Gun Ed in Elementary Schools

[Glenn E. Meyer]

http://www.whsv.com/home/headlines/91760899.html

That's interesting. Not being from Virginia, I wonder what the gun community take on this? Mike?

The article doesn't seem to point to an antigun rave but the program incorporates the NRA's Eddie Eagle program.

I recall that some TV shows did a piece which was negative. With really little kids, they were given some talk about guns and what to do and then they still played with them.

It probably depends on all sorts of variables but a good program would be a good thing.

There are risks though - some programs with surface validity for drug education have been dramatic failures.

Thus, empirical outcomes of the program would be very interesting - psych. hat on.

 

[Pahoo]

I am familiar with the Eddie Eagle program and it's a good one. I feel that the receptivity to a school program of this kind will vary geographically. You might find that the areas that could use it the most, will decline. Generally, my community is positive about responsible gun ownership and yet, we had schools that rejected the Eddie Eagle program. Again, the Eddie Eagle program is put together very well and wish that more schools would let them in cause I know they would like it. It was even suggested that it be presented to the local school board prior to the classrooms and that was rejected.


Be Safe !!!

 

[ZeSpectre]

The response to this has been....interesting.

The thing to remember is that much like NY, you have two "Virginias", the area called "NoVA" (Northern Va), aka "inside the beltway" and the rest of the state.

The NoVA area and selected other pockets (such as Richmond and Va Beach) are having fits. The rest of the state seems to mostly be saying "well I already teach that stuff at home before we go huntin' but whatever".

 

[Tom Servo]

Thus, empirical outcomes of the program would be very interesting - psych. hat on.

From the Eddie Eagle site:

One study published in the Journal of Emergency Nursing Online (October 2001) named The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program the best of 80 gun accident prevention programs evaluated. Beyond that, the effectiveness of the program is evident in several ways. First, fatal firearms accidents in the Eddie Eagle age group have been reduced more than 80% since the program's nationwide launch. NRA feels that gun accident prevention programs such as Eddie Eagle are a significant factor in that decline. Second, we often receive letters from parents whose children have encountered guns in unsupervised situations and avoided an accident by doing exactly what Eddie Eagle had taught them

The problem is, it's hard to find empirical evidence of things that don't happen.

Did my kid make it through high school without getting an STD because of the school's sex ed program? Did she decide not to drive under the influence because of what she saw in driver's ed?

In my case, the answer would likely be no. I'd have taught her all of these things, just as I'd have taught her about gun safety. These programs all have one thing in common: they are necessary because parents drop the ball. Still, I'd rather have them taught.

As far as Eddie Eagle, the program is strictly neutral on politics and the 2nd Amendment:

Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention — ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members.

Despite the claim by a VCPC rep that implementation of the program is a "freebie to a special interest group," politics simply don't play into this. You don't have to be an NRA instructor, or even a member, to teach the program, and the costs of materials are negligible. If money is that tight, one can call the local Friends of the NRA chapter for a grant to cover it.

Heck, I'll sponsor a class if necessary. I'll just bag lunch a couple of days next week.

"Think of the children" and "if it only saves one life" have been the justifications behind many proposed laws restricting firearms ownership, but when a program with the potential to save the lives of children is authored by the NRA, these same people castigate it.

I won't repeat the things that were shouted at me when I suggested such a measure to a local PTA in 1997. I'm glad to see the climate changing, and I'd like to see similar legislation across the country.

 

[Glenn E. Meyer]

There's been some studies on efficacy of programs like EE but I would have to dig in the pile of reprints. They tended to be negative, so I guess I would have to search - but it's finals time - so later!

The problem with some studies is that the might be politicized - heavens!

Glenn

 

[danez71]

I see no down side to this.

 

[LordTio3]

Optimist at heart...

I am a firm supporter of groups providing EE services to our youngsters. It's a great program and I don't believe any bad has or will ever come from it. And this instance only serves to reinforce an already prevalent feeling I've been having.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Has anyone else been feeling lately that... hang on, I've got to find some wood... (knock,knock)...

...we've been winning?

I know that there are countless daily incidents of flawed logic and political black-balling, but from the wealth of information that I've digested on the matter of gun-restriction, gun-safety, and overal gun enthusiasm and acceptance in our country, it seems like we've encurred a general shift in attitude toward firearms in the last 8 or so years. If the change truly exists, even at an individual level in a growing proportion of our communities, we've got to be about ready to see some new political action regarding this shift. Successful politicians may be foolish or prejudice, but very rarely are they down-right stupid (prejudices of our own notwithstanding); and it would be down-right-stupid of them to blatantly present themselves in stark contrast to a growing shift in attitude by the majority of the public.

