DrMark
Lone Star Veteran
Yeah, that's bad... offensively bad.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
This is gun safety?????
- Thread starter peter nap
- Start date
Laws without teeth and controls are barely half good. Too much wiggle room left. This is an example of good thinking (we expected it to be fair) gone astray.
If we could get the right to carry in schools, this could be reversed in less than six days - giving us at least 2 days to rest.
What I have to remember though is that this is the [strike] Shi..[/strike] City of Richmond.
Did I just not say what I think I didn't say? :uhoh:
MKEgal
Regular Member
Not until 5th grade do we get this simple statement:
pg. 55:
And this is a problem why? If it's kept under control of an adult why even count it?
LOL @ pg. 14: "circle pictures of people who carry a gun as part of their job."
In some enlightened states, everyone except the firefighter. A friend of mine is a UT instructor & has taught several classes made of only schoolteachers, all of whom now carry at work.
Peer pressure & force by the teacher won't make it voluntary.
They're supposed to sign it, then make a poster.
Uh oh... pg. 71:
Where are the "wear your seatbelt", "wear your lifejacket", etc. indoctrination programs?
Those would save many more lives than this rubbish.
I'd love to do the Eddie Eagle program at local schools, both for the much-needed safety education and because I'd write it into the contract that I was bringing real guns as part of the educational materials.
Anything the kids could get to wouldn't be loaded, of course.
Several places say:
NONE of the answers given are remotely similar to "self-protection".
pg. 55:
:cuss: Implying that those are the only reasons anyone not LEO or military should have one.
So slightly more than 6% of the population keeps a gun ready for defense.
And this is a problem why? If it's kept under control of an adult why even count it?
So if a kid mentions that his family has guns, maybe they participate in IDPA or bullseye or whatever, a psychologist is supposed to be called??
LOL @ pg. 14: "circle pictures of people who carry a gun as part of their job."
In some enlightened states, everyone except the firefighter. A friend of mine is a UT instructor & has taught several classes made of only schoolteachers, all of whom now carry at work.
But in the introductory guidelines, it says they'll "be given the opportunity" to sign...
Peer pressure & force by the teacher won't make it voluntary.
They're supposed to sign it, then make a poster.
Uh oh... pg. 71:
In other words, be suspicious of anyone not in uniform who has a gun.
:cuss:
Where are the "wear your seatbelt", "wear your lifejacket", etc. indoctrination programs?
Those would save many more lives than this rubbish.
I'd love to do the Eddie Eagle program at local schools, both for the much-needed safety education and because I'd write it into the contract that I was bringing real guns as part of the educational materials.
Anything the kids could get to wouldn't be loaded, of course.
2a4all
Regular Member
Personally, I am an object of concern for kids who would be taught by this program. I OC, don't dress like a "Community Helper", and have at least one unlocked, loaded gun around the house at all times. Oh, wait; that's the one I'm carrying....:banghead:
Since participation in this program is voluntary by a given school district, it sounds like these issues need to be brought to the attention of local school boards.
Newport News has not posted the time of their next meeting as of this writing.
MKEgal, your analysis will make excellent talking points.
Since participation in this program is voluntary by a given school district, it sounds like these issues need to be brought to the attention of local school boards.
Newport News has not posted the time of their next meeting as of this writing.
MKEgal, your analysis will make excellent talking points.
Last edited:
PeteXD
Regular Member
I learned my first structured spats of Firearms Safety in 9th grade. I joined the Army JROTC at Woodbridge High School and then also joined their Rifle team. We shot .177 air pellet rifles at targets roughly 30 feet away. We learned the laser principle, breathing techniques, trigger techniques, sighting techniques, etc... I was 2nd in command of the rifle team my second year, commander in my junior year. Something like that would be WAY better than this fox nonsense...
This crapola is just as it has been described above... "indoctrination". I've learned tons since I got out of school oh so long (yet so short) a time ago. I now work as Armed Security at a Northern Va Military Installation and hope to go overseas to make the big bucks in the "Danger-zones" soon. My (future) kids will be well trained and pre-indoctrinated against the mass medias/politics/school systems teachings...
