@ bo_sox48

Anyone who's stupid enough to mishandle a firearm isn't smart enough to restore a disabled firearm to firing condition. Re-installing the correct type of firing pin isn't something that can be done in five seconds. I just took the firing pin out of my 1911 and re-installed it as I wrote this post. It took me a full minute, and I've had this pistol for years.

Anyone who's crazy enough to shoot up a school is crazy enough to bring their own firearm instead of dicking around with a demonstration model in gun safety class.

I'm sorry bo_sox48, but you're flat out wrong about this one. Having a gun with no firing pin in a classroom is no more dangerous than having a pair of scissors in a classroom.

Oooh, a full minute, time for someone to "go to the bathroom." No, I'm not wrong on this one, you just think everyone is as smart with a weapon as you are, and given your status as a long-time gun owner, I don't know why you would think that.

bo_sox, your position here does seem a little crazy.

Every time you make a finger gun I see a penis and get offended.

It's just insane, semck, that I don't want guns in schools. There are other ways to get the same point across, but I'm just CRAZY.

Glad we're on the same page, bo.

Love you too.

In any event, I wasn't referring to your opposition to guns in schools, per se. I was referring to your contention that guns without firing pins would be a big risk. There are, of course, further ways to disable a gun, but I'm guessing that you wouldn't go for them still. I think it would be more honest (and less crazy) to admit that you just oppose it absolutely for grounds other than its lack of safety.

I oppose it for the same reason other "libtards" oppose it. If you show kids things and then say "don't touch" or "this is for when you are old enough", kids will rebel and think they are old enough. It's the forbidden fruit principle. Show them a gun and say "but you can't touch one outside this classroom and you aren't old enough to own one" and you will drive them to the guns.

That's probably true, Draug.

There's ample evidence that children from the age of five on up can responsibly use guns, but that comes in the context of being raised with them by their parents. Since schools would have no control over the home training, it's probably best to leave it to there.

Semck, I oppose it for that reason. If you have a gun, firing pin or not, it's automatically okay to have a gun to someone, even though we all know it's not.

"even though we all know it's not."

Um no we don't.

But thanks for the clarification.

It's okay to bring a gun to school to you?

Oh.

Okay, you try it sometime.

See you in court.

You didn't say anything about at school.

Now that you "clarified" that, I have no idea what your initial statement actually meant. When you say, "I oppose it for that reason," what is "that reason"?

semck, anyone who thinks an unskilled teenager can sneak away from class with a gun and a firing pin that the instructor should be keeping away from unsupervised teenagers long enough to reinstall the firing pin and shoot up a school is sufficiently irrational, unintelligent or otherwise lacking in mental capacity as not to be worth your time

I mentioned the principle that Draug said earlier, but he said it better.

There are plenty things to waste our money on than gun safety classes in schools. How about we teach kids basic home economics first, eh?

@ Putin33

A program like the one I have suggested would cost a school essentially nothing. I'll bet a local gun shop would happily loan or donate the guns, and it would be easy to drum up a firearms instructor to teach pro bono.

@ Draugnar and bo_sox48

I understand your concerns with the forbidden fruit principle, but I think the same applies to abstinence-based sex education. Abstinence-based sex ed basically states "Don't bang until you're married, but if you do bang before you're married, wear a condom."

I imagine that gun safety would be comparable in its objectives. "Don't handle a weapon without an adult present, but if you do handle a weapon without an adult, here's how you handle it safely..."

Or you could continue to have 300 million firearms in America which only a fourth of the population knows how to safely handle.

But every boy is equipped with a penis and every girl with a vagina. They don't need to find the tools to fuck and can't be stopped. So hour comparison is invalid. I actually predicted you would male this false equivalency when I stated the forbidden fruit principle. People always like to compare drug and alcohol education with sex ed. They aren't the same as we aren't born with bottles, needles, cigarettes, or guns attached to our bodies.

I agree with Putin, it's going to cost something. Not in explicit costs per se, but the opportunity cost of teaching a guns class is, say, a home ec class. I would prefer a class focusing on something more universally useful personally.

