "shut up & stay out". Thanks for the 1 sorta relavent link.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Aw, you forgot "bla, bla, bla".
> I cannot believe you're this bitter. Have you not in your 2 decades seen an incompetent teacher? Also, have you ever seen one get fired? Do you work 50 wks per year?


Does that make all teachers incompetent or individuals? There are good and bad in every occupation and I've heard of some pretty crappy nurses as well but I also know that the good ones end up working twice as hard to compensate for the bad ones. 

My kids were stuck with a crappy grade 4 teacher but that sure didn't mean the whole school was full of incompetents and the teachers themselves actually did get her fired.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

DEKE01 said:


> Your understanding of what I did not write is flawed. Unions are against merit pay. They say it is unfair, too reliant on administrator subjectivity, and I don't know what else. I did not say it is impossible, I said unions make it (seem) impossible. I say it is quite possible but the unions fight it because the unions would rather cling to the claim that all teachers are good rather than admit some of the union members are a detriment to the students.
> 
> Of course different positions could have different criteria, that is only sensible and why I didn't bother to address that issue. Why you chose to continue to argue it as if I did is a mystery. I don't know the perfect system but you must know there are good teachers and bad teachers so there must be a way to reward those who are good. If you are not willing to admit there are bad teachers (and you can substitute any profession you want, again, I'm not knocking the profession as a whole) then you are part of the problem.
> 
> ...



As merit pay is currently proposed, it is absolutely unfair and too subject to administrator bias. Come up with a fair system that doesn't punish teachers for things that are beyond our control (such as student attendance) & let us be part of developing that system instead of the usual foisting of things upon us and we'll get behind it. 

I don't know where you got the idea that the union claims that there are no bad teachers because that is not the case. Requiring that a district has just cause and documentation prior to a firing is not an unreasonable request and does not equate to stating that all teachers are good.

You make the claim that charter schools have a mixed record and that they make changes and innovations. The exact same claim can be made about public schools. We just have many more layers of red tape to cut and we don't get to cherry pick our students. 



Tricky Grama said:


> Aw, you forgot "bla, bla, bla".
> I cannot believe you're this bitter. Have you not in your 2 decades seen an incompetent teacher? Also, have you ever seen one get fired? Do you work 50 wks per year?


It's not bitterness, it's frustration. It's incredibly frustrating to have your profession attacked by people who either have an agenda, have no knowledge of what the realities of the profession are or both. Sure, I've seen incompetent teachers. And, guess what, they aren't teaching any more. I was personally involved in providing evidence in a firing just this year. I've also been involved in having a person tossed out of the teacher education program during his student teaching experience. So, if you think there's some chalk dust wall of silence where those of us who are good teachers are protecting those who are not, you are misinformed. If administration isn't doing their job and following procedures to weed out the bad, then you need to take it up with them.


And I don't know what the working 50 weeks per year comment has to do with anything. Do you really think that time spent in front of students is all there is to teaching? Do you really have no idea of all the time and effort that is being expended outside of student contact hours?


----------



## Tricky Grama (Oct 7, 2006)

wr said:


> Does that make all teachers incompetent or individuals? There are good and bad in every occupation and I've heard of some pretty crappy nurses as well but I also know that the good ones end up working twice as hard to compensate for the bad ones.
> 
> My kids were stuck with a crappy grade 4 teacher but that sure didn't mean the whole school was full of incompetents and the teachers themselves actually did get her fired.


Are you thinking I said all teachers are incompetent? 
Sorry for your kids 4th grade, what did you do? Did the teacher get fired? Or did they just lose their 4thgrade? One of mine had a mean 1st grade teacher. My child was moved to another teachers room, not even at my request but after our compliants. Nothing happened to the teacher. Had a teacher tell me that short of running thru the school guzzling gin & yelling obsceneties against the principal, she could never be fired.

Incompetent nurses are fired all the time...seems not so much w/incompetent teachers.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> As merit pay is currently proposed, it is absolutely unfair and too subject to administrator bias. Come up with a fair system that doesn't punish teachers for things that are beyond our control (such as student attendance) & let us be part of developing that system instead of the usual foisting of things upon us and we'll get behind it.


that's the same old line teachers and their unions have been telling us for decades. Guess what? In the real world, management, bosses, senior officers, rate their employees. There are criteria set out, but if you don't get the job done, don't keep your boss happy, are a drag on the general morale of fellow employees, don't please the customers (parents) you get rated poorly and eventually get asked to leave. "Fair" is for children. 