I hope someone can get through on this thing, as this, along with sex ed and drivers ed, are SEVERELY lacking in US schools.
This crapola is just as it has been described above... "indoctrination". I've learned tons since I got out of school oh so long (yet so short) a time ago. I now work as Armed Security at a Northern Va Military Installation and hope to go overseas to make the big bucks in the "Danger-zones" soon. My (future) kids will be well trained and pre-indoctrinated against the mass medias/politics/school systems teachings...
I hope someone can get through on this thing, as this, along with sex ed and drivers ed, are SEVERELY lacking in US schools.
2a4all
Regular Member
Easy, Pete. This curriculum isn't about marksmanship, and it's intended for 5 year olds. They won't be commanding rifle teams for a while.
That said, as you've seen from previous posts, we're concerned about the how the perception of firearms and those who might carry them is approached. This program tends to purport that firearms are to be feared, as opposed to being regarded with caution.
One thing that has just occured to me is that I can visualize the teacher introducing the topic with a question like "Who knows anyone that has a gun, raise your hands." That's quite a bombshell to drop into a class of little kids. Clearly, the teacher should be proscribed from conducting such polls.
That would be a beginning to disrupting their anti agenda.
Afraid that much more redirecting will be required though
paramedic70002
Regular Member
I just spent the last few hours crafting a letter...
Dr. Patricia Wright
Patricia.Wright@doe.virginia.gov
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Virginia Department of Education
/THIS ADDRESSEE REDACTED/LOCAL SCHOOL CONTACT/
September 24, 2011
Dr. Wright and Ms. XXXXX,
I have reviewed the “Elementary School Gun Safety Guidelines and Curriculum.” I must inform you that this document is fatally flawed and should not be used until it has been significantly altered from it's present form. There are several glaring errors and omissions that I will detail below.
Open Carry. This is not mentioned anywhere in the suggested curriculum. There is no law against the practice of open carrying of sidearms by private citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Many Virginians, as well as citizens of several other states, legally openly carry firearms every day. You may want to review the website www.opencarry.org for more information.
Self defense. The right to self defense is not mentioned as a reason to own or carry a firearm. This is the MOST important reason to own a firearm, and the right to do so has recently been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, as a function of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This right is also enshrined in the Constitution of Virginia, Article 13. Further, our Founding Fathers considered self defense a “Natural Right,” in other words, a human right.
Positive uses of firearms. While I recognize that the purpose of the curriculum is to teach firearms safety, there is a great disservice being to the students, parents, “helpers” and all citizens when firearms use is discussed exclusively as bad. Categorizing firearm use as “gun violence,” when violence becomes a “Code word” for “bad,” insults everyone who owns or uses a firearm for a legitimate purpose, and infuses doubt into the student's mind as to whether or not a legitimate firearm owner or user is good or bad. Using a firearm to protect yourself, enforce the law, or fight in a war is a violent action yet not illegal or “bad.” In my opinion this is social engineering of the worst kind. Surely throughout the history of Virginia and the United States it shouldn't be too difficult to find one or three specific positive uses of a firearm by an adult. If so, I will be happy to provide you with as many as you might need. See: Home | The Armed Citizen.
The item, “If you suspect someone has a gun at school or another public area and he or she does not look like a community helper, tell a trusted adult,” is particularly offensive. First, citizens with a Concealed Handgun Permit ARE allowed on school property with their firearm as long as certain rules are met. Second, there is a provision in the Code of Virginia for a Principal to allow certain citizens to bring firearms onto school grounds. Third, and most offensive, it is perfectly legal for a citizen to openly or concealed carry a sidearm in the vast majority of public places in Virginia. The only exceptions are courthouses, jails and prisons, the secured areas of police stations, K-12 schools, and certain Universities that prohibit firearms through inclusion of their policy in the Virginia Administrative Code, such as James Mason University and Virginia Commonwealth University.
By Fifth Grade, many students will have had the opportunity to use firearms for sport shooting, and hunting for small and large game. While we can all hope that their mentors will have instructed them in the proper safety procedures, some will not. The gun safety pledge in Appendix C just barely touches on firearm safety known as the Four Rules, developed by Colonel Jeff Cooper many years ago, but there is nothing in the Curriculum to correspond to it. See: NRA Gun Safety Rules.
