strmrdr, I''ve been waiting for you to post...

[Erin]

http://www.kxmc.com/News/Nation/252455.asp

 

[AGBF]

Starset, I saw a piece just today in a local Connecticut newspaper today, reprinted from, "The Washington Post". It was addressed to Justice Scalia. It was written by an emergency room physician because in his opinion on gun control in Washington, DC Justice Scalia wrote about the safety that only firearms can bring to a home. This piece made the point that firearms in homes made them less safe. I realize that this has nothing whatsoever to do with the constitutional issue about which you posted, but I thought I'd throw it into the mix.

It is called, "Guns for Safety? Dream On, Scalia," and was published in, "The Washington Post" on Sunday, June 29, 2008.
Excerpts follow:

"The Supreme Court has spoken: Thanks to the court's blockbuster 5 to 4 decision Thursday, Washingtonians now have the right to own a gun for self-defense. I leave the law to lawyers, but the public health lesson is crystal clear: The legal ruling that the District's citizens can keep loaded handguns in their homes doesn't mean that they should.

In his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia explicitly endorsed the wisdom of keeping a handgun in the home for self-defense. Such a weapon, he wrote, "is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long rifle; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police." But Scalia ignored a substantial body of public health research that contradicts his assertions. A number of scientific studies, published in the world's most rigorous, peer-reviewed journals, show that the risks of keeping a loaded gun in the home strongly outweigh the potential benefits.

In the real world, Scalia's scenario -- an armed assailant breaks into your home, and you shoot or scare away the bad guy with your handy handgun -- happens pretty infrequently. Statistically speaking, these rare success stories are dwarfed by tragedies. The reason is simple: A gun kept loaded and readily available for protection may also be reached by a curious child, an angry spouse or a depressed teen.

More than 20 years ago, I conducted a study of firearm-related deaths in homes in Seattle and surrounding King County, Washington. Over the study's seven-year interval, more than half of all fatal shootings in the county took place in the home where the firearm involved was kept. Just nine of those shootings were legally justifiable homicides or acts of self-defense; guns kept in homes were also involved in 12 accidental deaths, 41 criminal homicides and a shocking 333 suicides. A subsequent study conducted in three U.S. cities found that guns kept in the home were 12 times more likely to be involved in the death or injury of a member of the household than in the killing or wounding of a bad guy in self-defense.

Oh, one more thing: Scalia's ludicrous vision of a little old lady clutching a handgun in one hand while dialing 911 with the other (try it sometime) doesn't fit the facts. According to the Justice Department, far more guns are lost each year to burglary or theft than are used to defend people or property. The court has spoken, but citizens and lawmakers should base future gun-control decisions -- both personal and political -- on something more substantive than Scalia's glib opinion."

The author is Arthur Kellermann, a professor of emergency medicine and public health at Emory University



Deb

 

[strmrdr]

The ruling while interesting isn''t that good.
While it is slightly positive the split is scary and even the majority opinion isn''t what it should have been.
They gave in way to much to the politics of today rather than the founders intent and the way it should be.
They had the opportunity to right a lot of wrongs and did not do so.

AGBF that biased study has been refuted several times over the years and found to be false.

 

[perry]

Deb:

I agree with Storm that the study mentioned in the paper is not very good - and very biased.

There are a whole lot of partial truths out there, and there are very very few studies that look at the entire picture. Those that do - indicate that the use of personal weapons for self and home defense have a major impact compared to the direct problems caused by allowing such use.

One of the biggest things to sort out is the number of deaths caused intentional with the use of guns versus the self defense and recreational use of guns.

Without looking them up - I believe that the numbers are something like this:

Gun inflicted injuries/deaths within the US:

Suicide (or attempted suicide): 55%

Premeditated Homicides (or attempted Homicides): 40%

Other (Police shootings, justifiable self defense, hunting accidents, accidental shootings of innocent people, etc): 5%


The gun is the preferred choice of weapon of people who wish to injure or kill themselves or others. It is highly effective at that. So people who are planning those activities get a gun (become a gun owner and keep one in the house). Thus, gun owners are most likely to commit suicide or homicides with them. Now, is that a surprise?

This has nothing to do with self defense, hunting, or recreational use of firearms - and is often used to totally distort the arguments for self defense, hunting, and recreational use.

So lets focus on the 5% of other gun related injuries and accidents (which includes police shootings, hunting accidents, and innocents hurt or killed).

Multiple studies have indicated that the numbers of crimes prevented by people using guns for self defense of person and property are vastly larger than the number of people involved in the 5% number.

That is your apples to apples comparison (except that my recollection is that hunting accidents and police shootings were the majority of that 5%).

I do agree that one aspect of Justice Scalia''s witting is largely nonsense: The concept that a person pulls a handgun and holds it on a criminal while dialing the phone as the common why self defense handguns are used.

The reality is that if someone enters your house with the intent to do you harm that if you are aware of it at all - that you will have time to either grab a readily available gun or grab the telephone prior to being assaulted.

If you grab the phone you will not likely have time to dial it. If you do dial it - and even if you actually talk to the dispatch center - the assailant will almost certainly be able to do whatever they want to you (or your house) and get out of there before the police arrive. Given that they probably know that you were on the phone to the cops do not expect them to be too gentle with you and your family.

If you grab a gun and present it with intent - in well over 80% of the cases the thief or assailant will instantly turn and run. They do not want to mess with you and your gun. Now you can call the cops if you want (and studies indicate that in many cases people do not call the cops after the perp is out of the house).

You now have less than a 1/5 chance of having whatever was going to happen - happen, versus if you had reached for the phone.

But what if they do not instantly turn and run... Some may end up in a standoff and you can now call the cops while holding them down till the cops arrive. Some will end up with you or your family being assaulted; and in that case at least you have a chance of stopping it (my understanding is the results are mixed if they keep coming: Someone who is a good shot usually stops them, people who are not - or who freeze usually do not. It''s been a long time since I looked at any studies on this final group).

A self defense gun is not perfect and does not always work our (nothing is 100%); but it sure does swing the odds greatly in you and your families favor. Of course, you and your family need to learn how to properly handle guns. Also, target shooting is fun (and I have not yet met a person that when introduced did not enjoy the challenge of target shooting: there''s a reason it is an Olympic sport).

The biggest thing you need to know is when someone enters your house, or the residential wing of your house. The very real benefit of an alarm system is to alert you to that event to give you the time to become alert enough to reach for that gun (or the phone if you want the odds to be on the perps side). It does not have to be a very sophisticated alarm system - and it does not have to be connected to a monthly service either. My view: spend the saved money on self defense training (preferably with guns).

Perry

 

[perry]

Date: 7/4/2008 11:21:05 AM
Author: strmrdr
The ruling while interesting isn't that good.

While it is slightly positive the split is scary and even the majority opinion isn't what it should have been.

They gave in way to much to the politics of today rather than the founders intent and the way it should be.

They had the opportunity to right a lot of wrongs and did not do so.


AGBF that biased study has been refuted several times over the years and found to be false.

