Children, guns, education... looking for input

[sarisataka]

This discussion thread was locked as off-topic by Sissyk (a host of the General Discussion forum).

In advance of the 20/20 report tomorrow night I have been asked by a local school about options for gun safety education for children (I contract with the school as a security/safety consultant). I informed them that essentially the only program out there is the NRA's Eddie Eagle. While not rejecting it absolutely, the admin is hesitant to use NRA material as it could be seen as having a bias- the program may be mandatory, opt-in or opt-out, TBD but they want high participation with the support of parents.

So to wishing a politically neutral, safety oriented program, they have asked me to develop a proposal and plan for teaching the children. I of course said no problem, but my background is in adult education. I am trying to drop all of my pre-conceived notions and ideas and create the best program possible.

My question is, what would you all here on DU like a gun safety course for children to include?

-School is pre-K to 8th grade, so it may require several variants to account for age.
-It would be preferred to mesh with the current school day so taught in a 20 or 60 minute block, multiple blocks may be available but a single session is ideal.
-Student body is racially and ethnically diverse, living mostly in a middle class first tier suburb.

Thanks in advance for any/all input

[clarice]

1. The silence is deafening. nt

[NutmegYankee]

23. You waited a whole 4 minutes to post that response...

Which was to a post made at midday on a workday. How can that even be taken seriously?

[MO_Moderate]

2. The Eddie Eagle program is superb

and IF the children are truly the focus, it is what should be used. The children should not take a back seat to petty political BS.

[CreekDog]

42. does Eddie the Eagle teach that lead shot harms the environment?

does Eddie the Eagle teach that shooting causes lead exposure among the shooters and those who are exposed to the shooter if they don't properly clean or deal with their clothing after shooting?

[X_Digger]

3. Eddie Eagle is politically neutral, but probably too simple for >3rd grade.

It really comes down to:

Stop. Don't touch. Leave the area. Tell an adult.

There is no NRA branding on materials, no NRA literature in the packages, nada.

Seems a bit silly to throw out the baby with the bathwater on this one.

ETA: eddie eagle is meant for pre-k to 3rd grade.

[Half-Century Man]

4. Ideas from me to consider.

Teach them to differences in types of firearms, so they might be helpful witnesses in the worst case scenario.
Teach them the basics on how guns work mechanically, so they know what to expect around guns.
Proper range safety
Proper procedure if finding a gun.
Instill a devotion to safe storage principles.
Remove the mystery, remove the Hollywood mythos, remove whatever bad habits which they might have gotten from other sources.

[upaloopa]

32. Fuck that

You teach your kid gun lore if you want but leave my kids out!
We have enough gun owners thank you.!

[Throd]

5. The basic fundamentals of gun safety should be taught to all kids

Don't touch any gun without a responsible adult around, treat every gun like it is loaded, don't point it an anything you don't intend to shoot, etc...

My dad taught this to my sister and I when I was about 8 years old...

[aikoaiko]

6. Contact Ray Miltenberger

TEACHING SAFETY SKILLS TO CHILDREN TO PREVENT GUN PLAY: AN EVALUATION OF IN SITU TRAINING


Here is his vita: http://cfs.cbcs.usf.edu/_docs/bios/Miltenberger01_14.pdf

He is an applied behavior analyst who has done some stuff to push beyond Eddie the Eagle programs (which he finds weaknesses in). He'll probably send you reprints of his work or have a suggestion for a canned program. I saw him speak a couple of times at conferences. You can also access his articles for pay online or at a university library.