Even if we don't see a great fluxuation in pro-gun-rights, we may very well be on the verge of witnessing anti-gun groups being forced to take a much-needed Chill Pill.

Here's hoping

 

[Skans]

I'm against gun safety being taught in schools for a number of reasons:

1. It's too easy for anti-gunners to use this as a platform to interject and introduce their anti-gun sentiment to small kids.

2. Most school teachers are not qualified or trained to teach firearms safety. Most likely what they teach my kids is going to contradict what I teach them, because I'm teaching a graduate course compared to their course designed for "special" kids with low IQ's from fatherless families. I see no sense in teaching "gun safety" without having an appropriate firearm for the child to see, touch, hold, and fire (age appropriate), and be tested on.

3. This is something that should be taught by individual parents to their children - not the Nanny-State to all of our children, or it should be an optional course for parents to decide whether their kid participates after normal school hours.

4. Also, I feel it's not right to thrust "gun safety" on parents who want nothing to do with guns, have made a concious decision not to own guns and not to have their kids involved in any shooting sports or activities. They are capable of teaching their kids not to touch other people's stuff, including guns, if they happen to come stumble on them. Afterall, I really don't want the anti-gunner's being able to force ANY of their agenda on my child through school either. Many things are best left at home - school should be for learning reading, writing, math, science, biology, political systems, and history. Parents really need to learn to handle the rest.

 

[Pahoo]

Skans
With all due respect, you have listed four conditions that would doom this educational effort, to failure. The biggest problem I have encountered, is attention span and EE keeps them hanging in there a bit longer. I have found that even though limited, it does have a positive effect. I see it in my Grandkids and they keep me honest with what they have learned. I understand that some or even perhaps, most parents and teachers cannot relate to firearm safety and they gladly refer their kids to our classes.

We have also had kids that were required by court order, to attend our classes and we seldom know who they are. That's fine and their problem had to be firearm related. Wish we could have had a chance with them at one of the EE presentations. I will take a positive stand on this and say it makes a difference. ....


Be Safe !!!

 

[Skans]

Skans
With all due respect, you have listed four conditions that would doom this educational effort, to failure.

I'm not sure what you are saying, Pahoo. I've listed four reasons why I dissagree with firearms education being made mandatory in public schools, that's all.

I have no problem with the NRA's educational efforts as they apply to kids or adults - I'm a member of the NRA and have taken some of these courses.

I just don't like turning over something like firearms education to government school administrators and teachers to teach our kids.

 

[SouthCali]

Skans,


agreed!

 

[ScottRiqui]

I agree with Skans - anything beyond "Don't touch it / find an adult" is getting too specialized to justify a mandatory course, especially when there's only a finite amount of time in the day to teach. If kids are interested, there's training available outside of school.

In this respect, it's a little different than sex ed or a short section on illegal drugs. Exposure to those subjects is germane to just about every student at some point before graduation from high school, so I can understand the schools devoting some time to them.

But a mandatory firearms course strikes me in much the same way as a mandatory wilderness survival course would. Sure, it can be fun and you can learn some valuable skills. But if a student is interested in that kind of thing, they can join a Scouting program (or even join the Navy and go to SERE school like I did - :barf

 

[Pahoo]

Skans

According to the text of the bill, lawmakers require "that the program objectives incorporate, among other principles of firearm safety, accident prevention and the rules of the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program."

We may be saying the same thing but I see no problem with teaching Gun Safety in schools. Now, as far as being mandatory or pushing it down someones throats, I guess I do have a problem with that. I would have to see the entire agenda before I totally agree but feel that if handled in an objective manner, it would work. I might also ask why they have to reinvent the wheel when the EE program is all they need.


Be Safe !!!

 

[USAFNoDak]

Eddie Eagle is not "gun safety" training per se. It's safety training for young children on what to do if they discover a gun in their presence. It teaches them to leave it alone, don't touch it, call an adult.