While ultimately I think Storm and I probably have a similar belief in what the ultimate rulings and standards should be; I disagree with his assessment on this specific ruling itself for the following reasons:

1) It is the unfortunate that the structure of the US Legal system is such that cases presented to appellate courts are almost always very narrow in scope. This case probably only represents in the range of 1/5 to 1/4 of what I believe the 2nd Amendment is about. I actually think the court did well to stretch some things as far as they did considering the narrow scope of the case. I believe it will take at least 2 to 4 more cases presented to the Supreme Court to flesh out the other areas of the 2nd Amendment - and I am not holding my breath on those happening soon.

2) I am grateful for what they have in fact ruled on: This case was specifically about the right of a person to own a handgun and keep it loaded and ready for self defense of his home. It was not about registration and licensing, It was not about the right to self defense weapons outside of the home, It was not about firearms that could be used for the collective defense of an area (a militia formed as needed), and it was not about the ability of the people to be able to fight off, challenge, and toss out an unjust government.

So, as far as self defense goes:

A) Normal people have the right to own and use guns for self defense within their residence(see E).

B) Guns intended for self defense of the home cannot be required to be unloaded or dismantled.

C) Handguns are an allowable form of firearm that people can own for self defense.

D) Guns used for hunting can also be owned.

E) Criminals, mentally incompetent, etc can be restricted from this right.

F) Fully automatic weapons and other things (short barreled shotguns, silencers, etc) can be restricted.

The ruling leaves the door open to many other unresolved questions as to what kind of restrictions or processes can occur in order to purchase firearms and ammo. Most of these will be defined in further court cases, and I suspect that some of these cases will end up being resolved in the Supreme Court. I expect that it will take about 20 years before it is all resolved (on just owning guns for self defense).

Long term - here is what I think is likely to be considered legal on the federal level (although most states will not implement most of these):

- A requirement to be a registered gun owner. Note that this is nothing more than a registration - it is not a permit restricted to just a few, and you cannot be denied registration unless you are a convicted felon, mentally ill, etc. I personally don't like it - but I think it will be held legal (just as you have to be a registered voter to vote).

- A requirement to complete some kind of gun safety class, with a waiver requirement for anyone who feels an imminent threat (perhaps the requirement would be that you have to complete this training within 30 days). I have mixed feelings on this. I already personally think everyone in America should receive age appropriate gun safety training in early grade school and again at the middle school level (even if you never choose to own a firearm). How many accidents happen because some kid (or young adult) comes across a gun and does not know how to handle it safely (and for the young kids - the dangers).

- A requirement to keep a loaded gun in a quick opening gun safe if it is not in the personal control of an adult.


Other than that - I don't see any other restrictions for self defense weapons passing federal muster.

Overall, for its narrowness and scope. I think the Supreme court did a fair job of it. How hunting got added I am not sure (but no one seems to object to that). I believe they had to acknowledge that certain restrictions were reasonable (criminals, mentally ill, etc). Standard self defense firearms do not get into the classes of weapons that an area defense militia would be armed with.

One key, which I think is an automatic but due again to the specific nature of this case (Washington DC - under federal jurisdiction) is that the court did not rule that this ruling applied to the states. I believe that all federal courts will recognize that it does indeed apply to all citizens of all states once the first case gets to court (nor do I believe any state will challenge this).

The Supreme Court almost never issues rulings that establish the details of what is called case law (the details on what the limits are). They instead allow the courts - with themselves as final arbiters, to sort that out later. Which will now happen.

Perry

 

[ksinger]

Date: 7/4/2008 3:52:43 PM
Author: perry

Date: 7/4/2008 11:21:05 AM
Author: strmrdr
The ruling while interesting isn''t that good.

While it is slightly positive the split is scary and even the majority opinion isn''t what it should have been.

They gave in way to much to the politics of today rather than the founders intent and the way it should be.

They had the opportunity to right a lot of wrongs and did not do so.


AGBF that biased study has been refuted several times over the years and found to be false.

While ultimately I think Storm and I probably have a similar belief in what the ultimate rulings and standards should be; I disagree with his assessment on this specific ruling itself for the following reasons:

1) It is the unfortunate that the structure of the US Legal system is such that cases presented to appellate courts are almost always very narrow in scope. This case probably only represents in the range of 1/5 to 1/4 of what I believe the 2nd Amendment is about. I actually think the court did well to stretch some things as far as they did considering the narrow scope of the case. I believe it will take at least 2 to 4 more cases presented to the Supreme Court to flesh out the other areas of the 2nd Amendment - and I am not holding my breath on those happening soon.

2) I am grateful for what they have in fact ruled on: This case was specifically about the right of a person to own a handgun and keep it loaded and ready for self defense of his home. It was not about registration and licensing, It was not about the right to self defense weapons outside of the home, It was not about firearms that could be used for the collective defense of an area (a militia formed as needed), and it was not about the ability of the people to be able to fight off, challenge, and toss out an unjust government.

So, as far as self defense goes:

A) Normal people have the right to own and use guns for self defense within their residence(see E).

B) Guns intended for self defense of the home cannot be required to be unloaded or dismantled.

C) Handguns are an allowable form of firearm that people can own for self defense.

D) Guns used for hunting can also be owned.

E) Criminals, mentally incompetent, etc can be restricted from this right.

F) Fully automatic weapons and other things (short barreled shotguns, silencers, etc) can be restricted.

The ruling leaves the door open to many other unresolved questions as to what kind of restrictions or processes can occur in order to purchase firearms and ammo. Most of these will be defined in further court cases, and I suspect that some of these cases will end up being resolved in the Supreme Court. I expect that it will take about 20 years before it is all resolved (on just owning guns for self defense).

Long term - here is what I think is likely to be considered legal on the federal level (although most states will not implement most of these):

- A requirement to be a registered gun owner. Note that this is nothing more than a registration - it is not a permit restricted to just a few, and you cannot be denied registration unless you are a convicted felon, mentally ill, etc. I personally don''t like it - but I think it will be held legal (just as you have to be a registered voter to vote).

- A requirement to complete some kind of gun safety class, with a waiver requirement for anyone who feels an imminent threat (perhaps the requirement would be that you have to complete this training within 30 days). I have mixed feelings on this. I already personally think everyone in America should receive age appropriate gun safety training in early grade school and again at the middle school level (even if you never choose to own a firearm). How many accidents happen because some kid (or young adult) comes across a gun and does not know how to handle it safely (and for the young kids - the dangers).

- A requirement to keep a loaded gun in a quick opening gun safe if it is not in the personal control of an adult.


Other than that - I don''t see any other restrictions for self defense weapons passing federal muster.

Overall, for its narrowness and scope. I think the Supreme court did a fair job of it. How hunting got added I am not sure (but no one seems to object to that). I believe they had to acknowledge that certain restrictions were reasonable (criminals, mentally ill, etc). Standard self defense firearms do not get into the classes of weapons that an area defense militia would be armed with.

One key, which I think is an automatic but due again to the specific nature of this case (Washington DC - under federal jurisdiction) is that the court did not rule that this ruling applied to the states. I believe that all federal courts will recognize that it does indeed apply to all citizens of all states once the first case gets to court (nor do I believe any state will challenge this).

The Supreme Court almost never issues rulings that establish the details of what is called case law (the details on what the limits are). They instead allow the courts - with themselves as final arbiters, to sort that out later. Which will now happen.

