More Anti-Firearm Stupidity.

Hunting In Physical Education Classes?

What are your kids learning at school? For some parents in Plymouth, it's a shocking answer. A physical education class has some parents very upset.

Aimee Falls says, "I was in shock and I was completely offended."

When Aimee Falls found out that her 13 year old daughter was learning how to hunt in her physical education class at Lincoln Jr. High School... without parental notice or consent.

Aimee Falls says, "I felt my rights as a parent were totally violated."

Marian Curl, whose granddaughter is also in the class, says she feels the same way.

Marian Curl says, "When you see all the bad things that have happened to children with guns, why would a school even want to teach children how to use guns?"

But Lincoln Jr. High School Principal, John McNeil says that's exactly why the school has the class... to teach students gun safety in case they ever come in contact with one.

John McNeil says, "Our goal and our aim is to give kids knowledge and strategy about how to handle those situations if they ever come upon them."

But Aimee says the course goes way beyond gun safety. The book the class uses shows kids how to load and fire a gun and how to correctly shoot different types of animals. And the lessons don't end there.

"This page show you where all the safeties on the guns are. Did they teach your how to take the safeties off those guns in class?

Sasha Falls says, "You can just pull em back."

Aimee Falls says, "I do not feel comfortable with them knowing this information that I know they have been taught. It's scary."

Principal McNeil says, while he understands Aimee's concerns, he believes that children not knowing how to properly handle a weapon is even scarier.

John McNeil says, "As a result of not being real knowledgeable, some individuals have been injured."

And hopes parents will recognize the benefits a hunting class, but understands that some may never be comfortable with their children learning about guns.

In the future, students at Lincoln Jr. High School will most likely have to get parental permission to take the hunting course.

But some parents say if the class continues, they will take their students out of the school.

------
http://www.fox28.com/News/index.php?ID=12556



However, I don't believe it should be mandatory for students. It should be mandory to get a hunting license, but not for students to graduate.

Remember folks wanting to hunt or own a firearm does not mean that a kid will grow up to be another psychopathic homicidal maniac.

Oh, fuck them, and the namby pamby horse they road in on.

I just feel so violated because my child knows how to use a tool, oh no!!!!

Teaching kids to hunt?
Teaching kids gun safety?

I wish I had those classes when I was a boy. I do wonder though exactly how much "hunting" is involved and how much is just target shooting.

What a pile of hand wringing pathetic fools.

What, asking the parents if they're OK with their children handling deadly weapons and learning to kill in bloody school? Inconceivable

But I'm sure a kid would a hard time finding some thug to teach them how to use a gun in a not-so-safe manner after school.

Fuck that school. We had archery in gym class. Probably the only reason they didn't teach firearms is it would be too noisy.

These parents act like the school was making bombs and suicide vests.

Was she channeling Listy, or Bush, or is there even a difference?

:duh:

Well, finally someone on the school board with the kids' best interests at heart; even more than the parents!

So the schools need the parents permission if the kids are to handle firearms, but if it's a girl wanting an abortion and a teacher takes her, the parents don't need to be notified.

Gotcha

Please show me the post where I said that. Thank you.

I have ALWAYS thought a firearms safety course should be mandatory in middle school. Hunting, not so much.

But a society that complains about children accidentally shooting themselves while playing with Daddy's gun, and then claiming that firearms saftey courses in school are bad, is an absurdity.

Sex Education is good because it helps prevent irresponsible behavior.

Gun Education is bad because it promotes irresponsible behavior.

It all makes so much sense.

DING! DING! DING!

We have a winner!

Ahem... are you really comparing sex and guns?!

Why not? Safety education prevents accidents and saves lives.

I'm of two minds about this.

On the one hand, the parents' objections are ludicrous. There's nothing inappropriate about teaching teenagers how guns work and how to shoot them, and if anything, the curriculum could prevent the tragedies that arise when dumb kids who don't know what they're doing get their hands on somebody's gun but don't know how to use it and don't respect its power.