I don't think firearms safety training (I'm not including Eddie Eagle) should be MANDATORY in schools. However, it should be allowed to be taught in schools, after hours. I took the NRA sponsored "Firearms Safety Course" in my Jr. High School after school. Now a days, you can't teach gun training in schools because of the Zero Tolerance Policies against guns in schools. I think that's wrong. I have no problem stating that students are not allowed to bring guns to school when not part of an approved event. We don't want students bringing handguns in their backpacks. However, there's nothing wrong with teaching firearms safety in a school building, after hours, or even during hours as some sort of elective course. All that should be required is an approval by the school and adult supervision. I doubt inner city New York schools will teach gun safety. However, in rural areas, "zero tolerance" laws should not be allowed to negate having firearms safety training taught in a school building for students who WANT to attend the course.

As a parent, especially one who owns guns, I would want all of my kids to attend gun safety training, as well as my wife. I only have one kid who has not attended and for her it was because of a conflict with another extra curricular activity. She wants to go, but we still need to get it scheduled.

 

[Buzzcook]

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/abstract/113/1/70

Programs such as Eddie Eagle make the assumption that gun owners will be responsible about safely storing their guns. The tests work on the assumption that gun owners will not safely store their guns.

I applaud the idea of teaching gun safety in school. I would much rather the schools teach gun safety in addition to teaching shooting as an optional PE class.
I don't think it is effective to simply to teach kids to avoid firearms. Few kids learn just by being told not to do something. If they also have hands on experience with firearms, it adds a physical learning element that makes it more likely that the kid will retain what they learn and be able to act on it more effectively.

 

[Skans]

..."that the program objectives incorporate, among other principles of firearm safety, accident prevention and the rules of the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program."

Teacher: The best way to avoid gun accidents is to make sure that your parents don't have guns in the house.

Teacher: If you see a gun, you should call 911.

Teacher: If you think someone is acting unsafe with a gun, even your parents, you should tell your teacher...

Teacher: I hate guns and if you ever see one you should STOP and run away

Teacher: Ok, class, today we are going to learn about gun safety. How many of you know what a "gun" is? Can all of you who have parents with guns in your house raise your hand.....

Teacher: Guns can harm and kill people - you shoulld NEVER EVER touch a gun.


Got it yet? No? Still don't believe that far-left liberal teachers love to push their political agenda on your kids? Well, here's a real life sample of a song that my kid's school taught her in 1st Grade:



WHAT DO YOU DO WITH A WATER WASTER? (Teresa Jennings)

What do you do with a water waster?
What do you do with a water waster?
What do you do with a water waster?

Hey, Ho, you teach 'em better (X3)
Here upon our planet!

What do you do with a litter critter?
What do you do with a litter critter?
What do you do with a litter critter?

Hey, Ho, you teach 'em better (X3)
Here upon our planet!

What do you do with a global warmer?
What do you do with a global warmer?
What do you do with a global warmer?
Hey, Ho, you teach 'em better (X3)
Here upon our planet!

NOW, DO YOU SEE WHY I DON'T TRUST PUBLIC SCHOOL TEACHERS TO TEACH ANYTHING ABOUT FIREARMS TO KIDS!

 

[danez71]

I think that if some would actually take a few minutes to read about the EE program they might learn that their post are in contridiction with themselves.

The EE program is primarily "See an unattended gun? Dont touch. Tell an adult."

Its not pro gun and its not anti gun.

I agree with teachers not promoting their agenda.

Yes, they could make it optional.

If sticking to the EE program..... your fears are undeserved.

Take just a few minutes and go to http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/

 

[Skans]

I think that if some would actually take a few minutes to read about the EE program they might learn that their post are in contridiction with themselves

I think that you need to wake up and see the bigger picture here. You don't actually think that the NRA's EE program is going to be the only thing taught on this topic by government paid school teachers, do you? Read this again:

..."that the program objectives incorporate, among other principles of firearm safety, accident prevention and the rules of the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program."

"among other principles of firearms safety" means that the following other organizations will have their imput as well:

Children's Safety Network
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
American Public Health Association
Handgun Control, Inc.
International Action Network on Small Arms
Gun Free Kids
National Association of Elementary School Principals
National Education Association
Keep Schools Safe

Folks, you are opening the door to let in some of the biggest anti-gun organizations teach your kids about handguns. Just because they mention "Eddie Eagle" to placate the NRA and some of its members, doesn't mean that they have ANY intention of using the Eddie Eagle program exclusively. How do you stop grops like the ones listed above from participating when you've opened the door with the Eddie Eagle program in public schools. Let's not be so niave about this.

 

[danez71]

I think that you need to wake up and see the bigger picture here. You don't actually think that the NRA's EE program is going to be the only thing taught on this topic by government paid school teachers, do you? Read this again:

..."that the program objectives incorporate, among other principles of firearm safety, accident prevention and the rules of the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program."