Perry

I had this discussion recently with the DH. He was in the gun business for 15 years. Like you he feels the ruling is narrow. He is also glad that they did not subvert the intent of owning a gun for self defense by upholding restrictions such as requiring it to be unloaded, locked, buried in a steel case in one''s backyard and guarded by a rabid leopard.

(beginning of digression) However, and this is my particular pet peeve, as several on here who''ve read my posts will attest, you''re belief that the public schools should be teaching gun safety is just whack. Sorry if this sounds harsh, but that''s how I see it. Even proposing something like that would be infinitely more controversial than ID/evolution and sex ed combined! The DH, who is no longer in the gun business but is an inner city highschool history teacher and to whom I just relayed this little tidbit, snorted loudly, rolled his eyes, and said, "Yeah, right, like we don''t have anything else to do..." I''m sure he can add it to the list of things that he hears almost daily that the schools "should" be doing. If they did them all, your kids would never learn to read past "See Spot run!".

It''s just one more area where we are trying as a society to dump what should rightly be the role of the parents on a public school system already overburdened by "shoulds". We should teach gun safety, morality, how to invest and use credit wisely, and on and on and on. And everyone wants all this extra stuff done while little Johnny is also groomed for Harvard, because every child is a star and is going to grow up to be a hedge fund manager, even if he is 3rd generation gang and skips 25 class sessions. On most things people would label me a liberal but on the responsibility of the parent to raise the child, I am about as far right as you can get. Further right, I suspect, than many who proudly call themselves conservative.

If you own guns, lock them up, and teach your kids to respect them and use them safely, or don''t own them. Period. If you don''t own guns, just like you teach your kids about not talking to strangers prior to the event, tell your kids to never touch a gun if someone has one, and to leave the room that one is in immediately. Teaching your children what to do is YOUR job, not the schools''.

 

[perry]

Karen:

I agree that it would be contraversial: but I stand by my position.

Telling kids that if they see a gun not to touch it is about as effective as telling kids not to have sex. It doesn't work. If a parent does not know gun safety - how are they supposed to teach their kids it?

We teach basic fire safety in schools don't we. Why do we do that? Because people die from fires. Well guess what. People die - and a lot of kids die - because they stumble across a gun someday and don't know how to safely handle it (and the stuff in the movies is horrible). Far more homes have guns in them than ever burn.

A child is far more likely to encounter a gun than they are to encounter a house fire.

I view that one of the purposes of the school system is to in fact teach kids how to be safe and how to deal with situations that they may come into.

Age appropriate gun training would probably take about 1/2 hour in the first grade (and perhaps only 15 minutes), 1 hour in the 5 grade; 1 hour in the 8th grade, and perhaps 2 hours in the 10th grade (as by this age there is sure to be some discussion on gun policy that need to be presented).

This would not really be much of a burden - if it were done.

These classes are not their to teach kids how to shoot guns - just what to do if they do in fact come across a gun and have to handle it - and the dangers of mishandling it.

If they want to learn how to shoot guns - the school could direct the students to the appropriate training center (or perhaps in High School actually offer that as an optional class).

As far as the people who own guns. The good ones are very likely to have introduced their children into gun safety and proper training. However, it is shocking to run into many adults who really do not know gun safety either. So how are they going to teach their kids? Perhaps they also figure that the time to teach them is "latter" (just like the time to teach them about Sex is "Latter"). It is the stories I here periodically about the kids who find a gun somewhere and then decide to play with it. They are interested. Nobody has taught them a thing - and the reason I have heard about it is because the results were catastrophic and it is now a lead news story.

I note that I grew up in a small town and our high school offered hunter safety classes every fall; and set up other gun training for those who were interested.

Another thing, it used to be that most high schools once had a rifle competition team (22 rifles). I never understood why all of that vanished. As schools are looking for low cost sports - this is about as low cost as it gets (and a lot of gals can shoot great too).

I do agree that the problem is politics - and not dealing with reality.

Controversial in todays US society: yes. Needed and would be effective in saving lives. Yes. A huge burden on the school system and teachers: No. (and you would not have to teach it if you did not want to).

Perry

 

[ksinger]

Date: 7/4/2008 7:53:50 PM
Author: perry
Karen:

I agree that it would be contraversial: but I stand by my position.

Telling kids that if they see a gun not to touch it is about as effective as telling kids not to have sex. It doesn''t work. If a parent does not know gun safety - how are they supposed to teach their kids it?

We teach basic fire safety in schools don''t we. Why do we do that? Because people die from fires. Well guess what. People die - and a lot of kids die - because they stumble across a gun someday and don''t know how to safely handle it (and the stuff in the movies is horrible). Far more homes have guns in them than ever burn.

A child is far more likely to encounter a gun than they are to encounter a house fire.

I view that one of the purposes of the school system is to in fact teach kids how to be safe and how to deal with situations that they may come into.

Age appropriate gun training would probably take about 1/2 hour in the first grade (and perhaps only 15 minutes), 1 hour in the 5 grade; 1 hour in the 8th grade, and perhaps 2 hours in the 10th grade (as by this age there is sure to be some discussion on gun policy that need to be presented).

This would not really be much of a burden - if it were done.

These classes are not their to teach kids how to shoot guns - just what to do if they do in fact come across a gun and have to handle it - and the dangers of mishandling it.

If they want to learn how to shoot guns - the school could direct the students to the appropriate training center (or perhaps in High School actually offer that as an optional class).

As far as the people who own guns. The good ones are very likely to have introduced their children into gun safety and proper training. However, it is shocking to run into many adults who really do not know gun safety either. So how are they going to teach their kids? Perhaps they also figure that the time to teach them is ''latter'' (just like the time to teach them about Sex is ''Latter''). It is the stories I here periodically about the kids who find a gun somewhere and then decide to play with it. They are interested. Nobody has taught them a thing - and the reason I have heard about it is because the results were catastrophic and it is now a lead news story.

I note that I grew up in a small town and our high school offered hunter safety classes every fall; and set up other gun training for those who were interested.

Another thing, it used to be that most high schools once had a rifle competition team (22 rifles). I never understood why all of that vanished. As schools are looking for low cost sports - this is about as low cost as it gets (and a lot of gals can shoot great too).

I do agree that the problem is politics - and not dealing with reality.

Controversial in todays US society: yes. Needed and would be effective in saving lives. Yes. A huge burden on the school system and teachers: No. (and you would not have to teach it if you did not want to).

Perry

http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10_sy.html

Well, if you go to the CDC site above, choose unintentional, firearm, and put in an age range from 1 to 19, you get this number of unintentional deaths by firearm (per 100,000) in 2005 was. (If you put in intentional, you get a staggering number, but then "gun safety" is only going to make the intentional shooter more likely to be able to get the safety turned off more quickly...)

rate tot pop crude rate
173 81,814,633 0.21

The same query using death by fire is

615 81,814,633 0.75

with a rate more than triple. I don''t think your assertion of firearms being a greater threat is holding up here.

