Gun Control

Witcher

eire4 wrote: »

So your not saying you would force my kid to undertake a firearms class is that correct? I think that is what your saying but not 100% sure.


You are ok it would seem with spending school time and resources on firearms classes though which I strongly disagree with. If you want to take your kid to some kind of firearms class or course on your own time on your own resources that is up to you. But I think to use the time and resources of our schools for such activity is a poor use of our schools.

Firearms are a part of life in the US and kids should understand how to behave around them like any other object. If you don't want your kids to know how to act around a firearm that's your decision.

Most people in Ireland will never even see a firearm so it would be a waste of resources to introduce it here, not so in the US.

eire4

Blay wrote: »

Firearms are a part of life in the US and kids should understand how to behave around them like any other object. If you don't want your kids to know how to act around a firearm that's your decision.

Most people in Ireland will never even see a firearm so it would be a waste of resources to introduce it here, not so in the US.

I understand fully they sadly are such a fact of life in many parts of the US. I however do not feel they should be part of the educational system. If someone wants to use firearms with their kids then do it on their own time and resources.

Manic Moran

eire4 wrote: »

I understand fully they sadly are such a fact of life in many parts of the US. I however do not feel they should be part of the educational system. If someone wants to use firearms with their kids then do it on their own time and resources.

It need not proceed to the level of useage of firearms, it's not as if sex ed in school consists of practical exercises. At the most basic level, a 'How not to shoot yourself or others if you come across one' course of instruction would be handy.

Witcher

eire4 wrote: »

I understand fully they sadly are such a fact of life in many parts of the US. I however do not feel they should be part of the educational system. If someone wants to use firearms with their kids then do it on their own time and resources.

It's not about parents using them with their kids, parents that want to shoot with their kids will handle the training themselves.

Manic's suggestion is aimed at kids who don't have a parent etc. that shoots to teach them firearm safety but may come across them elsewhere...a friend/relative's house. They should know how to act around them in those circumstances.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

It need not proceed to the level of useage of firearms, it's not as if sex ed in school consists of practical exercises. At the most basic level, a 'How not to shoot yourself or others if you come across one' course of instruction would be handy.

There is a big debate in the States about such gun safety curriculum being taught in K-12 regarding content. The NRA's Eddie Eagle Gun Safe Program has been adopted by several school districts, but has been criticised as "Joe Camel dressed up in feathers" that encourages weapons adoption by children and young adults rather than safety or avoidance. A more comprehensive programme called STAR (Straight Talk About Risks) also adopted by many districts includes anger management, conflict resolution, and risk avoidance (including the consequences of firearms misuse).

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

It need not proceed to the level of useage of firearms, it's not as if sex ed in school consists of practical exercises. At the most basic level, a 'How not to shoot yourself or others if you come across one' course of instruction would be handy.

Well its fair to say we are on opposite sides here. But that was brilliant I got a great laugh out of your sex ed comment. Quality stuff. Still feel any kind of firearms education has no place in schools though.

Manic Moran

Well, this leaves you in one of two positions.

1) Child should undertake no course of fiream instruction at all. Be it use, safety around them, whatever. I personally view such a position as sticking one's head in the sand and hoping the issues bypass the kid. It's analogous to refusing to allow your kid to take sex ed in the belief that attending the classes will encourage promiscuity.

2) Child should undertake a course of firearm instruction at some level, in a olace outside of school. My personal take is that the folks who are not anti-firearm will probably get about to teaching the kids safety anyway, and aren't the problem to begin with. The folks who do not approve of firearms are unlikely teach to their kids firearm safety of their own folition, so if they don't get the training in school, they won't get it at all.

I believe parents should be responsible for their kids, so if they wish to choose one of these two routes, then that's their lookout. I think such a course to be risky and irresponsible, however. The kid -will- likely encounter a firearm regardless of the parents' desires on the issue, and at that point the kid will be armed to the level of training he had to that point received. Any further lessons will be by trial and error on his own part. I don't understand why you would prefer this situation, you merely give emotional statements thus far.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

Well, this leaves you in one of two positions.