On the other hand, this might not be the best use for a PE class. A ridiculous number of kids today are becoming overweight or downright obese at an early age, and in the absence of parents actually doing their jobs, PE class is just about the only chance to do anything about it. Given that schools have a limited amount of time each week devoted to trying to get kids in shape, wouldn't it make more sense to devote that time to cardiovascular exercise and strength training? Blobbo ain't gonna shed 30 pounds by learning to shoot, but if you make him run laps or play basketball, he just might.

Because sex is a basic human function and guns are not? Gun nuts are so fanatical about their hobby that they think everybody must be forced to it

Maybe, just maybe, there are people that would rather have no guns around and don't want their children to be instructed at using a killing instrument? I mean, what's next? Bar Brawling 101? How To Kill Teh Terrarist With Your Bare Hands (Advanced)? You never know what you might need one day!

If he stalks and eats his kill he will.

But yeah, I know what you mean. Why don't they just give kids a longer recess?

What an incredibly asinine conclusion. You prefer ignorance over knowledge because of your emotional bias?

No really. Where does it end when we teach everybody's hobby at schools? There are so many things you'll have to learn for yourself when you're interested but the use of killing devices should be taught? I don't think so. If the parents are gun nuts they should see to it that the brat learns how to use them or make sure to lock the guns away. If they think the kid should learn to kill by hunting animals they should make the time and take the kid out to do it. But force everybody to do it because some think that guns are what makes life worth living? No.

Why am I not surprised a proponent of a pseudo-science is here celebrating and encouraging ignorance?

My hobby has the potential to kill someone. It is necessary for everyone to know what to do in the event they run across a firearm and how to react to it because that information just might save their life one day.

We teach young kids in schools what to do if a stranger approaches them. We teach older kids how to use condoms because they might get an STD. We teach them what to do in the event of a house fire. We them what to do in the event of a tornado, how to judge food freshness, CPR, and a hundred other life and death skills before they get to high school. Why not teach kids gun safety as well?

As far as marksmanship in a school, I'm for it, and not because I'm a "gun nut". Properly shooting a firearm requires discipline, hand eye coordination, breathing control, and the ability to put all of that together.

It's funny, but in 50 years we've gone from rifle as a legitimate and approved sport, ROTC classes with rifle training, and marksmanship taught to boys to a state where the merest mention of gun training in a school throws some parents in a tizzy.

Almost one in every two households in the United States has a firearm in it.

The chances of a kid coming across a gun -- even if their own parents don't own any -- is a lot more likely than needing to know CPR or how to hide in the tornado shelter.

Knowledge of safe gun handling would seem critical if you care about the safety of children.

I'd not use that word after your performance last night

I know I'm doing my part!

I know I'm doing my part!

Firearms saves lives as well. Million of them, but the anti-gunners always ignore that fact.

Here's anther hint, if it weren't for firearms there can be no police force for the true criminals don't give a damn where they get their firearms. How can thepolice act to protect people if all they have is billy clubs or just heir bare hands? Remember, ani-gunners also don't want thinslike stun guns and paint ball guns as well because they cause harm.

In truth they're just trying to take them away from people so they won't harm anybody. They're the true killers simply because they want to kill people but are afraid of doing so.

Whether you like it or not, guns are a fact of life here. Children should absolutely be taught gun safety. To do otherwise is ignorant, dangerous, and completely foolish. I can understand arguing against a hunting class, but arguing against a gun safety class would just reveal a bias.

Oh, for pity's sake, you know that's not what we're saying. You're smarter than that.

With accidental gun deaths among children being one of the antis' hot topics, I think they should be happy if their kids are tought what NOT to do if they find a gun around the house (or around a frend's house).

As it is, the demonizing and avoidance of guns does nothing at all to that end. And in some cases I wouldn't be surprised if it creates a mystique that makes some kids WANT to go find Daddy's gun and play with it.

Education removes the mystique and cancels the demonizing, and can only lead to more safety and fewer accidents.

But if we combine these activities....this sounds crazy but it just might work....fire shots behind Blobbo to speed him up! He loses a few pounds, he gets to do the shooting!

Yes folks, is it a shame I'm not running for President.

So does this mean that in countries that severely regulate handguns, such as Britain and Canada, many lives are lost that otherwise would have been saved if such regulations did not exist? Where is the empirical proof of this, I wonder?