I'm the opposite and these are my reasons.How is it that any conservative can make such pro-education claims for guns and then fight any sort of sex-education classes in public schools?
Teaching gun safety presumes gun use. My belief is this is a bad thing in many cases.
Teaching sex-education does not presume sexual activity. In fact abstinence or waiting till teens are a bit older can be part of the program. In addition there would be many health related and anatomical aspects to the lessons.
Therefore, I say no to gun-ed and yes to sex-ed. What's your opinion?
Please leave a comment.
Mikeb302000;
ReplyDeleteIf you don't teach the young'uns the four rules how can you 'spect 'em to know to tell the cops that the killin' of their former bff was a accident and that they would never, ever violate the four rules.
"This is my rifle, this is my gun."
One's for makin' babies, the other's for fun!
I am all for sex education in school for appropriate aged children - we had sex ed in both 7th grade and freshmen year of school at the private schools I attended.
ReplyDeleteThe high school class covered the biology and anatomy of men and women, STDs, and the failure rates of various birth control methods - they all have a failure rate, some quite high. I think the failure rate should be stressed to teens so that they all understand that "safe" sex is a myth and that any sexual intercourse can lead to a women becoming pregnant.
After everyone understands that their choices have potential consequences, we can all agree to outlaw abortion for unwanted pregnancies because everyone would know how to avoid that situation.
How is it that any conservative can make such pro-education claims for guns and then fight any sort of sex-education classes in public schools?
ReplyDeleteHow many times have we seen this argument? It essentially goes like this: One side supports A and opposes B. The other side supports B and opposes A. So the first group points out the hypocrisy of the second group by making a case for why A=B, thus also pointing out their own hypocrisy.
MikeB: “In fact abstinence or waiting till teens are a bit older can be part of the program.”
As it is with gun education.
It makes sense to introduce sex education at about ten years of age. Kids that age will still scratch their heads and think, "What does that mean?" Then later on they can say, "Oh! So that's what they were talking about."
ReplyDeleteSex education actually begins in the schoolyard when you hear one of your friends bragging about getting laid! All that other stuff about the clap and condoms or whatever, that just falls into the category of precautions.
Gun education? Why? I don't think children need to be wasting their precious youth at some dumb firing range. I could see buying a responsible teenager a hunting rifle. But that would be about it as long as the kid was living under my roof.
"Teaching gun safety presumes gun use. My belief is this is a bad thing in many cases."
ReplyDeleteNo it doesn't.
I've already stated my opinion that gun safety and proper use should be a required course in High Schools for boys and girls just as sex education is.
ReplyDeleteMike G.
thatmrgguy said...
ReplyDelete"I've already stated my opinion that gun safety and proper use should be a required course in High Schools for boys and girls just as sex education is.
Mike G."
We all of us come into this world equipped with genitalia as human beings; we are sexual as part of being human.
Guns are weapons, they are not mandatory, they are not standard equipment, they are optional.
We do an extraordinarily bad job of teaching sex ed, particularly those programs that as part of abstinence only philosophy, teach misinformation and disinformation.
We need sex ed even earlier than we tend to teach it, because kids are becoming sexualized - both in behavior and physical development - far earlier than they used to do so. Look at the side effects of BPA as an example, a substance found in plastics used in everything from pop and water bottles to the inside coating of most canned goods to prevent the metal from corroding; it is a synthetic estrogen that leaches into contents and is absorbed into our bodies.
We NEED honest, practical, EFFECTIVE sex ed, not the crap promoted by the right.
While I think there are many gun use and safety programs, like those offered by 4H, which do an excellent job, they don't belong in our schools.