> I don't know where you got the idea that the union claims that there are no bad teachers because that is not the case. Requiring that a district has just cause and documentation prior to a firing is not an unreasonable request and does not equate to stating that all teachers are good.


nice dodge. 3 years to fire a teacher who is simply ineffective. that is what the teacher's unions have negotiated in many cases. How many kids does a bad teacher screw up in that time?



> You make the claim that charter schools have a mixed record and that they make changes and innovations. The exact same claim can be made about public schools. We just have many more layers of red tape to cut and we don't get to cherry pick our students.


True. There are some great public schools. My DD went to one. The state universities fight for the kids from her school. But just across the Potomac, the schools are on the whole a miserable failure and the union fights every change for the better, every attempt to control costs by closing bad schools or schools with low enrollment, every attempt to remove bad teachers. And the schools in DC are among the most expensive in the nation with the near worst record of graduation and achievement. 

There was a voucher program in DC that diverted $2K per student to private schools. The union hated it and obtusely argued that taking $2K and a student from a system that spends $17K per student year was robbing the system of needed financial resources. The private schools took ANY random kid who won the voucher lottery and on average was advancing the kids at 2 to 3 grade levels in reading per year vs being behind grade level when they started. It wasn't cherry picking, it was doing the teaching job well.

And your union loving president canceled the program to please his union cronies. A program that saved money and had superior results and was loved by the community was cancelled to pay off the union. The union praised Obama for his leadership. I saw video of some of the kids crying because they would have to leave the good schools to return to the DC trash schools. And while the kids suffered, the teacher union celebrated. The union put the needs of the children well behind an easy job, a sure pay check, and low standards and accountability.


----------



## DEKE01 (Jul 17, 2013)

wr said:


> You'd still have to present that to the school board rather than individual teachers to get that incorporated into the curriculum.
> 
> Boards designate curriculum and teachers plan lessons.


Yes, we know that. 

I don't want to speak for others, but I think what we are saying, I know that I'm saying, is that gun safety should be a part of the planned curriculum in some way. I'm not advocating a teacher insurgency to add gun safety in the face of a school board that is against it. If the school board is against it, vote in a new board.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

Patchouli said:


> I wonder where Tracy Rimmer went? I seem to remember her getting bashed for daring to share a political opinion since she was Canadian.
> 
> Here's a link for you to another one:
> 
> ...





Tricky Grama said:


> Yet you chose to lie & say we said: "shut up & stay out". Thanks for the 1 sorta relavent link.


You may want to brush up on your reading comprehension there. I bolded the relevant bits for you. 

S&EP was a bastion of Canadian bashing at one time:



AngieM2 said:


> So, it's not Canada and they did not insult you, but you insult us greatly by telling us how to handle USA issues.


----------



## Cornhusker (Mar 20, 2003)

Patchouli said:


> I wonder where Tracy Rimmer went? I seem to remember her getting bashed for daring to share a political opinion since she was Canadian.
> 
> Here's a link for you to another one:
> 
> ...


Do you just compile stuff so you can drag it back up later?


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Tricky Grama said:


> Are you thinking I said all teachers are incompetent?
> Sorry for your kids 4th grade, what did you do? Did the teacher get fired? Or did they just lose their 4thgrade? One of mine had a mean 1st grade teacher. My child was moved to another teachers room, not even at my request but after our compliants. Nothing happened to the teacher. Had a teacher tell me that short of running thru the school guzzling gin & yelling obsceneties against the principal, she could never be fired.
> 
> Incompetent nurses are fired all the time...seems not so much w/incompetent teachers.


It took a while to get the teacher fired but it sure helped that we had the support of other teachers and that's certainly a double edged sword. No teacher should be fired just because they were firm with Little Johnny or had a personality issue with Johnny's mom and they deserve some protection from those issues. 

We simply documented our issues, made them known to the school board and while we worked on the problem, I made sure that my kids educational needs were up to par from my end. 

Sometimes the greater problem isn't overt incompetency as much as those in any number of professions becoming complacent or disinterested and it's those that are hard to fire. The generally meet the criteria of their job description enough to avoid being fired but really put nothing into the job.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

Cornhusker said:


> Do you just compile stuff so you can drag it back up later?


The past is behind us and we should be looking forward.


----------



## AmericanStand (Jul 29, 2014)

SLFarmMI said:


> Come up with a fair system that doesn't punish teachers for things that are beyond our control (such as student attendance) & let us be part of developing that system instead of the usual foisting of things upon us and we'll get behind it.
> 
> 
> 
> ?



Lol you lost us there. 
A students attendance is significantly correlated to the quality of the teacher. 
B Lots of us deal with being evaluated on performance that's based on lots of things beyond our control. 

I'm sorry but as a teacher friend told me teaching is the greatest part time job there is.


----------