I note that in the list of Committees and Resources, there are no firearms law scholars or instructors. I strongly suggest that a new Committee be convened using a wider selection of resources, and the entire Curriculum be reviewed and rewritten as necessary.
At this time, as the Curriculum has been approved, I unfortunately have no choice but to contact my children's school system and make them aware of the obvious reasons they should NOT be adopting this Curriculum, despite that such a Curriculum is desirable and needed in today's society.
On a personal note, I and my wife either open carry or conceal carry a self defense sidearm every day, and we will be introducing our children to shooting and hunting when they are mature enough to do so. We make it a point to let our children know that we have the right to armed self defense as humans, and it is legal and protected because we are Virginians and Americans.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if I may be of any further assistance.
Yours in service,
/REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION/
Dr. Patricia Wright
Patricia.Wright@doe.virginia.gov
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Virginia Department of Education
/THIS ADDRESSEE REDACTED/LOCAL SCHOOL CONTACT/
September 24, 2011
Dr. Wright and Ms. XXXXX,
I have reviewed the “Elementary School Gun Safety Guidelines and Curriculum.” I must inform you that this document is fatally flawed and should not be used until it has been significantly altered from it's present form. There are several glaring errors and omissions that I will detail below.
Open Carry. This is not mentioned anywhere in the suggested curriculum. There is no law against the practice of open carrying of sidearms by private citizens of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Many Virginians, as well as citizens of several other states, legally openly carry firearms every day. You may want to review the website www.opencarry.org for more information.
Self defense. The right to self defense is not mentioned as a reason to own or carry a firearm. This is the MOST important reason to own a firearm, and the right to do so has recently been affirmed by the Supreme Court of the United States in DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER, as a function of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. This right is also enshrined in the Constitution of Virginia, Article 13. Further, our Founding Fathers considered self defense a “Natural Right,” in other words, a human right.
Positive uses of firearms. While I recognize that the purpose of the curriculum is to teach firearms safety, there is a great disservice being to the students, parents, “helpers” and all citizens when firearms use is discussed exclusively as bad. Categorizing firearm use as “gun violence,” when violence becomes a “Code word” for “bad,” insults everyone who owns or uses a firearm for a legitimate purpose, and infuses doubt into the student's mind as to whether or not a legitimate firearm owner or user is good or bad. Using a firearm to protect yourself, enforce the law, or fight in a war is a violent action yet not illegal or “bad.” In my opinion this is social engineering of the worst kind. Surely throughout the history of Virginia and the United States it shouldn't be too difficult to find one or three specific positive uses of a firearm by an adult. If so, I will be happy to provide you with as many as you might need. See: Home | The Armed Citizen.
The item, “If you suspect someone has a gun at school or another public area and he or she does not look like a community helper, tell a trusted adult,” is particularly offensive. First, citizens with a Concealed Handgun Permit ARE allowed on school property with their firearm as long as certain rules are met. Second, there is a provision in the Code of Virginia for a Principal to allow certain citizens to bring firearms onto school grounds. Third, and most offensive, it is perfectly legal for a citizen to openly or concealed carry a sidearm in the vast majority of public places in Virginia. The only exceptions are courthouses, jails and prisons, the secured areas of police stations, K-12 schools, and certain Universities that prohibit firearms through inclusion of their policy in the Virginia Administrative Code, such as James Mason University and Virginia Commonwealth University.
By Fifth Grade, many students will have had the opportunity to use firearms for sport shooting, and hunting for small and large game. While we can all hope that their mentors will have instructed them in the proper safety procedures, some will not. The gun safety pledge in Appendix C just barely touches on firearm safety known as the Four Rules, developed by Colonel Jeff Cooper many years ago, but there is nothing in the Curriculum to correspond to it. See: NRA Gun Safety Rules.
I note that in the list of Committees and Resources, there are no firearms law scholars or instructors. I strongly suggest that a new Committee be convened using a wider selection of resources, and the entire Curriculum be reviewed and rewritten as necessary.
