Fifty one weeks ago I posted an article titled "
John McCain on the Second Amendment".
In that article, I was not only critical but perhaps dismissive of Mr. McCain's position vis-a-vis the "Right to Keep and Bear Arms". His published position was not substantively more appealing than that of Mr. Obabma.
(Is it too late to repeat my disappointment that the Republican Party was unable to offer a truly Republican candidate?)
Recently I received a late, but interesting
comment on that article.
A reader signing himself "Anti gun banner" asked:
What would be wrong with firearms saftey [sic] and penalties for wrongful use of fource [sic]with firearms tought[sic] at a middle school age level?
My response would have to be --- absolutely nothing.
In fact, I received training which introduced some of the elements the commentator described, at Helen McCune Junior High School when I joined the Rifle Team.
This group of middle-school students met once a week (I believe it was Tuesday after school) to practice shooting 'gallery rifles'. There we learned much about gun-handling, safety, and accuracy (and "following the rules").
I'm convinced that this training made better people of all of us.
Note that I later continued my participation in "Gallery Rifle" shooting in High School (Pendleton High School, in Oregon), while also shooting competitively at the "Senior Club", which met on Thursday evenings in the basement of a downtown retail store.
Thus the Middle High School, the Senior High School, and an independent group of adults provided a variety of venues for young people to shoot in a highly technical competitive milieu.
The Junior High School, and the Senior high School, both allowed us to bring our 'personal weapons' to school ... although of course while attending the Middle (Junior) school I did not have a driver's license so I was obliged to use the equipment (rifles, magazines)
provided by the school.In both schools, we participated in "Postal Matches", and occasionally travelled (or hosted) matches involving direct competition with shooters from other schools.
I remember travelling to Pasco, Washington, at least once a year during the six years during which I competed in "Gallery Rifle" during my school years. There I usually threw up at least once because of the combination of compettive stress and the strong aroma of gunsmoke permeating the enclosure of an indoor rifle range.
Vomitting notwithstanding, it was my opinion (at the time, and enhanced since then) that these experiences not only intruduced me to the concepts of Firearms Safety and Good Sportsmanship, it also allowed me and my companions to perceive that the Shooting Sports were not the harbringer to what we now commonly refer to as "School Shootings", but instead were just another way in which young people can compete with each other in a manner which did not necessarily require dependence on having an Athletic Body.
Yes, I was a Geek 50 years ago, and I remain one today.
But looking back on the original question:
"What would be wrong with firearms saftey and penalties for wrongful use of fource with firearms tought at a middle school age level?"
Actually, upon reflection I am disappointed that
Firearms Safety is equated with
Penalties for wrongful use of force with fairarms.
It is, I suspect a sign of the times that these must necessarily be the two primary concerns in 2009.
In 1959, "firearms safety" was assimilated from our fathers who gave us a .22 rifle for our 10th birthday and threatened to take it away from us if they ever saw us using it in an unsafe manner.
When we had demonstrated our ability to safely handle a rifle, they gave us a deer-rifle for our 12th birthday (or Christmas). The gift included the same precautionary note, but by that time it was essentially an empty threat. We were aware of the deadly power of a firearm, and we knew all about firearms safety.
Now, approximately 50 years later, the culture has changed dramatically ... and not to the good.
The firearms training we enjoyed in the 20th century, expected from our fathers, is no longer available.
In this century, the saying "It's a Wise Man who knows his own father" is not only even more valid, but it's a poignant reminder of a culture which has been allowed to fall by the wayside.
No longer is there a strong male presence in the family. No longer is there an experienced shoter, perhaps even a shooter, who is available to teach both son and daughter how to hunt, shoot, and handle firearms safely.
(In my own family, my elder sister had no interest in hunting. But we both learned to shoot ... accurately, and safely. My own children learned the same lessons, in the same way.)
In the aftermath of the break-up of The
Nuclear Family, it is no longer sufficient to rely on the presence of a strong Male parent who is sufficiently experienced to teach these Family Values.
The Male Parent is not only not necessarily "strong" (nor grounded in the fundamentals of Gun Handling", but is Missing, more often than not.
But we still have guns, and we still have children. Our choices are simple. Either:
- We give up the private ownership of firearms;
- We find a way to teach these same Family Values without the support of the Family;
- Or we allow access to guns to people who have learned neither basic firearms safety not the values which enable our children to be safe, respectful members of society.
In that contest, the idea that we should allow our schools to pick up the slack which results from the lack of a strong Male Parental Mentor seems to be the only way to reconcile the newly missing elements of a Responsible, Functional Society.
I don't like it, but there it is.
In that context, I cannot even object too strongly to the idea that part of the things the Schools will be training our children includes "
Penalties for wrongful use of force with firearms."
That is, I know that the concept is necessary to be taught our children, but still I object to the context.
Our children should not be schooled in the penalties. They should be taught that shooting at another person, even by accident, is anethema. They shouldn't be focused on the "Penalties". Instead, they should be focused on the
wrongness of the action.
---
The original question presupposes that our children will be out-of-control. It's misleading in that the concept of 'legal penalties' is not as effective as the concept of 'societal penalties'.
We need to get away from the litigious penalties for "Doing Wrong". Instead, we need to establish in our children the idea that "Doing Wrong" is just ... wrong. And that it will not be accepted.
Fifty years ago, the penalty for a child harming another living person was not a pre-designated number of years in some lockup. It was the virtual ostracism by civilized society, combined with the imperative that acceptance by civilized society was the norm, which was legitimately pursued by us all.
This is part of what is referred to by the common phrase "Family Values".
I've said this before, and I'll say it again: the attempt by a large society to impose legal constraints upon unsafe or unacceptable activity is misguided. The attempt by Government to impose the same code of conduct (typified by "
Family Values") on individuals as would ordinarily be imposed by the Family ... is also misguided.
The ONLY way to reduce the number and chilling 'quality' of public misuse of firearms is to work to re-introduce the concept of Family to the general public, and to provide such community obligations as to make it seem both workable and attractive to both adults and their children.
This is much more difficult than introducing a piece of legislation ... and consequently much more likely to achieve the desired results.
Is it a good idea to require Middle Schools to teach "...
firearms saftey [sic] and penalties for wrongful use of fource [sic]with firearms..."?
No, it's not
But it's not the approach which will achieve the un-stated goals:
No More Columbines!Labels: Competition
Stumble It!
