Often times, it is necessary to consider the full context of a situation. This is especially true when politics are involved. For example, there are those who say that Trump wants to start a nuclear war, despite only taking in small parts of his speeches and defining them as his entire motive. It should arrive as no great shock that the same outcome happens when only part of the Constitution is obeyed, too. We have freedom of speech for liberals, but not to the same extent for conservatives, as shown by the I.R.S. The Fourth Amendment is so flawed that it may as well be called the “Fourth Suggestion” at this point, and all of this takes a toll on the fabric of the nation.
If students were properly taught civics and the value of the Constitution, then many of these common woes would vanish in only a few years as students graduated. This is why so many people know that the Second Amendment guarantees the “right to bear arms,” while having no respect for what that right entails.
For this reason, Idaho lawmakers are taking a “new” approach to the matter by introducing a bill that would allow gun safety courses in public schools. Some will protest this by saying that guns during “Show and Tell” time isn’t a great idea, but this bill is meant to teach gun safety, not give everyone a gun. Unfortunately there are still people that make poor decisions with guns. Perhaps education won’t help that, but it will end errors and disrespect for the weapon as a whole, as intended.
The courses are to be elective, meaning that it shall be forced upon no one. The House Education Committee has agreed to look into HB 240. If it is given the green light it “would promote firearms safety classes developed by Idaho Department of Fish and Game, law enforcement agencies, or firearms associations for the state’s youth,” as reported by American Military News. While this may sound unreasonable to some, is it more unreasonable to suggest that because a child has not been told about marijuana that he/she won’t one day encounter it? Has that plan worked with sex education or teenage pregnancy?
“Even if kids don’t have guns in their home, there’s a significant chance they will encounter them in the homes of their friends or in other situations,” stated State Rep. Ron Nate, R-Rexburg. He added that “Teaching them the proper dangers and cautions will help keep them and their friends safe. Many gun safety programs also teach about active shooter situations and what to do. This is valuable training for when and if such a horrible incident might occur in Idaho.”
The last part of his statement should really ring loudly in the ears of those who ask,”Why wasn’t something done?” every time that an active shooter arrives in a situation and slaughters innocents. Sure, we don’t want our schools to be the Hollywood wild west, but we have tried so many other things that have not worked. Perhaps we should try what did work and prevented such things in times past.
That solution was an armed population that knew how to use a weapon. Do the people of Idaho really think that someone is going to go on a shooting rampage with a school gun? If not, then there will be no difference since there are guns outside of school anyhow. If the intent is there to harm, gun education for others is not going to help nor hinder the would-be killer.
Funding obligations, it is reported, would not be needed nor would the classes be mandatory in any way. This makes it very similar to the bill that is also floating around Louisiana. It makes perfect sense, too. Just look at sex education as an analogy. Kids see sex on every station and in every song lyric. It may not be such a wise idea, but are we going to stop Madonna videos? The answer is no.
How would that be done? We teach our children to respect sex, instead. While many ignore the warnings, both teen pregnancy and infections of certain diseases that are helped by condom protection (some are not) often go down with education. While this education is best done in the home, having it done by someone is imperative, debate notwithstanding, since parents can usually opt their kids out of that, as well.
Like sex, guns are going to be found in the world, even if one aims to avoid them. If there is any doubt to this, how many reading these words remember the first time that they saw a gun that was not on an officer or a soldier? Now if that is taken one step further, while not as common, how many have handled that gun or one soon after? At that moment of honesty is where proper education would have been a better tool as that gun was held then had it not been given. There is simply no way that even a raging liberal with butch hair in “Hammer and Sickle” shirt can argue with that fact.
Children are curious people and it may come as an epiphany to some, but that carries well into young adulthood and beyond for most people. Nonsmokers try cigarettes, for instance, and no one dies. However, if that same curious nature finds a revolver in a child’s hand – and THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN TO SOME – someone could very easily have their lives ended. Beyond that, many homes own guns and should the child attempt to stop a robbery or an assault, if the child were to panic or use the firearm incorrectly, the outcome could be grim.
For these reasons and many others, there is no reason that can be given that can show how this bill could prove to be harmful. It may not change motives and it is not a theology class, but it may give pause to even someone meaning harm. If not, it tells others how to watch for such people and how to handle them, which is yet another boon.