Raymond G. Miltenberger*, Brian J. Gatheridge, Melisa Satterlund, Kristin R. Egemo-Helm, Brigitte M. Johnson, Candice Jostad, Pamela Kelso, Christopher A. Flessner

DOI: 10.1901/jaba.2005.130-04

2005 Society for the Experimental Analysis of Behavior
Issue Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis
Volume 38, Issue 3, pages 395–398, Fall 2005

Keywords: safety skills;behavioral skills training;in situ training;children;firearm injury protection

This study evaluated behavioral skills training with added in situ training for teaching safety skills to prevent gun play. Following baseline, each child received two sessions of behavioral skills training and one in situ training session. Additional in situ training sessions were conducted until the child exhibited the safety skills (don't touch the gun, get away, and tell an adult). All children acquired and maintained the safety skills at a 3-month follow-up. In addition, of the 7 children assessed in a dyad situation, all exhibited the correct skills in the presence of another child.

Oh, heres a link to the article.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1226173/

[sarisataka]

9. He sounds like a good resource

I'll have to make his acquaintance

[aikoaiko]

12. He's one of the few people who does actually testing...

...to see how well the training worked or not.

[kcr]

7. The criticism of the program is that it does not work

Children will play with guns anyway, even if they've been taught gun safety through the program. This is where the squawking about it being"political" from some comes in.

[sarisataka]

10. While the goal is zero injuries

They realize that is impossible. They teach sex ed but know somewhere, sometime, someone will get pregnant or an STD. Hopefully education will help get as close to zero as possible.

[kcr]

14. But sex education actually works.

So no real comparison there. Also, no gun? No deadly accident is going to happen. That's a 100% certainty. Relying on safety programs that don't work means more kids are going to keep getting killed. What Eddie Eagle does is provide the NRA with a tool to say See? We can make guns safe for kids! It's a lie.

[sarisataka]

15. No gun?

It would be nice but likely an above average number of kids live in a home with a gun, given MNs hunting popularity.
A single safety program will not be the be-all-end-all but it is one portion. Adults should be responsible enough to secure guns at all times, but they are not. In that case, educating children to avoid a dangerous device seems prudent.

As for EE I have no problem with it but it is know as the NRA program. Edit to add*> Actually I do have a bit of an issue. I think it waters down the danger message too much. I have more faith in children's ability to handle real world information than many do. IMO the message gun acident=death is not inappropriate. But as I said, teaching children is not my forte<* That causes a visceral reaction in many just with the association, hence the school's desire for an alternate program. Unfortunately there are no other programs; no GC group has stepped forward with an alternative. We are going to try to create an alternative. I cannot say I will be successful in creating something equal or better, but if I do not try it will not happen. The fallback will likely be EE.

[kcr]

18. Adults should be responsible

But they aren't. Pretending that gun safety education aimed at children will help won't solve anything. Having faith doesn't change the fact that it doesn't work. The solution is to do something about the guns. Whether it's doing something about the adults handling the guns or the guns themselves, teaching children gun safety isn't the solution.

[sarisataka]

21. While this is a bit of a tangent

Do you then think children should not be taught the dangers of poisons. Bleach, detergents, cleaners should all be locked out of children's hands but it doesn't always happen. That is a simple fact.
We teach kids these things are dangerous and they should not touch them. Do you see a parallel here with guns or do you think Mr. Yuk and all of the other things children are taught about poisons is not a solution either?


I think there should be education and storage requirements for adults who own guns but that is outside of the scope of this project. I would be more than happy to offer such a class to the parents in conjunction with their children's education. It may be that such a thing will come to pass.

[upaloopa]

33. Include guns in the teaching of safety but not as an separate item

out of context with everything else.

[kcr]

40. For one thing, many of those poisons are necessary for households

And parents have a high understanding of their dangers. They aren't marketed the way guns are. The two don't compare the same way. We do teach them the dangers. But there isn't the danger that in doing so, we're sending the message that they're safer. No one is going to leave a bottle of bleach open by their bed for protection because they think their kid isn't going to drink it because they took a safety course so everything's okay. Parents will still keep the bottles of bleach out of reach.

[NYC_SKP]

16. So, you're saying that it doesn't work, but you offer NO proof, so we shouldn't teach safety at all?

Further, you suggest sex education works so that's OK.

