GOPer introduces bill for gun training in high school because “the more guns we have the safer we are”

January 23, 2013
By

A new bill in South Carolina that would create a new high school class for gun training was introduced by Republican State Sen. Lee Bright, focusing on firearm safety and the Second Amendment. Bright told Eyewitness News that the school shooting in Newtown, Conn., made him rethink the Second Amendment. “I believe the more guns we have the safer we are, because had there been someone in Newtown with a weapon, had it been a teacher, they could have stopped it early,” he said.

MOAR guns!

MOAR guns!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Bright further added, “Because had there been someone in Newtown with a weapon, had it been a teacher, they could have stopped it early.”

The Huffington Post reports:

The “South Carolina Gun Safety Program” would teach students to properly use a firearm, safety techniques and the history of the Second Amendment. The course would be offered as an elective and would take place at an off-campus shooting range.

“We’ve got football, we’ve got basketball, and we’ve got baseball,” Bright told WSPA. “I think if they had a hunting team, it would be a great idea.”

Apparently, Bright and I went to very different high schools. Somehow baseball and target shooting are now paralleled. Creationism is taught in schools over science. Our kids are being dumbed down. Welcome to 2013 where more guns = safer classrooms.  Guns in high school: What could go wrong?

H/T: Mr. Sweetie aka: @ComgenKDT

Image: Raw Story.

Tags: , , , ,

  • Slartibartfast

    We defend our President————–with men with guns
    We defend our Congressmen———with men with guns
    We defend our Governors————-with men with guns
    We defend our celebrities————-with men with guns
    We defend our sporting events——-with men with guns
    We defend our jewelry stores——–with men with guns
    We defend our banks——————with men with guns
    We defend our office buildings——–with men with guns
    We defend our factories—————with men with guns
    We defend our courts——————with men with guns
    We defend our children—————-with a sign that reads: “GUN FREE ZONE.

  • Slartibartfast

    Guns being allowed in the hands of law abiding citizens who have proper permits surely won’t make anything fool proof, it’s not a perfect system and technically won’t make anything more safe, but it will SURELY raise the odds of a possible attacker not being able to cause as much destruction as he would have if no guns were present. You cannot take guns away from criminals, only law abiding citizens. Training would reduce accidents caused by improper usage due to take of knowledge. It also may give a little more respect for the deadliness of the weapon. It would allow those who use guns for personal safety to have an early start on proper methods to take in a situation where they would have to defend themselves.So, how about instead of mocking this guy, you take a moment to think about it logically.

  • dawgsrbtr

    The problem is that if teachers had guns it would be a shooting gallery and more people would have been killed. More ikely though they wouldn’t be able to react quickly enough and use the gun in the first place. The gun nut above is running his mouth with nothing to back it up. (They hate it when you call them gun nuts)

    • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

      plus do we really want to teach young kids how to be sharpshooters, well trained assassination experts, while they still struggle with teenage anger/relationship/manic hormonal issues? Gun/weapon safety awareness I don’t mind but not ” gun training “.

      • Slartibartfast

        Tell me, what is the difference between gun/weapon safety awareness and gun training?

        • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

          Awareness is not hands on ” don’t use weapons, dangerous, provide kill stats, discourage violence “, if you do use weapons-here are local, on your own time resources where you could seek proper training, etc. Gun/Weapon training is hands on here’s how you kill someone/thing, here are accessories for your gun–laser sights, silencer and how to use them for maximum effect, rewards for best target, how to pull the trigger and of course how to toggle the safety. Talking about and hands on provide polar opposite emotional response. Meaning talking about does not provide a ” thrill, adrenaline rush ” which young teen/adults could latch onto–form of addiction. Thus talking about and healthy class discussion along the same lines of sex ed would be less problem prone. However, just like religion I feel these matters are best left at home or provided via some outside professional resource. When or if said topics are brought up in k-12 environments, they need to be educational [ history of, consequences, ... ] in nature.
          – best regards