"among other principles of firearms safety" means that the following other organizations will have their imput as well:

Children's Safety Network
Center to Prevent Handgun Violence
Coalition to Stop Gun Violence
American Public Health Association
Handgun Control, Inc.
International Action Network on Small Arms
Gun Free Kids
National Association of Elementary School Principals
National Education Association
Keep Schools Safe

Folks, you are opening the door to let in some of the biggest anti-gun organizations teach your kids about handguns. Just because they mention "Eddie Eagle" to placate the NRA and some of its members, doesn't mean that they have ANY intention of using the Eddie Eagle program exclusively. How do you stop grops like the ones listed above from participating when you've opened the door with the Eddie Eagle program in public schools. Let's not be so niave about this.

Please, lets not get derogetory. I need to wake up.... c'mon

1st - Who says all of those other organizations WILL have their input as well? Or is this your speculation based on _______? (you can fill in the blank)

2nd (a) This allows THEE LARGEST PRO GUN RIGHTS organization into the schools. Thats a fact; not speculation.

2nd (b) - So here's your chance to keep the others out. Make the best use of your opportunity rather than complain.

3rd - The only thing naive about this thread is not realizing that teachers ALREADY interject thier opinioins into the curriculum. What do you think they say when they teach kids about various governments or sex ed?

We just need to call them out about it IF/when it happens instead of ACCUSING them before it happens.

What your doing amounts to the same thing as the anti's accusing legal gun owners of crimes they havent committed. Dont stoop to that level.

Rather than accusing them of something they havent done yet, maybe... just maybe you should actually get involved now rather than spending the time here.

My only kid is my 21 yr old daughter. And yes... I got involved in school issues then and still do today on some issues. Even growing up in SoCal she has her own views about guns and they're healthy opinions at that.

Participation is key. Lets get the "right" foot in the door first before we have to play catch up later.

 

[Skans]

1st - Who says all of those other organizations WILL have their input as well? Or is this your speculation based on _______? (you can fill in the blank)

I appologize for showing a little frustration at folks who apparently don't read the article cited in the OP. That article references a quote from the text of the bill proposed. From that article:

"According to the text of the bill, lawmakers require "that the program objectives incorporate, among other principles of firearm safety, accident prevention and the rules of the National Rifle Association's Eddie Eagle Gunsafe Program."

What "other things" will that program incorporate. It's clear as a bell that the "program" is not exclusively about the Eddie Eagle program - why? Because it says so!

They threw a little bait out there to get some NRA folks to support firearms education in school by mentioning that EE will be a part of that program. You, and others, have apparently taken the bait hook, line and sinker. These other groups are waiting in the wings to have their agenda included in such a program. Now, because EE is mentioned, they can step right in and take their shots at our kids without the NRA having any grounds whatsoever for objecting.

The only thing naive about this thread is not realizing that teachers ALREADY interject thier opinioins into the curriculum.

Sorry, you can't point fingers at me on that one - read above where I cited a particular song teachers are using to indoctrinate kids about global warming. You better believe I went to battle on that one.....and the song got pulled.

We just need to call them out about it IF/when it happens instead of ACCUSING them before it happens.

Lots of luck!!! Accuse them of what, exactly? You just opened the door to these "other" groups by agreeing to the inclusion of EE and "other things" to be incorporated into the program. What? You forgot to ask what those "other things" can include before whole-heartedly agreeing to it? Next time read the fine print. You don't have a leg to stand on to keep any of the other known anti-gun groups from bolstering the program with their agenda.

My only kid is my 21 yr old daughter.

My kid is 6 - just in the 1st grade, and I've already had my first battle with the school over political agenda. Sounds like you have 21 years on me. Belive me, I'm involved and I'm not shy about being involved either. Be careful of what you let the NRA agree to for the rest of us. I'm a loyal NRA member and supporter. I've championed the NRA and NRA programs here on this forum and other places as well, but if I see the NRA make a stupid mistake, I'll call them out on it.

Anti-gun liberals have smart lawyers who think several steps ahead when drafting legislation for their benefit. Mentioning the Eddie Eagle program, and then permitting unknown "other things" to be included as well is a perfect example of THEM thinking at least 3 steps ahead of anyone who supports this bit of legislation. It's too open ended, and unless it's drafted better with parameters on exactly what can and cannot be taught, and who can participate, then it should be shut down like an overheated nuclear reactor.