The vehicular death rate in the same age group is:
3,417 81,814,633 4.18

In any case, it is moot. It will not ever happen, it is a true low-priority item behind much more pressing societal and educational needs, and the American public, schizophrenically enough, is as usual, unwilling to cough up the funding for every cock-eyed, responsibility-shifting pet social engineering project they see fit try to foist upon the public schools, which are already the whipping boys for all of society''s ills. I''ve said it before and I''ll say it again, the school is merely the microcosm of the society. Problems like the one you speak of start at home, and won''t be solved externally. It is exactly programs like these, that when adopted, take time and energy - a limited resource whether one is 9 or 90, and add to the perception that the public schools are failing. The reality is that the parents are failing, and for every failure our society tries to shift the responsibility to the schools. All without wanting to pay for it. If we were truly so dedicated to the safety of our young, we would not have done away with driver''s ed classes - now the individual parent must pay private driving lessons - since a much much larger cause of death in children and teens especially, is vehicular (see above). But those classes have gone the way of shop classes, music, art, and others because of funding and TIME, (and mandates for high test scores). Do you think this commodity grows on trees? Even if teachers gave every waking minute of their time for free, as many school systems AND parents, seem to think it is their right to ask, it would still not be enough to hone every political axe that gets dropped into the schools for grinding, let alone to teach them how to read and cipher. Most people here and everywhere IRL have such a poor opinion of teachers, I can hardly believe you''d think the public schools capable of teaching something so critical anyway.

And how much of an increase in your property taxes are you willing to cough up for this? Are you personally willing to go lobby the state legislature for the change in the current laws that probably prohibit the carrying of a firearm on campus? To obtain the needed legal waivers? How much time are you personally willing to give - for free - to go out and recruit the people to teach these classes - for free. Are you willing to pay for the background checks for every one of the people you recruit? Or, if you want a teacher to teach the class, are you willing to pay for his or her background check and gun safety training? Or do you just expect them to pay for this themselves? As usual, this all sounds so easy and cheap until one actually considers the particulars. As usual, the devil is in the details.

And finally, before you make assessment of what would or would not be a burden on a school system, perhaps you should visit a busy inner city school for a day and see just what goes on there. And how much leisure time the teachers have, and the problems they deal with daily. Talk long and hard with any friends or acquaintances who are teachers and get their thoughts on the matter. I suspect you won''t get a good reception, especially at the highschool level.

I''m hardly an anti gun nut by any stretch. I''ve spent more time at gun shops/shows/ranges than most men. If it blows a bullet out the end, I''ve probably shot it, or cast bullets for it, or cleaned it...you get the drift. But teaching gun safety is NOT the mandate of the schools. Period.

 

[strmrdr]

I shot guns in high school for all 4 years I was there.
Airguns and 22s, rifles and handguns.
I was also a range master and taught students to shoot while in high school.
I have the expert badges to prove it. (2 of them one for air rifle and one for rimfire that I had to qualify for 2 times a school year).
We had a 33 foot airgun and a 50 foot rimfire range in the basement of the school as did all of the local high schools.
I also informally qualified expert with the m16 and the 1911.
All before the age of 18.
So teaching students gun safety and how to shoot in school is very do able.
I did it as a student.

 

[ksinger]

It's not a question of whether it's doable. It's a question of time and money and how much you and everyone else is willing to pony up to have your pet social engineering project or political axe to gind, put on the public school agenda. I bet your rifle class was not required for every student as part of the standard curriculum, was it? Part of the Junior ROTC I'd wager. That's hardly a realisitc scenario. Every kid doing that? In any case, what Perry is suggesting is very different, starting in 1st grade and all. I'd like to see if he has any hard data that supports his assertion that this would actually decrease accidental gun deaths of children - if there is/has been a curriculum developed with that in mind AND that has worked, and where it worked - small rural or huge inner city school. Bottom line, gun safety training would not address any but a tiny subset of gun deaths of our young people, which are mostly teen on teen and completely intentional. Homicides. His scenario won't address this in any way shape or form. THAT is another issue(s) completely, and in reality it is the main issue. The issue as he states it sounds nice, but it actually a red herring of sorts. Scarce monies are better spent other places in the public schools.

 

[ksinger]

Additional questions for Perry:

1) How long must this gun safety program of yours be in place. 1 year, 5? 10? How long do you think it must be in place before we can determine how effective it is.

2) Please tell me what you propose as a purely objective measure of it''s success, since we cannot justify spending money on programs that don''t show real improvement. As you pointed out in another post, we can''t afford to spend money for limited gain.

3) Since the budgets for school systems are used up pretty much every year, (as in most areas of life), schooling is like many other things, a zero sum game. Please tell me which subjects you suggest we take time away from in order to do this program. Basic math? Science? History? Are you willing to extend the school year to have more time for your program?

4) With the current foreclosure rate so high, some estimates are that for every foreclosure, the property value of the surrounding homes goes down 1%, while the crime rate rises. Also the houses that aren''t occupied are not having property taxes being paid on them. Since property taxes are the base of funding for the public schools please tell me how you propose to pay for your program.

 

[perry]

Karen:

If you want to know - My ideas on education actually are pretty well received by teachers.

The problem is that I only stated one little point.

I totally concur with your concerns with the current system. In fact - my concerns go well beyond what you have stated.

In general: the current educational system in America is failing, and badly. It is not failing because of lack of good teachers. It is not failing because of the lack of funding or facilities. It is not failing because of the lack of interested students.

It is failing because people - and the government representatives that many people have elected - have forgotten one very basic fact. It takes a community to raise a child well.

It takes an entire community. The school system is part of that community; but cannot fill the gaps when a substantial part of the rest of the community drops their responsibilities.

The parents need to do their part, the neighbors, the extended families, the service organizations, the business people in the area, the police, and yes the schools.

They all need to work together to nurture and guide the children. When I was a kid and got into trouble the local cops did not arrest me or haul me to jail. They talked to me - and took me home to my parents (sometimes they told my parents what I''d been up to - and other times they just told my parents that they had talked to me and just wanted to get me home). Now, I''d be arrested and have a criminal record (what does that help?). If I had a problem - or did something really stupid and wanted to apologize to a neighbor; I could go to one of the local cops for help and they would act as an intermediary (and not get arrested for doing what I just did). This allowed me to change from a problem kid to a decent adult. Where are kids given that kind of support anymore from the legal community?

Local business owners would also talk to me, help me, encourage me.

Parents don''t have to be perfect, they don''t have to know everything (in fact I expect them to be ignorant on many things). But they do have to support other people who are part of the community and helping.

I have no children (that I know of). But, I''ve been the favorite Uncle for a number of kids over the years. I''ve been there for them on issues they did not (or could not) talk to their parents on. I''ve had kids ask me to talk to their parents on a subject, and I''ve had parents ask me to talk to their kid on a subject. I''ve also had parents not be happy with me when they have asked about something and my reply was that I was told about the issue in confidence and that it would remain confidential. I have also had situations where I have told a kid that I would have to pass the information on due to the significance and implications of it - that there were limits to confidentiality (and the kid understood and continued the relationship). I believe that I''ve been a good part of the community that it takes to raise a child well.

Unfortunately, parents and the community support is breaking down or gone. The parents often do not trust others to help their children (and kids are taught to fear strangers). So how is a kid to find help? Am I a friendly neighbor willing to help the teenage girl a couple of houses away. Or am I a Dirty Old Man(DOM) because of my age difference and because some kook in the next town over really is a DOM and was caught last year. It''s getting harder to help when no one is willing to trust anymore.