At this time, as the Curriculum has been approved, I unfortunately have no choice but to contact my children's school system and make them aware of the obvious reasons they should NOT be adopting this Curriculum, despite that such a Curriculum is desirable and needed in today's society.
On a personal note, I and my wife either open carry or conceal carry a self defense sidearm every day, and we will be introducing our children to shooting and hunting when they are mature enough to do so. We make it a point to let our children know that we have the right to armed self defense as humans, and it is legal and protected because we are Virginians and Americans.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. Please let me know if I may be of any further assistance.
Yours in service,
/REDACTED PERSONAL INFORMATION/
paramedic70002
Regular Member
I forwarded that email over to PVC. Maybe VCDL will get involved.
Feel free to send your own thoughts, or you can copy/paraphrase mine, to Dr. Wright.
Feel free to send your own thoughts, or you can copy/paraphrase mine, to Dr. Wright.
Repeater
Regular Member
"Publication development and editorial services"
Where's the transparency?
On page 4, this says:
The "National Center for Prevention of Community Violence" is a 501(c)(3) organization -- yet, it has no web presence and it has no reported assets or income according to IRS filings. Who are its officers and what do they do?
As for "RJ K and Associates" there is nothing about them anywhere. Yet apparently they had the authority to draft this propaganda. What responsibility does the Governor have over this?
The creation of this document was not handled well.
Where's the transparency?
On page 4, this says:
The "National Center for Prevention of Community Violence" is a 501(c)(3) organization -- yet, it has no web presence and it has no reported assets or income according to IRS filings. Who are its officers and what do they do?
As for "RJ K and Associates" there is nothing about them anywhere. Yet apparently they had the authority to draft this propaganda. What responsibility does the Governor have over this?
The creation of this document was not handled well.
Repeater
Regular Member
APPENDICES -- Propaganda
The propaganda may be subtle but it is nevertheless real. In Sample Parent Notification - Appendix A there is this:
This introduces the "sporting purposes" doctrine for impressionable kids, implying that "The Only Ones" can be trusted to use guns for "safety reasons" (like shooting and killing suspects, I guess), why everyone else may use guns for "sporting events" -- no mention of protecting yourself or your family.
But wait! there more:
The phrase "gun violence" is a loaded term used by gun control groups. This would seem to indicate the real agenda embedded in this document.
Now, look at Gun Safety Pledge – Appendix C:
So, it is VERY BAD to bring a "toy gun" to school or to play with it, even though kids did exactly that 20 or more years ago. Not only that, REPORT any kid who does. This Pledge serves to stigmatize gun possession and use for anyone other than "The Professionals" -- is this Progress?
Imagine this for Show and Tell - When Happiness Was a Warm Toy Gun
Gung Ho toy ad from the 1960's
The propaganda may be subtle but it is nevertheless real. In Sample Parent Notification - Appendix A there is this:
This introduces the "sporting purposes" doctrine for impressionable kids, implying that "The Only Ones" can be trusted to use guns for "safety reasons" (like shooting and killing suspects, I guess), why everyone else may use guns for "sporting events" -- no mention of protecting yourself or your family.
But wait! there more:
The phrase "gun violence" is a loaded term used by gun control groups. This would seem to indicate the real agenda embedded in this document.
Now, look at Gun Safety Pledge – Appendix C:
So, it is VERY BAD to bring a "toy gun" to school or to play with it, even though kids did exactly that 20 or more years ago. Not only that, REPORT any kid who does. This Pledge serves to stigmatize gun possession and use for anyone other than "The Professionals" -- is this Progress?
Imagine this for Show and Tell - When Happiness Was a Warm Toy Gun
Gung Ho toy ad from the 1960's
This is about as stupid an idea as the rewrite of the 3 little pigs from a couple of years ago
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the...on-with-recycled-houses-and-miscommunication/
Basically, the wolf was apparently a homeless vegetarian who just wanted to move in with the pigs and only huffed and puffed to check the integrity of the pigs' homes
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/the...on-with-recycled-houses-and-miscommunication/
Basically, the wolf was apparently a homeless vegetarian who just wanted to move in with the pigs and only huffed and puffed to check the integrity of the pigs' homes
Marco
Regular Member
said:
1+
My kids (6th grader and 2nd grader) are reminded daily there are topics that the school/teachers/admins/school resource officers or LE have no business discussing with them.
