Maybe this is a quid pro quo action on the part of the gov. The NRA did help him get elected, after all.The Republican governor of Virginia has quietly changed a state law last month that would teach gun safety to elementary school students, mandating that it use a gun safety program run by the NRA.
The National Rifle Association exerts considerable influence in American politics, and has recently won a series of victories in the US Congress. Democratic leaders have been reluctant to challenge the powerful lobbying group, in part because they rely on a more conservative bloc of Democrats for their control of the legislative branch.
Now, Virginia Gov. Bob McDonnell has delivered the NRA another coup: a monopoly on teaching gun safety to schoolchildren from kindergarten to fifth grade.
The website for the NRA child gun safety program says their goal "isn't to teach whether guns are good or bad, but rather to promote the protection and safety of children."
Do you believe that? Do you believe an NRA sponsored program of gun safety can be delivered without the slightest indication of whether they feel guns are good or bad? I don't. I believe such a program would be a form of advertising for the gun culture.
It reminds me of the discussions about teaching safe sex in schools? When a health educator explains the way condoms are used to prevent disease and pregnancy, don't the conservatives say this is tantamount to encouraging the kids to have sex? I disagree with that. I believe that sex education is just what it's supposed to be. And it saves lives.
So what it boils down to is the gun culture hurts people and safe sexual practices helps them. The conservatives have it exactly backwards as usual.
What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.
Do you believe a fire safety program of can be delivered without the slightest indication of whether its good or bad?
ReplyDeleteGuns are neither good nor bad as they have no will of their own. No one can be taught what cannot be.
"So what it boils down to is the gun culture hurts people and safe sexual practices helps them. The conservatives have it exactly backwards as usual."
Bull. Neither one hurts people.
Maybe instead of the already established NRA safety program, they should instead use a safety program developed by one of the anti-gun groups.
ReplyDeleteOh yea, there are not any.
"Do you believe a fire safety program of can be delivered without the slightest indication of whether its good or bad?"
ReplyDeleteDo you believe that the fact that virtually EVERY FRIKKIN HOUSE in the US can be burned down v a lot of idiots choose to keep their guns stored unsafely is an argument of equivalency?
I'm all for teaching safe sex, but, since that might lead to immoral behavior--just like teaching kids that teh GAY are not evil turns THEM into little homos--so it must be outlawed by the same bunch of fuckheads that think Eddie Eagle is an authority on early childhood education.
Do you believe a fire safety program of can be delivered without the slightest indication of whether its good or bad?
ReplyDeleteIf the fire safety course is being taught by arsonists--nope.
The NRA is an industry shill. They are interested in selling firearms, not gun safety.
Of course, each school district has the option of whether to offer gun marketing to its kids, so the only kids who are likely to be harmed asre those poor children in the rural hinterlands.
--JadeGold
Democommie, JadeGold, MikeB, etc., please answer me this: First of all, have you reviewed the program? I suspect the answer is no, but in case you have what exactly do you object to? The program basically boils down to "if you see a gun, run away and tell a parent". It does not glamorize guns. Hell, it doesn't even show one. The NRA is not mentioned at all. I've never heard of any reasons at all from any of you other than it's the NRA that came up with the materials.
ReplyDeleteYou would really think if the gun-control groups were interested AT ALL in safety and reducing accidental deaths that they would have a competing program. The fact that they don't speaks volumes about their intentions.
I suspect not only are gun control groups not really interested in child safety as they are in control, but they also look forward to child gun tragedies as an opportunity to push their agenda. Why else would any of them oppose Eddie Eagle if otherwise? They are that twisted.
ReplyDelete"The NRA is an industry shill. They are interested in selling firearms, not gun safety."
ReplyDeleteIs the fire department also an industry shill? After all, they get paid to put out fires.
"Do you believe that the fact that virtually EVERY FRIKKIN HOUSE in the US can be burned down v a lot of idiots choose to keep their guns stored unsafely is an argument of equivalency?"
ReplyDeleteFire does kill more people than gun negligence. You might have a point.
Apparently, people are safer with guns than they are with fire. We need Common Sense® fire legislation, like bans on fire safety training in schools.
mikeb: "Do you believe an NRA sponsored program of gun safety can be delivered without the slightest indication of whether they feel guns are good or bad?"
ReplyDeleteSo mikeb, you would object to a program of gun safety that indicated that guns were bad?
"They are that twisted."
ReplyDeleteI don't know, FWM. It takes quite a twisted mind to even suspect such a thing.
RuffRidr said, "You would really think if the gun-control groups were interested AT ALL in safety and reducing accidental deaths that they would have a competing program. The fact that they don't speaks volumes about their intentions."
ReplyDeleteI disagree. The gun control folks I know feel it's futile to teach kids something like "don't touch and get an adult." Kids, especially little boys, have a great curiosity which is only increased with lessons like this.
Plus, underlying the whole thing is that something is normal and OK about finding a gun. This is sick. Allowing an unsupervised kid to find a gun should be a very serious crime, but it barely registers.
Also, along the same lines, the focus is all wrong. It should be on the parent gun owners not on their kids.
"The NRA is an industry shill. They are interested in selling firearms, not gun safety."
ReplyDeleteIs the fire department also an industry shill? After all, they get paid to put out fires.
May 27, 2010 11:08 PM
Lovely false equivalency.
Fire departments do not sell or promote the sellers of destructive fires that burn down homes and businesses.
If the NRA were all that pumped about the children's safety why not just teach the basics to non-gun worshippers and let them disseminate the information.
I don't own a gun, I don't need a gun, I don't hate guns. I know the four rules that guarantee simply by their existence that nobody will ever be hurt by a weapon that they thought was a toy, unloaded or being used in a clearly non-deadly intent sortaway. I would make sure that any child I had charge of was aware of the dangers of firearms--without any "help" from Eddie Eagle, the shitbird.
It should be on the parent gun owners not on their kids.
ReplyDeleteLike this? I will take that as a "no" that you haven't reviewed the program. Also, what was the link to the gun banner's parent's guide to gun safety again?
If the NRA were all that pumped about the children's safety why not just teach the basics to non-gun worshippers and let them disseminate the information.
ReplyDeleteLike this? The NRA is already spreading this info out to all who will listen. The Brady program has no such material, even though they claim to want to help reduce accidental gun deaths.