          • Slartibartfast

            Properly teaching awareness involves hands on. It’s like driving a car (thousands more people die in car accidents a year than by a gun, drunk driving alone beats it). You can teach awareness, but at some point you are going to need hands on training. This is the same with a gun. More than likely, some one is going to come across a gun. MOST accidents are caused by lack of knowledge and respect for the gun. No one has ever said they are going to teach these children military tactics. This would be a class on the gun itself. How to load, unload, properly fire, how to handle a gun, etc. No one said these classes would involve training on laser sights and silencers, and I have NO CLUE where you are getting that information from. And yes, some teens will latch onto the thrill and adrenaline rush of shooting a gun. I surely did when I was a child learning. However, I was taught to respect the gun and respect its deadliness before I was ever allowed shooting it. No addiction came out of it. And so what if an addiction to the thrill of shooting a gun comes out of it? As long as the person remains a responsible, law abiding gun owner, what is the harm? Religion is a completely different subject (I am an Atheist, btw). That is a philosophy. Whereas a gun is an object that improper usage can and will cause deaths. Education involves learning all aspects of the world. Guns included. And no one is forcing these kids to take these classes, as stated by the class being offered as an “elective.”

            • http://comgen.blogspot.com/ ComGen

              “you are going to need hands on training ” — I agree with this fully, though under the age of 18 [ k-12 ] these issues are best taught at home or via professional resources. I support sex ed ” awareness ” basic disease/std info, methods to protect oneself from said if/when, general wait until ?some future time? / be responsible. I don’t support ” hands on training ” of sex ed though–engaging in sex per class ” elective ” training course :-) Back to guns. Talk about the history, make aware safety, provide mature young teen/adults and parents with responsible outside professional resources. Teach math, science, history, literature, agriculture, art, technology.

              – best regards

    • Slartibartfast

      You remember that little shooting in Oregon recently? Do you know why it wasn’t as bad as it could have been? Probably not, because the media HARDLY covered it. It was because a concealed carry holder had been armed and responded. He made it known that he had a gun to the attacker. However, he never took a shot and when asked why he said he didn’t have a clear shot and was afraid of missing and hitting some one else. However, his response prompted the attack to stop what he was doing, flee, and then he went and killed himself. This is normal training when taking classes to get a CCW permit.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Gabby-Parsons/1591884120 Gabby Parsons

    let me see, a shooting on an military base, nope no guns there. Armed guards were at Columbine, nope, that didn’t help. Instead of more guns, why not a culture that reveres life and diplomacy?

    • Slartibartfast

      Maybe you should get your facts straight because ONLY the MP on a military base are allowed carrying a gun. Soldiers are NOT allowed to carry loaded weapons unless they are in the designated areas where weapons are given to them for practice. They aren’t even allowed having their own weapons in their barracks. SO, you are corrected. No guns there until the MP were able to respond. And the armed guards you speak of at Columbine, were actually eating lunch outside at the time the shooting happened. They responded as best and fast as they could and actually saved lives. This is actually a great idea. Guns exist, you cannot control guns, because they are inanimate. You can only control those people who use them, and only law abiding citizens use them properly (with occasional accidents, that education would help reduce). Criminals don’t care about laws (IE: Chicago has the strongest gun laws and the most gun murders). You can either embrace guns, or become victimized by them. Knowledge doesn’t hurt anyone. And this is not calling for “more guns.” This is calling for proper education and allowance of those who ALREADY OWN guns and have proper permits and training to be allowed to carry in a school. Did you know that pretty much all of mass shootings have happened at “Gun Free Zones” where it was illegal to posses a weapon? Why? Because its an easy target. Maybe, instead of our media giving crazed people ideas of where to do their next shooting, we can get a message out there that these spots MAY have one, or more people with a weapon to fire back, they will think twice about choosing that destination for their next target.

Related Posts