1) Child should undertake no course of fiream instruction at all. Be it use, safety around them, whatever. I personally view such a position as sticking one's head in the sand and hoping the issues bypass the kid. It's analogous to refusing to allow your kid to take sex ed in the belief that attending the classes will encourage promiscuity.

2) Child should undertake a course of firearm instruction at some level, in a olace outside of school. My personal take is that the folks who are not anti-firearm will probably get about to teaching the kids safety anyway, and aren't the problem to begin with. The folks who do not approve of firearms are unlikely teach to their kids firearm safety of their own folition, so if they don't get the training in school, they won't get it at all.

I believe parents should be responsible for their kids, so if they wish to choose one of these two routes, then that's their lookout. I think such a course to be risky and irresponsible, however. The kid -will- likely encounter a firearm regardless of the parents' desires on the issue, and at that point the kid will be armed to the level of training he had to that point received. Any further lessons will be by trial and error on his own part. I don't understand why you would prefer this situation, you merely give emotional statements thus far.

No my opinions are not based on emotional statements they just happen to be different to yours. I have clearly stated that I do not believe that any valuable school time and tax payer money should be taken up with firearms training.
I have also said clearly that if parents want their kids to undergo firearms training that is their business and they can do so on their own time and at their own cost.


I believe parents should also be responsible for their kids. To say as you do that parents who do not act as you either have or would do are irresponsible is of course an opinion your entitled to. I would say it is a pretty arrogant one because you chose to deride those parents opinions based on your view rather then respect that difference.

Dar

No my opinions are not based on emotional statements they just happen to be different to yours. I have clearly stated that I do not believe that any valuable school time and tax payer money should be taken up with the safe cross code.
I have also said clearly that if parents want their kids to undergo road crossing training that is their business and they can do so on their own time and at their own cost.

Black Swan

Although there may be some changes (flipping back and forth) at the state level, I seriously doubt that gun control legislation will occur in the US Congress for the next 2 years, given that the GOP will maintain control of the House, and probably gain a simple majority in the Senate 7 November (effective late January).

InTheTrees

Black Swan wrote: »

Although there may be some changes (flipping back and forth) at the state level, I seriously doubt that gun control legislation will occur in the US Congress for the next 2 years, given that the GOP will maintain control of the House, and probably gain a simple majority in the Senate 7 November (effective late January).

And even in the presidential campaign for 2016 I can see Gun Control being a big issue.

Even some new atrocity probably wouldnt shake the entrenched attitudes much.

Here in Washington State there's an item on the ballot for this novembers election that has to do with closing the gun show loophole so we can see how that goes for a gauge on public opinion.

Black Swan

InTheTrees wrote: »

And even in the presidential campaign for 2016 I can see Gun Control being a big issue.

The Democrats may advocate gun control, while the Republicans defend the right to bear arms.

InTheTrees wrote: »

Here in Washington State there's an item on the ballot for this novembers election that has to do with closing the gun show loophole so we can see how that goes for a gauge on public opinion.

Yes, at the state level there will be pro and anti gun legislation, depending upon the respective state political agendas and special interest groups.

eire4

Black Swan wrote: »

Although there may be some changes (flipping back and forth) at the state level, I seriously doubt that gun control legislation will occur in the US Congress for the next 2 years, given that the GOP will maintain control of the House, and probably gain a simple majority in the Senate 7 November (effective late January).

Sadly you are no doubt correct on this count. If the Republicans win the senate next week that will pretty much kill any meaningful legislation dead in the water between January and the 2016 general election as the president will have veto power and the 2 houses will say no to anything he wants.

Manic Moran

"Meaningful legislation"* wouldn't be likely between today and 2016 even if the Senate was retained by the democrats. There are a few pro-gun Democrats, and a good number more who won't take a position on the matter regardless of their personal opinions as they would like to get re-elected some day. And the house isn't likely to change anyway. Not much has changed since the attempt nearly two years ago in terms of make-up.

Generally, the people who approve of gun control aren't about to change their vote depending on how the politician stands on the issue, it's just not that high on their radar, it's more of a 'nice to have'. The people who object to gun control, however, -do- tend to vote on the issue as they consider it fairly important. After all, it usually affects them as they have/want the guns being controlled!