My kids are informed to politely ask to be excused if these topics come up, so that they may contact dad. If they aren't permited upon request they are to leave anyway and go straight to the office and call home.
Fortunately it hasn't come to that.
When my oldest started Kindgarten I started sending a note with my kids on the first day of school notifying teachers/admin what they can/can't discuss with my kids without my presence.
For instance this wed the school will be airing a broadcast from Pres. Obama my kids will not be listening to the indoctrination nonsense!
Last edited:
VCDL President
Centurion
VCDL's response
Thanks to Paramedic70002 for bringing me up to speed on this.
This went out as item #1 in this week's VCDL Update:
*************************************************
1. ACTION ITEM: A low grade for Virginia Gun Safety Curriculum for public schools
*************************************************
Apparently the final curriculum for an optional class on firearms safety to be taught in Virginia public schools has been approved and it has some serious flaws. I would give it a grade of D.
For starters in talking about firearms safety, it talks about the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr.!! What does the targeted murder of a political figure have to do with gun safety? That would be like a driver's education class talking about how car bombs are used by terrorists to blow up innocent men, women, and children!
For kindergarten, the curriculum talks about people who legitimately have guns, "Helpers who carry a gun as part of their job." Police, military, and park rangers. Fine and dandy, but NOTHING about mommy and daddy having a gun for protecting the family. Nope, just me being a radical, I guess. How silly of me. Of course only "government officials" have guns for a good purpose!
In higher grades, it becomes "People who use guns to protect." You guessed it, ONLY government officials are shown. No way a parent would have a gun to protect. They do acknowledge that someone might own a gun for hunting, target shooting, or if an actor in a movie.
This true/false question is asked as part of the curriculum:
"4. Hunting and sport shooting are responsible reasons for an adult to have a gun. True False"
There is true, but there is no mention of self-defense as a responsible reason for having a gun in the curriculum. How are these children going to look at their parents if they own guns, but don't hunt or target shoot? Sounds like the answer is "irresponsible."
The company that developed the publication is RJK and Associates - a company that deals with COMMUNITY VIOLENCE (http://www.rjkandassociates.com/about-us/). What does a firm that deals with violence know about gun safety? Probably as much as they know of the mating habits of tuna fish. Why didn't Virginia Department of Education go to an actual Virginia-based authority on gun safety - the NRA - to draft this curriculum?
THIS CURRICULUM IS UNACCEPTABLE. As written it feels as if it as much government indoctrination as it is firearms safety.
I will be contacting the Governor's Office about this on Monday and I will let you know what actions they plan on taking to fix this flawed curriculum.
If you would like to send an email to Dr. Patricia Wright, the Superintendent of Public Education for the Virginia Department of Education, here is her email:
Patricia.Wright@doe.virginia.gov
You should be polite, but firm, saying that you oppose this curriculum for its skewed, unbalanced agenda, and for implying that murders and assassinations are somehow connected with "gun safety." Ask why parents aren't listed as people who use guns to protect instead of just government employees? Ask why a firm which specializes in community violence was chosen to create a curriculum on gun safety, something that is totally unrelated to community violence. Since the curriculum was supposed to be centered around the NRA's Eddie Eagle program, ask why the NRA was not asked to write the curriculum instead.
Here is a link to the curriculum:
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/meetings/2011/09_sep/agenda_items/item_b.pdf
Thanks to Paramedic70002 for bringing me up to speed on this.
This went out as item #1 in this week's VCDL Update:
*************************************************
1. ACTION ITEM: A low grade for Virginia Gun Safety Curriculum for public schools
*************************************************
Apparently the final curriculum for an optional class on firearms safety to be taught in Virginia public schools has been approved and it has some serious flaws. I would give it a grade of D.
For starters in talking about firearms safety, it talks about the assassinations of Abraham Lincoln, John F. Kennedy, and Martin Luther King, Jr.!! What does the targeted murder of a political figure have to do with gun safety? That would be like a driver's education class talking about how car bombs are used by terrorists to blow up innocent men, women, and children!