In my idealized world of how the community would work - the very function of the schools would change from what they are doing now. But keep in mind that the community would return to a functioning community as well. Yes the basics would still be the same. The three R''s, various activities, etc. But the schools would also be building up kids in a very positive way to achieve their dreams. The schools would teach the economic system of America: business building. All jobs and positions in America exist because someone built a profitable business. Government jobs exist from the taxes raised from those profitable businesses (directly or indirectly from the employee wages). Yes, businesses need employees too; but the average business owner makes twice the money of the average employee. So lets teach those who have the inclination how to be innovators and business builders - as well as how to be an employee.

The schools would teach some things that everyone should know. Basic sex and health education, drug and alcohol awareness, fire safety, water safety, gun safety, auto safety, etc. These items are a legitimate part of education that should in my opinion be taught by the schools because the parents often can''t or won''t teach it (or teach it in time). That is in fact one of the roles of the schools in the society. Schools are a key part of the implementation of the social engineering of a society. They are a place for different people to melt together and learn how to deal with each other. They are a place to learn common things that everyone should know. Unfortunately, in most places within the US society is not properly supporting their end of the deal - like they used to - and the schools are being forced to do too much, and more than they should be doing.

I will stick to my concept that gun safety should be taught (along with a lot of other things). I will agree with you that it is not likely to occur soon due to the many stresses and issues you raise (I do note that there are states where guns can be brought into a school with permission by law enforcement or by a recognized instructor; changing laws to allow that is not that hard - if they even need to be changed at all).

However, instead of asking me how would we dig up the resources to do gun safety training - lets instead ask what needs to be done to change how society functions so that the community that it takes to raise a child well gets re-established. If we can move forward on that - then I think your other issues will vanish and you will have a lot more joy as a teacher.

Perry

 

[miraclesrule]

Perry, your''re killing me!!

Can you be my personal editor, since you seem to have the capacity to put in print what I have in my brain?

I can''t get enough of this political category, just so I can read what you and Karen and Stmr and the many other PS''ers have to contribute.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 7/5/2008 4:06:22 PM
Author: perry
Karen:

If you want to know - My ideas on education actually are pretty well received by teachers.

The problem is that I only stated one little point.

I totally concur with your concerns with the current system. In fact - my concerns go well beyond what you have stated.

In general: the current educational system in America is failing, and badly. It is not failing because of lack of good teachers. It is not failing because of the lack of funding or facilities. It is not failing because of the lack of interested students.

It is failing because people - and the government representatives that many people have elected - have forgotten one very basic fact. It takes a community to raise a child well.

It takes an entire community. The school system is part of that community; but cannot fill the gaps when a substantial part of the rest of the community drops their responsibilities.

The parents need to do their part, the neighbors, the extended families, the service organizations, the business people in the area, the police, and yes the schools.

They all need to work together to nurture and guide the children. When I was a kid and got into trouble the local cops did not arrest me or haul me to jail. They talked to me - and took me home to my parents (sometimes they told my parents what I''d been up to - and other times they just told my parents that they had talked to me and just wanted to get me home). Now, I''d be arrested and have a criminal record (what does that help?). If I had a problem - or did something really stupid and wanted to apologize to a neighbor; I could go to one of the local cops for help and they would act as an intermediary (and not get arrested for doing what I just did). This allowed me to change from a problem kid to a decent adult. Where are kids given that kind of support anymore from the legal community?

Local business owners would also talk to me, help me, encourage me.

Parents don''t have to be perfect, they don''t have to know everything (in fact I expect them to be ignorant on many things). But they do have to support other people who are part of the community and helping.

I have no children (that I know of). But, I''ve been the favorite Uncle for a number of kids over the years. I''ve been there for them on issues they did not (or could not) talk to their parents on. I''ve had kids ask me to talk to their parents on a subject, and I''ve had parents ask me to talk to their kid on a subject. I''ve also had parents not be happy with me when they have asked about something and my reply was that I was told about the issue in confidence and that it would remain confidential. I have also had situations where I have told a kid that I would have to pass the information on due to the significance and implications of it - that there were limits to confidentiality (and the kid understood and continued the relationship). I believe that I''ve been a good part of the community that it takes to raise a child well.

Unfortunately, parents and the community support is breaking down or gone. The parents often do not trust others to help their children (and kids are taught to fear strangers). So how is a kid to find help? Am I a friendly neighbor willing to help the teenage girl a couple of houses away. Or am I a Dirty Old Man(DOM) because of my age difference and because some kook in the next town over really is a DOM and was caught last year. It''s getting harder to help when no one is willing to trust anymore.

In my idealized world of how the community would work - the very function of the schools would change from what they are doing now. But keep in mind that the community would return to a functioning community as well. Yes the basics would still be the same. The three R''s, various activities, etc. But the schools would also be building up kids in a very positive way to achieve their dreams. The schools would teach the economic system of America: business building. All jobs and positions in America exist because someone built a profitable business. Government jobs exist from the taxes raised from those profitable businesses (directly or indirectly from the employee wages). Yes, businesses need employees too; but the average business owner makes twice the money of the average employee. So lets teach those who have the inclination how to be innovators and business builders - as well as how to be an employee.

The schools would teach some things that everyone should know. Basic sex and health education, drug and alcohol awareness, fire safety, water safety, gun safety, auto safety, etc. These items are a legitimate part of education that should in my opinion be taught by the schools because the parents often can''t or won''t teach it (or teach it in time). That is in fact one of the roles of the schools in the society. Schools are a key part of the implementation of the social engineering of a society. They are a place for different people to melt together and learn how to deal with each other. They are a place to learn common things that everyone should know. Unfortunately, in most places within the US society is not properly supporting their end of the deal - like they used to - and the schools are being forced to do too much, and more than they should be doing.

I will stick to my concept that gun safety should be taught (along with a lot of other things). I will agree with you that it is not likely to occur soon due to the many stresses and issues you raise (I do note that there are states where guns can be brought into a school with permission by law enforcement or by a recognized instructor; changing laws to allow that is not that hard - if they even need to be changed at all).

However, instead of asking me how would we dig up the resources to do gun safety training - lets instead ask what needs to be done to change how society functions so that the community that it takes to raise a child well gets re-established. If we can move forward on that - then I think your other issues will vanish and you will have a lot more joy as a teacher.

Perry

Perry, I can assure you there is no lack of vision in this house. I could see your concerns and state all my husband''s too (had I the time and finger speed with which to do it), which I''m sure are much more pointed that those of either myself OR you. My husband, who is in the genuine trenches every day, would love to be able to be all things to all children and save them all. But we aren''t living in your perfect world, or mine, or his. We''re living in reality. And too often on this board and IRL I hear what the schools "should" be doing, usually with no thought as to what that would actually entail. YOU are the one who put out the "should" if you recall, by saying every single child should have gun safety training - at school. All I said, was you need to understand the REALITY of the issue, and address the real issue, which you now have. You finally came out and said pretty much what I did - the schools are a microcosm of society. This and other issues start there, at home, certainly externally, and that the school can only support, and sometimes that support is just not enough, no matter how fervently we wish it to be. The thing that peeves me is the school getting pretty much blamed for the failure. As for the social engineering aspect, yes the schools do do that, but when society can not even agree on what the product of a public education should be, the social engineering will be as schizoid as you see it is. I can assure you, not everyone agrees with you or me or the next person. There are plenty of good solid people who would disagree with your stance on guns in school quite vehemently and with plenty of good reasons backing them up. Which one will win in the marketplace of unfunded school mandates? Who knows?

