Firearms Education

While on an online forum (reddit) I ran across a user on the firearms sub that had an idea I would like to share.

One of the primary complaints from the anti-gun rights crowd is that we should not have untrained people with guns in public, where they could potentially do harm to others.  Rather than argue against the fallacy in the logic; that those following the law would somehow be more dangerous than those who don't, this user attempted to work within that constraint.  Working within a constraint is what breeds true creativity, after all.  Also it is hard to argue against proper training. So thank you user xicougar106 for the following.  (Taken with permission, sometimes verbatim)

Add mandatory firearms training to the high school curriculum.  Much like sex-ed.  In fact the arguments against it will be much the same.  I will tackle these as they arise.

"It's not the state's place to teach this."  Much like sex-ed, actually.  But since there is a definite right way and wrong way to handle a firearm, and with disastrous consequences, (again, like sex, think of the safe sex lessons), it is in the interest of the public's well-being that this should be taught.  Also, I will add that maybe if our media had a modicum of schooling on firearms they wouldn't fear them so much, and maybe even call them by the right names.

"This is a parent's job"  Yes, yes it is.  But unless your parent is a certified instructor, you will likely not be taught correctly.  Again this is a direct corollary of sex-ed.

"I don't want my child exposed to this"  There would be an opt out, again, exactly like sex-ed.

"This would encourage bad behavior"  (http://www.cdc.gov/std/stats07/trends.htm)  You can do your own look ups on this but here is the punchline, education does not equal bad behavior, in fact it tends to work the other way.  Many of my friends attended rural high schools.  Trap shooting was part of PE and many kids brought their hunting rifles to school, so they could get in the field faster, after class.  Those schools, tellingly, have not had any shootings.

Now the arguments in favor.

There would be no additional requirement for training needed to obtain permission to carry.  In fact, there would not be a need to obtain permission at all.

The average person would know the immediate effects of shooting someone/something.  The only downside to that is that Hollywood would need to work harder to get effects right.  This would actually remove the detachment from reality that most of the "school shooters" felt.  (note I'm not a psychiatrist, nor do I play one on TV, but seeing first-hand what something does, and how it impacts a life, makes it real.  Like having to care for an egg, or a doll, in you guessed it, sex-ed.)

The general population would be properly educated about firearms.  With education comes the removal of fear.  More education is always better.  This is why I despise media coverage of any firearms related topic.  They spread misinformation.  Whether knowingly or out of ignorance, they perpetuate the lack of knowledge, or more precisely; the possession of incorrect knowledge, which is far worse.

You don't want your kids learning about this on the streets, or from their friends.  Self explanatory.

In fact the arguments for and against, so closely mirror sex-ed, that a truly progressive society would demand both be taught.

The United Home-Owners Association of America

       Everyone online seems to be using readily understood ideas to represent more complex ones.  These are rarely appropriate, and always a gross over-simplification.  But hey, I'll hop right on that bandwagon.  I have a concept that is actually accurate however.  One that will explain why the two-party system is broken beyond repair.
       Imagine the entire country as a subdivision.  A tidy little 50 home neighborhood.  Each household has an average of 2 people.  Most have only 1, but some have many more.  Each house would be represented in the homeowners' association.  Each house would be voting for, and representing their best interests, while preserving common ground, (your rights) and collecting dues from members, (taxes) and compromising when it came to benefiting the neighborhood as a whole.  That is what the association rules (constitution) were written to represent.  That was the vision of the founding fathers.
       What we have now though, is a neighborhood ruled by warring street gangs.  Let's call them Dueces and Royals.  (In some neighborhoods this makes perfect sense).  Neither side represents the interest of any household.  Neither side is making the neighborhood any better.  The protection money extorted from you does not go toward preserving parks (your rights), it goes toward marking territory in the common areas.  The Dueces claim the territories (rights) they choose to represent, and the Royals other territories.  Since neither side can acknowledge the other's claim is valid without sounding weak, no agreements for the common good are ever reached, and the parks (your rights) are destroyed by tagging.  (claiming to represent your interests)
       The rules, (constitution) such as they are, become free-floating, and subject to popular whim.  Any attempt to stand alone, or to side with an outside gang, is met with bullying.  Try telling a hardcore Democrat or Republican you are voting third party.  They won't challenge you on a topic, or series of topics.  They focus on the fact that you will be "Throwing your vote away", or voting for the other side, who are always talked about as though they are evil incarnate.  You are either with us, or against us.  They attempt to bully you into wearing their colors.  The neighborhood, which was originally a nice place, becomes a dump; as neither side is interested in representing any individual household, nor the neighborhood, as a whole.
       And the only way to solve urban blight is to bulldoze the entire neighborhood, and start over.  This time with a fence (campaign laws that don't favor the two biggest parties) and a neighborhood watch. (active, informed voting against the two-party failure.)  You could also move, but the other neighborhoods are generally far worse.  The ones that are better have fewer public places, and higher association dues.

Short Christmas Missive

       We all have better things to do so I will keep this short.  In business there is a practice called "root cause analysis" that is used to find the source of a problem.  Its the equivalent of asking someone you are dating, "What's really bothering you."  (Married people have learned to be more obtuse)  Root cause analysis is useful in real life.  Like next time you ask yourself: "Why do I have so much garbage?"
       Start with buying habits.  You buy things.  regardless of how much or how little you end up with more garbage than you should.  So then turn to the manufacturers.  Most of their superfluous packaging is to prevent theft.  Avoidable by other methods, but not horrible.  Look now to the people who packed that box for the thing you ordered online.  Lots of extra space, lots of foam/air-bags/peanuts/bubble-wrap/corn foam. (real thing, look it up)(http://www.starchtech.com/?gclid=CJCWhJiSkq0CFeQCQAodjmK5lQ)
       Why do they use so much packaging?  Here is the root cause.  Because the people we charge with the safety of our packages, whom we pay for their safe transit from one point to another, are so bad at their jobs.  UPS, The Post Office, Fed Ex, and the others are careless to the point of criminality.  I know you think this is a silly over-reaction, but to compare: if package carriers were the police, we would all be required to wear class four body armor just in case one of them accidentally did something to hurt us.  So the next time you want to blame someone for the trash, blame the real culprits.
       You will note that I did not call this a "Holiday Missive"  That is because I do not celebrate "Holiday"  I celebrate Christmas.  So Merry Christmas.  If my wishing you happiness bothers you that is a reflection of your character, not mine.
       In my time I have worked in the North Shore area of Chicago.  Many times I was wished to have a happy Hanukkah.  Also Chanukah.  Depended on if they were Orthodox or not.  I never once was offended.  I never felt they were just putting my face in it either.  The fact that anyone, of any religious affiliation, wished me to have a happy anything, was heartwarming.  For the record, I always wished them one back.  See goodwill is free.  It can be freely given.  In fact, I felt it meant a bit more from those who knew I was not Jewish myself.  
       So forgive me this silly Christian tradition.  If my wishing you and your loved ones a Merry Christmas bothers you, or in any way troubles your belief system, know that I say it not to be a troll; but rather, because I genuinely wish well to my fellow man.  It doesn't happen often.  Enjoy it.

Merry Christmas
Happy New Year

Sam.

P.S. just found a Google Easter egg.  Try googling Hanuka, or Chanuka.  You will see a garland at the top of the page.  At least today I did.