Is it sad to you that children have to learn gun safety?
A couple of years ago I was teaching in a primary school in which one of my collegues was a USAian. I remember two children playing with sticks pretending they were guns. She stopped them and said "no no you mustn't point a gun at a person!". At first I thought it was odd that she'd say that to them - they were only playing. Then it struck me.. she comes from a society in which children can get hold of guns. It is important that they know how to be safe with them. In Spain the chance of a child getting hold of a gun is practically 0. Thinking back to her reaction makes me sad for children in the USA. What do you think?
Yes
Side Score: 5
|
 |
No
Side Score: 7
|
|
|
|
|
It is an indictment upon our society and our civilisation that adults think that children need to know how to take up weapons. There is no necessity to teach anyone anything who does not yet have the maturity to be able to handle or understand the consequences of their actions. Children need to be allowed to be children learning the building blocks of their future life within Maslows' hierarchy of needs. There is plenty of time for them to learn gun safety when they are old enough to know what it means. Side: Yes
I have no first memory of being taught about guns. I grew up around guns. We had loaded shotguns and rifles behind each outside door of the house. My family hunted and I begin to target practice from the age of four with a .22 rifle. I taught my children and grandchildren the same way. We all have guns. I have a loaded .38 on my bedside table. No one in my extended family has ever been accidently shot. As far as I know there have been three gun incidents in our family in several generations, hundreds of people. One, a cousin was murdered by his wife's lover, two, I shot my ex husband in the upper arm with a .22 pistol (he was abusive) and three, a nephew committed suicide by cop. You teach children to respect what a gun can do. You don't teach them to fear guns. And, for goodness sakes, don't keep an unloaded weapon and the ammo in separate places in your home. You would do better with a bat! Side: No
1
point
There are some careless parents in the United States who do not lock up a gun only to have to endure a tragedy where their child picked up the weapon, fired it, and either killed himself or a sibling. It is the worst pain that a parent could ever endure. I admire the teacher for reprimanding the two children who were pointing sticks at the other children and pretending it was a gun. Side: Yes
1
point
Why do you find the black on black crime rate significant? Did you know that it is barely different from the white on white crime rate? Also, he had no reason to mention it because it had not been presented yet and it was not an obvious thing to bring up in regards to his point. Side: Yes
|
1
point
Why would it be sad? Teaching gun safety just makes it a safer environment for everyone. If a person has a gun in the house it is their duty to teach their kids about them. Gun education is the key to gun violence. If you learn to respect the firearm you cannot accidentally hurt someone with it and can stop others from doing it Side: No
While the proliferation of firearms, and in particular semi-automatic firearms, strikes me as problematic within the U.S. I cannot say that I am saddened or even appalled that children learn safety pertaining to them. I suppose the intended implication is that it is sad that children have to learn to be safe against something that should not be a problem, and perhaps that is valid but I think that validity is limited. There is a stark difference between semi-automatics and handguns, and whereas the former are demonstrably problematic I am less convinced of the latter. At any rate, I can say as someone who was raised in the U.S. that learning gun safety never made me feel any more threatened than learning how to cross a street safely (which is to say, not very). Side: No
Can you clarify what you mean by the terms "semi-automatics" and "handguns" because to my understanding the only handguns that aren't semi-automatic are revolvers, be they single or double action. Or of course fully automatic handguns, like an Uzi. But I assume you mean pistols. Side: Yes
Apologies; replace "semi-automatic" with "automatic". I was confusing my language. The point I was trying to get at is that the different firearm classes ought to be treated and considered differently. That should rectify the confusion I suspect, but let me know if not. Side: Yes
|