And I still don''t think you adequately supported your assertion that this is an effective thing to be doing with public monies given the other pressing things that need doing. I''d like to hear a cost justification for that, and how we are to measure the results. I still feel like you have a political axe to grind in this somehow. I could be wrong. Probably am. Perhaps what you say has some small merit, but again, monies and time are not infinite and I don''t see this, accidental death by firearms - as such a pressing issue as vehicular death, homicide by other teens, and fire. Please address the CDC stats. I really would like to hear your response to them.

 

[miraclesrule]

I am one of those people. I am not a fan of guns.

I understand the reasoning behind upholding the constitutional right to bear arms. But does anyone really believe that the average U.S. citizen , however united, would use them to overthrow our government in the U.S.?

I don''t believe that.

I am all for teaching kids about safety. That is what I do for a living. I live, drink, eat, breathe, think, sleep, safety and loss mitigation, but I just wish that we could do something more to prevent the topic of guns and gun education from even being necessary at all.

And I believe that it is a reality that is possible. It is a reality for other nations on this planet, so why not here in the U.S.?

 

[perry]

Karen:

You want me to address the CDC information: Not a problem.

You list above that in 2005 there were 173 accidental gun deaths in the 1-19 age group. That is consistent with previous year data (99-2004) that I have. Not a problem.

Also, in 2005 there were 16,298 kids (1-19) injured by a firearm, and an additional 14,052 injured by a BB or pellet gun.

So about 30,000 accidental shooting injuries and 173 deaths. All in the 1-19 age group.

Here is a recent example of an injury that will be part of the 2008 statistics:

10-Year-Old Palatka Boy Shot By Friend

THE GAINESVILLE SUN


Published: Monday, June 16, 2008 at 8:18 a.m.
Last Modified: Monday, June 16, 2008 at 11:06 a.m.

A 10-year-old boy was shot in the head Sunday afternoon at his Palatka home by a teenage friend who had spent the night, according to a media release from the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office.

The boy was immediately transported to Putnam Community Hospital in critical condition and has since been flown to a Shands hospital in Gainesville where he underwent surgery, said Maj. Keith Riddick with the Putnam County Sheriff’s Office.

Riddick said deputies have interviewed the 14-year-old who is suspected of pulling the trigger, but they are not releasing details of the incident until the scene has been investigated.

“At this point it appears to be an accident,” Riddick said. “It’s tragic any time it happens, and this one on Father’s Day. All we can do is reiterate: If you have firearms in your house stop immediately and go secure them. Gun locks are inexpensive, if not free. We give them away at the Sheriff’s Office.”

Riddick said the weapon used was a Taurus 9 mm pistol owned by the victim’s parents, Scott and Dena Wilson. Neither of the Wilsons were home when their son was shot, Riddick said.

------

An estimated 1/3 of all homes with children in them have a firearm in them. An estimated 1.7 million homes with kids have loaded and unlocked firearms in them.

Kids from homes without firearms will visit those homes.

Accidental shooting occur all the time - and most often by my estimation of all the reading I've done - from the kids who have never before been exposed to guns before. "We have no guns in the house so my kids are safe" has got to be one of the biggest fallacies out there (at least rates in the top 5).


I first got interested in this subject - and wondered about what the fix was when I read about a girl in grade school who found a pistol laying on the sidewalk on the way home from school in a city near here. She picked it up with the intention of taking to her mother and accidentally shot her friend. No one knows where the pistol came from.

So if you are looking for my political agenda: Now you have it. 5 years ago I would not have even suggested such a thing.

As far as why I feel that gun safety should be taught in the schools - please read the following linked study (this is just one of many). Just like sex education and many other things... The parents in general cannot effectively do this because of their beliefs on how kids will act - and lots of other studies indicate that the kids (especially boys - but most girls as well) will pick up the gun - and may then play with it.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/111/2/e109

"They’re Too Smart for That": Predicting What Children Would Do in the Presence of Guns

Susan M. Connor, PhD* and Kathryn L. Wesolowski, BS

2 Selected Excerpts:

Results. All respondents—regardless of gun ownership, geography, race, gender, education level, income, or child age—were equally likely (87%) to believe that their children would not touch guns they found. Fifty-two percent of those reasoned that children were "too smart" or "knew better." Only 40% based their predictions on specific instructions they had given their children. Only 12% (15/122) of owners stored guns locked and unloaded. Only 3 of 13 variables tested were positively associated with safe storage: having a child 5 to 9 years old, having at least a 4-year college education, and having an income $65 000 per year.

Conclusion. Results indicate that parental beliefs may effectively relieve adults of responsibility and place the burden on children to protect themselves. The implication for injury prevention is that caregivers’ unrealistic expectations of children’s developmental levels and impulse control may influence storage decisions or the inclination to address gun safety issues with children or other adults with whom children spend time (relatives, playmates’ parents).

-------

You really need to read the full study.

I could swamp you with similar data, articles, and studies. They are not hard to find on the internet.

As far as why I'm making my point. Well - someone has to. someone has to say this is significant enough to take action on; and not just by saying that all guns should be taken away or locked up. That doesn't work. 30,000 injuries and deaths a year tells us that it doesn't work. So lets try education. I tend to find that most kids when educated on something and presented with the risk & consequences can make good decisions (or course, sometimes they don't - and sometimes adults don't either).

Education about STD's started because someone said so (but it took many years for most schools to adopt that). Sex Ed still is not being effectively taught in many schools (and was extreemly limited when I had it). Somebody once stood up and said that it needed to be taught - and lots of people raised all kinds of arguments why not (not our job - its the parents job - limited resources - etc). Who first stood up and said fire safety needed to be taught.

Guess what; it doesn't bother me in the least what your reactions are. This is something I feel should be taught - and should be part of all the other safety topics taught in School. Schools are where we can get to almost 100% of the children. Wouldn't it be nice if we could significantly cut 30,000 injuries and eliminate some of the deaths. Isn't that what education is supposed to do.

I believe that it is appropriate to teach kids of any age to stay clear of the barrel (don't get in front of a gun - move behind it), Don't point any gun at anyone, and don't pull the trigger. Some kid may feel that they do need to move a gun (to protect others) and they should be taught a few basic rules on how to do that. Also, since kids will handle the gun (and many studies have shown that - telling them not to does not work well); the kids should know how to safely handle a gun. By high school I believe that all kids should know how to verify if a gun is loaded or not, and potentially how to unload it to make it safe.

One final item: One thing that I have found is that many people - including adults are scarred of guns because they have never been taught how to safely handle them. They have no idea what they would do if they had to handle one. I care not weather they would be interesting in ever using a gun. But, simple safety training would do a lot to eliminate that innate fear because you do not know what to do safely.