For kindergarten, the curriculum talks about people who legitimately have guns, "Helpers who carry a gun as part of their job." Police, military, and park rangers. Fine and dandy, but NOTHING about mommy and daddy having a gun for protecting the family. Nope, just me being a radical, I guess. How silly of me. Of course only "government officials" have guns for a good purpose!
In higher grades, it becomes "People who use guns to protect." You guessed it, ONLY government officials are shown. No way a parent would have a gun to protect. They do acknowledge that someone might own a gun for hunting, target shooting, or if an actor in a movie.
This true/false question is asked as part of the curriculum:
"4. Hunting and sport shooting are responsible reasons for an adult to have a gun. True False"
There is true, but there is no mention of self-defense as a responsible reason for having a gun in the curriculum. How are these children going to look at their parents if they own guns, but don't hunt or target shoot? Sounds like the answer is "irresponsible."
The company that developed the publication is RJK and Associates - a company that deals with COMMUNITY VIOLENCE (http://www.rjkandassociates.com/about-us/). What does a firm that deals with violence know about gun safety? Probably as much as they know of the mating habits of tuna fish. Why didn't Virginia Department of Education go to an actual Virginia-based authority on gun safety - the NRA - to draft this curriculum?
THIS CURRICULUM IS UNACCEPTABLE. As written it feels as if it as much government indoctrination as it is firearms safety.
I will be contacting the Governor's Office about this on Monday and I will let you know what actions they plan on taking to fix this flawed curriculum.
If you would like to send an email to Dr. Patricia Wright, the Superintendent of Public Education for the Virginia Department of Education, here is her email:
Patricia.Wright@doe.virginia.gov
You should be polite, but firm, saying that you oppose this curriculum for its skewed, unbalanced agenda, and for implying that murders and assassinations are somehow connected with "gun safety." Ask why parents aren't listed as people who use guns to protect instead of just government employees? Ask why a firm which specializes in community violence was chosen to create a curriculum on gun safety, something that is totally unrelated to community violence. Since the curriculum was supposed to be centered around the NRA's Eddie Eagle program, ask why the NRA was not asked to write the curriculum instead.
Here is a link to the curriculum:
http://www.doe.virginia.gov/boe/meetings/2011/09_sep/agenda_items/item_b.pdf
Last edited:
2a4all
Regular Member
Dr. Wright:
I write to express my extreme displeasure with the newly adopted Gun Safety curriculum which is offered for use in the Elementary Schools of the Commonwealth.
I am a firearm owner, carry for self defense, and enjoy recreational shooting with both rifles and handguns, but I am not a hunter. I am also intrigued by the history and technology of firearms and of those who developed them, who made significant contributions to our American way of life. I spend considerable time learning the applicable laws and regulations which infringe on every citizen's constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and actively promote the safe and responsible use of them.
I take great exception to the contents of this new curriculum in that it conveys that firearms are to be feared, not respected. This program makes no reference to individuals who choose to own firearms for personal protection, and in so doing strongly suggests that only "government agents" should have them for this purpose. In fact, children are asked to identify "appropriate users" of firearms and parents or other family members who do have them for personal protection are not listed in this category.
Teaching a child to report a gun that he might find in the bushes is extremely risky. Hiding weapons when they're not needed is a common practice of gang bangers to avoid weapons charges. The kids in the neighborhood know where these weapons are, and leave them alone because of who owns them. About the only thing more dangerous would be to convince a kid to report the location of a drug dealer's stash to the police.
The curriculum references the Code of Virginia, Section 18.2-308 as the "law of the land" regarding firearms carry. However, this law only addresses Concealed Carry, which requires a permit. The other option for carry is known as Open Carry, which requires no permit and is not prohibited by law. Omitting this important issue leaves these impressionable children with the notion that anyone not a "community helper" who is openly carrying a firearm is somehow unacceptable.
I fail to see what relevance the Lincoln, Kennedy & King assassinations, tragic as they were, have to firearm safety. In fact the link between "gun violence" and firearm safety proposed in this curriculum on the basis of those events, is weak at best. The safe or unsafe handling of firearms is not a component of "gun violence". Better examples of unsafe gun handling would have been Plaxico Burris and Dick Chaney. Fortunately, no one died as a result of their carelessness, yet only Plaxico received jail time. There are well-established rules for the safe handling of firearms. Why aren't these taught, as opposed to having 10 year olds making up their own?