*One also has to beg the question of how "Meaningful legislation" is defined, as I suspect it implies meaningful restrictions in excess of the curreny.

Black Swan

Manic Moran wrote: »

Generally, the people who approve of gun control aren't about to change their vote depending on how the politician stands on the issue, it's just not that high on their radar, it's more of a 'nice to have'. The people who object to gun control, however, -do- tend to vote on the issue as they consider it fairly important. After all, it usually affects them as they have/want the guns being controlled!

Gun control appears to be mostly driven by highly visible incidents that receive national news media attention (e.g., school shootings, etc.). Then both sides of the issue get active for awhile, only to forget after media attention saturates their audiences and moves to something different.

Manic Moran

Two races to look at today on this matter are the Colorado Gubernatorial and Washington State propositions. Colorado is where the incumbent's pushing for and signing of significant restrictions is front and center of the discussion, the immediate effect in this firearm-friendly State (which is also, of course, home to Colombine and Aurora) was the recall of the Senate President, another Senator, and the resignation of a third. Voters were not happy.

Washington State has two competing propositions on the ballot. One to increase background checks, one to limit them.

eire4

Manic Moran wrote: »

Two races to look at today on this matter are the Colorado Gubernatorial and Washington State propositions. Colorado is where the incumbent's pushing for and signing of significant restrictions is front and center of the discussion, the immediate effect in this firearm-friendly State (which is also, of course, home to Colombine and Aurora) was the recall of the Senate President, another Senator, and the resignation of a third. Voters were not happy.

Washington State has two competing propositions on the ballot. One to increase background checks, one to limit them.

With about 60% in favour Washington passed the background checks measure. The counter measure failed.




The initiative would require criminal background checks for those purchasing firearms at gun shows or over the Internet. Background checks are already required for those buying guns at federally licensed firearms dealers.

Manic Moran

On that note, the Colorado governor was re-elected

Black Swan

Just noticed that the NRA (National Rifle Association) has a "grades and endorsements" page along with their Political Victory Fund. Of course you have to be an NRA member to view, which discouraged me from going any further. I'm sure they will issue media releases as the 2016 general elections get closer, and in-so-far as presidential candidates endorsed, I would bet they will endorse Republicans and not Democrat Hilliary Clinton.

Manic Moran

Black Swan wrote: »

Just noticed that the NRA (National Rifle Association) has a "grades and endorsements" page along with their Political Victory Fund. Of course you have to be an NRA member to view, which discouraged me from going any further. I'm sure they will issue media releases as the 2016 general elections get closer, and in-so-far as presidential candidates endorsed, I would bet they will endorse Republicans and not Democrat Hilliary Clinton.

I doubt it's anything to do with the letter after the name, and more to do with past positions, votes and statements on the matter.

The NRA is not averse to supporting Ds over Rs in cases where the D is considered more favourable (or at least, as favourable) to the NRA's position. It is just a rare case that this happens. When it does happen, it comes as a shock to Republicans who think that the NRA is 'their' organisation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/06/AR2010100606329.html

Hillary Clinton is not known for being a friend to the NRA's causes. It is likely that whoever goes up against her is more likely to be aligned (or at least, less destructive) to the NRA's position, so an NRA Republican endorsement shouldn't be surprising.

Black Swan

Black Swan wrote: »

I would bet they will endorse Republicans and not Democrat Hilliary Clinton.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Hillary Clinton is not known for being a friend to the NRA's causes. It is likely that whoever goes up against her is more likely to be aligned (or at least, less destructive) to the NRA's position, so an NRA Republican endorsement shouldn't be surprising.

That's my 2016 presidential point. Whomever the Republicans nominate for 2016 president the NRA will endorse (against Democrat Hilliary Clinton). If necessary, the Republican nominee with do a "King Fish" flip of position to look favourable to the NRA.

Manic Moran

He won't need to. There are very few Republicans, and, frankly, not too many Democrats less favorable to firearms than Clinton. Now, it would be far more interesting to see how the NRA would vote on a Schweitzer vs Christie ticket, for example.

davwain

Brian? wrote: »

Go on.

I'm not anti gun by the way. I'm pro gun control.

I'm also pro-gun control.