Perry

 

[perry]

Date: 7/5/2008 7:16:44 PM
Author: miraclesrule
I am one of those people. I am not a fan of guns.

I understand the reasoning behind upholding the constitutional right to bear arms. But does anyone really believe that the average U.S. citizen , however united, would use them to overthrow our government in the U.S.?


I don''t believe that.


I am all for teaching kids about safety. That is what I do for a living. I live, drink, eat, breathe, think, sleep, safety and loss mitigation, but I just wish that we could do something more to prevent the topic of guns and gun education from even being necessary at all.


And I believe that it is a reality that is possible. It is a reality for other nations on this planet, so why not here in the U.S.?

Ahh... I wish it were so simple. I really do.

Yes, I agree that at least for the foreseeable future that it is very unlikely that the people of the US would feel the need to overthrow the government by force. But the colonist did it - and could do it because they were armed. I hope it would never come to that - but I do not rule out the concept that sometime in the future that the people would revolt against the established government (what happens if the President declares "martial law" for an emergency - and then refuses to give it up).

Around the world - nations that tend to be democratic in nature are nations with armed populations. Just in the last week was an example in Africa where a ruler intimidated the population from a fair election because the army (his army) was armed and willing to kill - and the people could not defend themselves.

When comparing other countries you also need to look at their cultures. Be it good or bad - the fact is that America has a gun culture and a some tendency towards settling disputes with violence. Cultures that you consider to be non violent (with guns) may be violent via other means. Japan, for example, has a huge suicide problem and a modest violence problem that does not involve guns.

Check out the following links on the murder and suicide rates of various countries:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_homicide_rate (and go to the 2000''s chart).


As much as I do not like the US murder and suicide rate, statistics like these make me appreciate the US - even given its gun culture.

Yes, I wish it were easy and simple. But it is not. As to why I think the schools should be teaching gun safety - see my response to Karen on the CDC statistics and studies.

Have a great weekend.

Perry

 

[miraclesrule]

I wish I could argue with you. Really I do. I love a good debate.

Unfortunately, I study violence for my political activism. I know all too well, the statistics behind the violence and means of committing that violence, both in the U.S and abroad.

I just don''t have a counter argument for your gun safety educational theory. I wish I did. But we both know that would mean holding the adult/s in the household responsible for securing the weapon.

We already know that will not work. Da***it, I hate when I don''t have a counter argument. I usually do have one.

 

[ksinger]

Look Perry, you are clearly not a stupid man. But you are also just as clearly letting your emotions get in the way of the reason you seem to display with such aplomb elsewhere. Posting those stories was indeed heartbreaking. The death of any child always is. But they are irrelevant as an argument for why we should put gun safety in the schools.

Let me make my points as clearly as I can.

1) Human beings always have unlimited wants and limited means.

2) No matter how worthy a goal or project is it must take into account the reality of those limited means - in this case time and money.

3) Education is zero sum. Why is it that when someone wants the schools to fix a problem in society, or teach their pet morality, or teach their pet subject, they can only see what they want and not what they want in the larger context of what the school is first and foremost tasked to do: teach your kids to read, write, to do math, and to know about science and history. Every worthy item you want added to the curriculum takes time away from another equally, and sometimes more than equally, worthy item, like the traditional subjects of English, math, science, and history, it's as simple as that. In fact, to put forth one really simple example of how time cannot be created, consider than there is no more time in the school day or year than there was in 1960. Assume for argument that American history starts at 1700, and that in 1960 all the time was spent teaching about that 260 years. Today, in the same amount of time, history teachers must teach 20% more history. Did he get 20% more instructional/rear-end-in-the-seat time? Did funding increase? Nope. There IS NO MORE TIME IN THE DAY AND NO MORE MONEY IN THE COOKIE JAR. So what happens? Something important may be skimmed or dropped completely. Decisions, tough ones, have to be made. It is no different with all these other things you think "should" be taught. Something is going to have to be skimmed or missed altogether. All that safety stuff is great - even the DH agrees it would be good - and already some of it IS done, but he's deadly tired of people coming up with bright ideas they expect other people to implement and pay for, and that cannot be justified by even a rudimentary cost/benefit analysis, and that take time from his primary mission, which is to teach your children their history. Teaching gun safety, as YOU propose - as mandatory for 100% of kids rather than as an elective or voluntary after school thing, and that would not have a full course for said safety training, would take some teacher's valuable instructional time and everybody's kids' seat time from some other subject, and those subjects - like English for example, are rigorously tested and parents howl when Johnny can't read. You clearly have no idea how many "it'll only take 15 or 30 minutes" type of things teachers deal with in a semester, all of them put together add up to a whole bunch of fractured focus for the kids, and loss of hours in the subject being shorted.

4) You also steadfastly bypass and refuse to answer the very gritty practical questions I asked, which are how do we pay for it, and for how long, and then how do we objectively measure its effectiveness. These are hardly inconsequential questions. Instead, I believe you said, "However, instead of asking me how would we dig up the resources to do gun safety training - lets instead ask what needs to be done to change how society functions so that the community that it takes to raise a child well gets re-established. If we can move forward on that - then I think your other issues will vanish and you will have a lot more joy as a teacher." I can't help but think of the famous cartoon that published years ago in Omni Magazine. Two mathematicians in front of a chalkboard covered with formulae in two sections, separated by a big written phrase, "And then a miracle occurs..." The one guy says to the other, "I think it needs some work RIGHT here". Perry, that is hardly helpful. Trotting forth your utopian vision is great but it is just that: utopian. I have one too. So what? It is not helpful in the grand scheme. You tell others they're making things too simple, and then trot out this mythical ideal that if only society was populated by June and Ward Cleaver, my husband would find "more joy in being a teacher". His response to that was less than enthusiastic, not to mention that he found it more than a bit patronizing, since he has a daily visceral understanding of the societal problems involved, far better than you or I ever will. He doesn't teach in suburbia or a private school he teaches in a school with teen pregnancies in the double digits, with a 20% turnover rate, with kids who live with friends because they've been kicked out of the home, kids who don't speak or read English when they get there to the highschool because their parents are illegals with a 2nd grade education and who do not value education in their kids, and kids who don't have enough to eat, not to mention the gang problems. Gun safety is the least of their worries. The nicer part of what his response was involved him saying he really really wanted your magic wand or the number of your crack dealer.

5) Be glad that there are people like him who do find joy in being a teacher, will work for low pay (how we do value our kids eh?), bear with quite amount of stoicism the scorn heaped on him daily for all of the failures of the parents, and still have the intestinal fortitude every day to do what he can for as many as he can, and see the sad number of kids he knows he and the schools cannot save, and still be sane. I couldn't do it.

6) As the CDC stats indicate, far more children between the ages of <1 to 19 die from poisoning than from accidental gun wounds. More children die in fires than from accidental gun wounds. Many many more children die in vehicular accidents than from accidental gun wounds. A staggeringly high number of children die from suicide, rather than accidental gun wounds. You are going to have to convince me, in this time of scarce resources, that putting monies towards your pet issue, is more effective and would benefit more children than putting those same limited funds to another of the pressing problems that need solving by the schools. You said in the thread on healthcare, "government sponsored portion of basic care will not (and can not) afford to spend lots of money for limited gain." Well apply that statement to this issue, because it is exactly the same here.