The curriculum mentions that students may learn of firearms through video games. I'm afraid that they learn a lot more about violence than firearms in these games. My teenage grandson is an avid "Call to Duty" player, and I offered to take him to the range so he could experience the difference between shooting a virtual M1 Garand and a real one. He accepted, but has declined further offers because he doesn't like the noise. Keep in mind that most of those M1s were carried and fired by teenagers only a couple of years older than he.
Firearms safety should be taught in our schools. It is an important part of our American heritage, but this program is, as we firearms enthusiasts say, "Not even on the paper.". Please withdraw this curriculum immediately.
I write to express my extreme displeasure with the newly adopted Gun Safety curriculum which is offered for use in the Elementary Schools of the Commonwealth.
I am a firearm owner, carry for self defense, and enjoy recreational shooting with both rifles and handguns, but I am not a hunter. I am also intrigued by the history and technology of firearms and of those who developed them, who made significant contributions to our American way of life. I spend considerable time learning the applicable laws and regulations which infringe on every citizen's constitutional right to keep and bear arms, and actively promote the safe and responsible use of them.
I take great exception to the contents of this new curriculum in that it conveys that firearms are to be feared, not respected. This program makes no reference to individuals who choose to own firearms for personal protection, and in so doing strongly suggests that only "government agents" should have them for this purpose. In fact, children are asked to identify "appropriate users" of firearms and parents or other family members who do have them for personal protection are not listed in this category.
Teaching a child to report a gun that he might find in the bushes is extremely risky. Hiding weapons when they're not needed is a common practice of gang bangers to avoid weapons charges. The kids in the neighborhood know where these weapons are, and leave them alone because of who owns them. About the only thing more dangerous would be to convince a kid to report the location of a drug dealer's stash to the police.
The curriculum references the Code of Virginia, Section 18.2-308 as the "law of the land" regarding firearms carry. However, this law only addresses Concealed Carry, which requires a permit. The other option for carry is known as Open Carry, which requires no permit and is not prohibited by law. Omitting this important issue leaves these impressionable children with the notion that anyone not a "community helper" who is openly carrying a firearm is somehow unacceptable.
I fail to see what relevance the Lincoln, Kennedy & King assassinations, tragic as they were, have to firearm safety. In fact the link between "gun violence" and firearm safety proposed in this curriculum on the basis of those events, is weak at best. The safe or unsafe handling of firearms is not a component of "gun violence". Better examples of unsafe gun handling would have been Plaxico Burris and Dick Chaney. Fortunately, no one died as a result of their carelessness, yet only Plaxico received jail time. There are well-established rules for the safe handling of firearms. Why aren't these taught, as opposed to having 10 year olds making up their own?
The curriculum mentions that students may learn of firearms through video games. I'm afraid that they learn a lot more about violence than firearms in these games. My teenage grandson is an avid "Call to Duty" player, and I offered to take him to the range so he could experience the difference between shooting a virtual M1 Garand and a real one. He accepted, but has declined further offers because he doesn't like the noise. Keep in mind that most of those M1s were carried and fired by teenagers only a couple of years older than he.
Firearms safety should be taught in our schools. It is an important part of our American heritage, but this program is, as we firearms enthusiasts say, "Not even on the paper.". Please withdraw this curriculum immediately.
Last edited:
Marco
Regular Member
Hope the Op's of the letters posted don't mind but I posted them on another website (VAGT) as sample letters.
I sent emails to Dr. Wright, Dr. Jeck (Superintendednt of Greene Co PS) and Gov. McDonnell.
I sent emails to Dr. Wright, Dr. Jeck (Superintendednt of Greene Co PS) and Gov. McDonnell.
nuc65
Activist Member
I also wrote the governor via the contact page on the governor's website.
VCDL President
Centurion
Governor
I have a call into the Governor's office. My contact is going to have the appropriate person contact me shortly.
I have a call into the Governor's office. My contact is going to have the appropriate person contact me shortly.