Here's a thought; we might be having a much more successful and stable society if we had fewer guns and far less instances of gun violence, fewer unwanted pregnancies, and far more sexually competent people. By which I mean that the statstical rate of women who fake orgasm is.......pretty much all of those who are sexually active, and the statistics of rates of orgasm in women are.........depressing, and not remotely close to what they could and should be. Ya think maybe that is ONE factor in our divorce rates? Or the problem with social conservatives who are hysterically homophobic not really understanding that the numbers of heterosexual people who engage in oral and anal sex is far higher many times over than it occurs among same sex individuals. Sex is a far more legitimate subject for education than guns are, and we need to be doing a far better job of it than we do. Except we can't because of opposition from the right, many of whom are more focused on guns than sex.
Our rates of STDs compare terribly to those of countries with far better sex ed, as do our rates for unwanted pregnancies, particularly teenage pregnancies.
We are all born with the capacity and drive for sex, not guns. So yes we need mandatory sex ed; gun ed should be optional and outside of school.
In spite of AztecRed's denial, I can't see how you can have gun-ed without gun use. What would be the point?
ReplyDeleteThe problem is that all the progeny of the Famous 10% of gun owners PLUS all the kids who come from responsible gun owning homes but are themselves too stupid or reckless to handle guns would need to be excluded.
"I can't see how you can have gun-ed without gun use. What would be the point?"
ReplyDeleteSo by that reasoning, you can't have an effective sex ed class without having sex? What would be the point right?
dog gone - you want sex ed to contain performance tips? Does there need to be a "lab" portion to the class where the teacher can critique your performance?
ReplyDeleteMost of us take sex ed in anticipation of having sex, or at least wanting to do so.
ReplyDeleteJim asks "dog gone - you want sex ed to contain performance tips? Does there need to be a "lab" portion to the class where the teacher can critique your performance?"
ReplyDeleteYou mean along the lines of that John Cleese segment of 'The Meaning of Life'?
It would still be an improvement, over abstinence only sex-ed.
There are many ways, other than getting naked in class, to teach the practical aspects of competent successful sex that too many people don't know, and should.
"In spite of AztecRed's denial, I can't see how you can have gun-ed without gun use. What would be the point?"
ReplyDeleteThe same way you can have sex-ed without sex or drivers-ed with driving.
I'm all in favor of gun ed, if we can have it the same way we do with abstinence only sex ed:
ReplyDeleteNo worthwhile factual information other than "don't touch!
Jim, You missed my point entirely. I say you cannot have gun-ed without gun use but you can have sex-ed without being sexually active. In the former, it's all about the gun. In the latter, it's about anatomy, psychology, interpersonal relationships, health issues. There's a lot more to it.
ReplyDeleteWe simply do not live in a world where kids wont come in contact with firearms. Basic truth. Whether that be playing at a friend's house, a dorm room, or because some nut decided the bushes in your yard was a good place to ditch a piece while evading the police (has happened).
ReplyDeleteWill you blame yourself, the other parent, the other kid, the manufacturer, or the loaded gun itself? And does it even matter when your kid is dead.
Do you question every parent whenever your kid visits a friend? Can you trust that a neighbor will give you an honest answer on gun ownership and/or how they have their guns stored?
Sheltering your kids from some basic knowledge on gun safety doesn't benefit your kids. Knowledge is power. There is a time and place for discussing gun safety. If you don't know enough yourself, do your kid a favor and find someone who can teach them more than 'Don't touch.' Quite frankly, don't touch doesn't cut it.
Does your kid know enough to not point a gun at someone else, or to check and see if its loaded? Enough to leave the area and find an adult? How will they know if you keep the subject taboo?
Consider the size and weight of most handguns. Many small people have a tendency to hold them in such a way that the barrel is pointing right at their face as they use their thumb to pull the trigger.
A 3 year old girl just killed herself on 4/20 doing just that in Roseville, CA.
If not in school with a movie on safety or demonstrating using airsoft and other props, then when?
Being uncomfortable with certain subject matter doesn't remove your responsibility as a parent from giving your kids the knowledge they need to avoid tragedy.
But if you can't be a parent in this area, shuck it over to the schools. Something is better than nothing.