 

[ksinger]

Date: 7/6/2008 1:05:42 AM
Author: miraclesrule
I wish I could argue with you. Really I do. I love a good debate.

Unfortunately, I study violence for my political activism. I know all too well, the statistics behind the violence and means of committing that violence, both in the U.S and abroad.

I just don''t have a counter argument for your gun safety educational theory. I wish I did. But we both know that would mean holding the adult/s in the household responsible for securing the weapon.

We already know that will not work. Da***it, I hate when I don''t have a counter argument. I usually do have one.

MR - see my reply to Perry above. The schools CAN only do so much. It is sad but true. And when they try to do TOO much, they end up - as you see them now - not doing anything very well. It works the same in schools as it does at our jobs and lives every day, too many things to attend to - all of them important yes, but even so, stuff gets missed, our attention is shattered, and problems pile up. Same thing here.

Bottom line, as Perry instinctively knows by replying with his vision of the society that works in harmony, the problems we face will not be solved by the schools. We can try as much as we can, but at some point the "good ideas" must stop, and the schools need to be left to deal with what they can, which is quite enough. Gun safety can be handled any number of other places. Literacy, language and math skills cannot. This continual dumping of the next new thing to the schools for fixing must stop.

 

[miraclesrule]

I know how frustrating it is to be a teacher, especially in the poorer areas. My best friends husband did it for three years and just couldn''t take it anymore so he switched to another school...a more private school actually. I thought that to be extremely sad because good teachers are routinely broken down by the tragic circumstances of the lives of this kids, and the powerless feeling that results from not having the means to change everything.

I admire your husbands committment to his profession. I admire your fierce protection and defense of your husband and his views.

I just believe that collectively we can change the way our schools operate and we change the curriculum. Should we spend 20% on history? As we move into new centuries, is it necessary, relevant and productive to our children to spend so much time on what happened between 1700 and 2007?

Obviously, it''s important, but surely we can trim a lot of fat from the meat, so to speak.

Again, you have valid points. However, I don''t believe it is necessarily "utopian" to explore alternative ways to enhance education. As a society we need to put our money where it is more beneficial for Americans to compete in the world. We need to demand that more government money be allocated to Education instead of pet governmental projects and the ridiculous overfunding of the Defense Department.

I can''t really formulate a decent sentence without my morning tea or coffee. I just sound lame right now. So I will be back later

 

[ksinger]

Date: 7/6/2008 12:26:28 PM
Author: miraclesrule
I know how frustrating it is to be a teacher, especially in the poorer areas. My best friends husband did it for three years and just couldn''t take it anymore so he switched to another school...a more private school actually. I thought that to be extremely sad because good teachers are routinely broken down by the tragic circumstances of the lives of this kids, and the powerless feeling that results from not having the means to change everything.

I admire your husbands committment to his profession. I admire your fierce protection and defense of your husband and his views.

I just believe that collectively we can change the way our schools operate and we change the curriculum. Should we spend 20% on history? As we move into new centuries, is it necessary, relevant and productive to our children to spend so much time on what happened between 1700 and 2007?

Obviously, it''s important, but surely we can trim a lot of fat from the meat, so to speak.

Again, you have valid points. However, I don''t believe it is necessarily ''utopian'' to explore alternative ways to enhance education. As a society we need to put our money where it is more beneficial for Americans to compete in the world. We need to demand that more government money be allocated to Education instead of pet governmental projects and the ridiculous overfunding of the Defense Department.

I can''t really formulate a decent sentence without my morning tea or coffee. I just sound lame right now. So I will be back later

The 20% was not total time, but the increase in alloted instructional time that would be necessary to teach the additional material. I have no issue with dropping some things, but I don''t see that happening, and IMO it should almost never be academics in lieu of safety training, or dare I say it....sports? (There''s a whole ''nother topic right there), or art, or music. Suggest that we give up any of those academics and see what happens. Everyone has their idea of what they consider priority. For Perry it is safety above all else. For me, it is reading, reading, reading, (did I mention reading?), writing, and ''rithmetic, and critical thinking. Please do remember that schools are funded on a state by state basis, usually from property taxes. There is no "demanding" that the government give more money, at least not federally. Local bond issues, statewide limited time sales taxes for crumbling infrastructure that the state can''t pay for anymore, (we had/have that here) but the quality of the education is determined in great part by the amount of money in that local district. And more money usually means more highly educated and paid parents, who are more involved, which means the kids there already have vast advantages over kids in poorer districts. You get the drift....

If Perry''s suggestion had been a true ''alternative'' I''d not have balked. Utilize the school building by all means. After hours. Get the community involved. Make it voluntary. Parents who don''t want their kids exposed to guns don''t have to have them exposed to guns. Schools are to a great degree locally controlled anyway. Enlist the aid of law enforcement. Do what needs to be done. But don''t put that burden on the school system - say "gee, that would be great, why don''t you guys just go do that, it shouldn''t be difficult. Oh and don''t raise my taxes while you''re at it." If you want it, and feel that strongly about it, then organize it yourself at your local level. It shouldn''t be that big of a burden, after all. If it works, and I''m sure someone has an objective measure in mind to check its effectiveness, I bet the school would adopt it. What he is suggesting is the school picking up yet another parental function. I laud the concern behind it, I simply question its ultimate effectiveness. The school is increasingly burdened by the breakdown of the family. I understand the problems, and why this stuff has been taken on, even agree with some of it, but in this particular case, I just think that gun safety training in the schools doesn''t have enough heft behind it to justify adding it.

The schools are no more perfect than any area of society, I hope you didn''t think I was ever saying that. I could type reams on the idiotic policies that come from district admin offices, and that the teacher in the trenches is supposed to cheerfully execute with no support whatsoever. But I really do hear endless bashing of the school sytems without a real understanding of what they actually deal with.

You know if there is anything I''d like the reader (assuming there are more than one or 2) to take away from this debate, it is maybe a new awareness of what they say when they casually disparage the schools for not teaching them or thier children x, y, or z. I would hope people begin to understand that all this stuff they say they want is not free, it has a cost in dollars, time, and curriculum tradeoffs. So when you come out and say, "If only I had learned how to manage credit/how to invest/how to handle a gun, whatever it was that you didn''t get but thought you should, ask yourself what of the core curriculum you would have been, or would be today, willing to give up to support what you say you want.

And truly, while he has influenced me, I really did have a whole set of similar views prior to him coming along, arrived at all by myself.

He has merely honed them and given me actual hard facts to base them on. He''s been an eye-opener I can assure you. I almost wish I DIDN''T know what goes on in that school....and he''s taught middle school too, btw. And the trip to the Junior ROTC Banquet at his school was an experience I can tell ya.

Bottom line, Perry is willing to give up other things for gun safety training. He thinks it would be effective and save lots of lives. I do not. I am not willing to give up academics for said gun safety, do not think it would have a measurable impact, and that those dollars (and in my state it''s moot because they simply aren''t available for ANYTHING, but I digress) would be better spent on driver''s ed for children of disadvanted families (at the very least), or other programs that might address issues that involve higher numbers of children.