@ Draugnar

Well, Draugnar, there are at least 310 million firearms in the United States. I believe it would be irresponsible to assume that parents are teaching their children how to properly handle such a prevalent utility. School sex ed is based on the assumption that parents may not be teaching their kids how to be smart with their private parts. I imagine that firearm education would be based on the same assumption.

Yes, we are biologically predisposed to have sex, but we're also predisposed by our society to encounter firearms, alcohol, and drugs. Whether the predisposition is societal or biological is of little or no relevance.

@ PE

Secondary school is already a massive waste of time as is; I don't think a one-time week-long gun safety unit would do much more damage to American students' already dismal performance.

"I believe it would be irresponsible to assume that parents are teaching their children how to properly handle such a prevalent utility"

I believe it would be against the freedom of religion to force parents to make their kids take a gun course. There are pacifists and that is a religious principle in many religions (see Buddhism). So you'd violate the first amendment because you personally think everyone should be required to own a gun (you have said so in the past) even though that is a second amendment freedom/right, not an obligation? What kind of Constitutionalist are you? Certainly not one that believes in the US Constitution.

"Whether the predisposition is societal or biological is of little or no relevance."

That may be your opinion, but I find it very relevant when you take into account the right to practice your religion freely.

Oh, and the only firearms I have ever come in contact with has been the rifle I carried in the Marines: an M16-A1; and the pistol I used to qualify in the Corps (a Beretta M9 when I was in). I haven't handled one since. Now, I have seen weapons on police officers, and I know my brother is a collector with a concealed carry which is one reason I refuse to go to his house and he is not allowed to bring a handgun or rifle of any sort on my property (neither concealed carry nor the "right to bear arms" applies to *my* property, thank you very much!) so I can honestly say there is no predisposition in the circles I run in to exposure to any firearm outside law enforcement or private security at certain charitable functions.

"and it would be easy to drum up a firearms instructor to teach pro bono."

I hope they're not like the ones who teach CCW classes in Ohio who shoot the students.

Anyway where are they to shoot said weapons to pass the test? Is the class going to take a field trip to the local gun range? That's not going to cost nothing.

@ Draugnar

"So you'd violate the first amendment because you personally think everyone should be required to own a gun (you have said so in the past)"

No. I have brought up the minuscule crime rates of Kennesaw, GA (gun ownership required, with exceptions). I don't ever explicitly supporting the idea of forcing everyone to be armed. If I ever made such an assertion, I was being rhetorical.

"Oh, and the only firearms I have ever come in contact with has been the rifle I carried in the Marines: an M16-A1; and the pistol I used to qualify in the Corps (a Beretta M9 when I was in)."

Okay, how long would it take you to re-install a missing firing pin into an otherwise fully assembled M9 or M16A1?

"so I can honestly say there is no predisposition in the circles I run in to exposure to any firearm outside law enforcement or private security at certain charitable functions."

Yeah, that's *you* Draugnar. That's like me saying that everyone should have a CCW permit because I have a CCW permit. Should we exempt asexual students from sex ed? Regardless of prior experiences, with 310 million firearms floating around, there's a decent chance that more than a few students will encounter a firearm at one point in their lives. I would prefer it if they knew how to handle it properly.

@ Putin33

"I hope they're not like the ones who teach CCW classes in Ohio who shoot the students."

Kind of hard to shoot people without firing pins or live ammunition.

"Anyway where are they to shoot said weapons to pass the test? Is the class going to take a field trip to the local gun range? That's not going to cost nothing."

When in the fuck did I say anything about a test? I'm just talking about a 2-5 day unit on basic firearms handling and operation, which doesn't need involve live fire. I didn't say anything about live fire.

That seems pointless. What is the purpose of a safety course where you don't actually have to demonstrate you can safely handle the firearm? That's sort of like the CPR courses where you don't have to actually demonstrate you know CPR.

Can somebody please draw their finger gun and kill this thread already? Thanks.

I'd rather kill your account, tbh