You like your solution, no guns, but that's not ever going to happen so we really need to teach kids the safety that they need to know because they may, one day, come across one.

No program is 100%, but there's no excuse NOT to teach safety.

It doesn't have to come from the NRA.

[kcr]

19. Twisty twisty twisty

I said no gun means zero chance a child gets shot. Meaning a no gun in a child's hands. The context of the discussion should have made that clear.

There is plenty of excuses not to focus on teaching child gun safety. For one thing, it can give a false sense of safety and security that guns are safer around them, thus increasing the danger that they will be shot or killed with guns. My solution for gun safety with my kids was keeping them away from guns and not having them in my home. It was 100% effective. Spreading the idea that that you can teach kids to be safe around guns to make guns safer around kids is a false and dangerous idea.

[NYC_SKP]

20. Well, if only we could send you and your gun safety teachings into every home in America.

But we can't.

Just like some mom's and dad's are great teachers of, say, art or history, but that doesn't mean the rest of America's learners don't need to have teachers and classes.

What you call a "false sense of safety" I call, "don't touch the gun, call an adult"; not "don't worry about it, it's a safe gun".

What is the most dangerous idea in this thread is that you think that kids, other peoples' kids, should NOT be provided with instruction that teaches them to leave guns alone.

That's sick and twisted, IMO.

I want every child in America to have annual mandatory gun danger awareness classes, and possibly parents, too.

My idea is better.

[kcr]

26. the thing is, kids are taught that. Then they do it anyway when no one is looking

because the lure of the guns is just too much.

THe problem with offering these classes is the same parents who aren't very receptive to begin with are going to take the wrong message from this. The message should be strong and forceful and repeated that if you're going to bring a gun in to your home, it is a danger to your children and you must keep it away from them. Guns should never be marketed or presented in any way as something that can be safe around children. They are a danger being introduced. If parents insist on having them in the home. they have to see them as the dangers they are and take every measure, every precaution to keep them away from their children. Safety courses make it worse because they will think their children won't play with them and therefore won't be as much of a danger. Tragedy will result.

[NYC_SKP]

30. You don't seem to have a lot of faith in teachers, yet you say you can teach them how to behave.

That's odd.

There's no reason that a training can't focus on telling parents to expect the worst, don't have guns and if you have to have them lock them the hell up or your kid will look like this (insert bloody slide ala old drivers ed classes).

Not addressing guns at all just seems like a hopeless approach, we should be able to agree that something can be done on the educational lever.

I can't support doing nothing at all because of a believe it will make things worse. It's in the details. It can be done.

[kcr]

37. Why does it seem like I have no faith in teachers?

I have all the faith in the world in my kids' teachers. But if someone claimed they could teach them brain surgery, I'd have to disagree all the same. That isn't evidence of my lack of faith in them, is it?

Where did I say not to address guns at all? Just don't sell parents a bill of goods by implying you're making guns safer for their kids with these safety courses that don't work.

[sarisataka]

49. when I teach adult firearms courses

I have a section on "how not to go viral" with several youtube videos of stupidity in action. I include several photos taking in combat that clearly show the effects of high velocity projectiles on the human body. I do not think they are child appropriate-

[CreekDog]

31. How about teaching kids the dangers of lead and pollution from shooting?

No exposure to lead should come from an optional activity however.

[NYC_SKP]

53. I would support that.

We don't need to be firing pellets of heavy metals into the environment.

As you indicate, it's not so much an immediate teaching point, but it could be a part of a comprehensive discussion.

[upaloopa]

36. You bring a gun into your home you also bring

the chance someone in the home will be killed with it. It is your choice.
To others it is a bad choice.
The problem I see is that gun owners see the world through a completely different paradigm then most people. You see a gun as a natural part of life. We don't.

[The Straight Story]

22. So your kids had no friends and never played in the park?

Just about everyone I grew up with had a gun in their home, so it is not just about your home. And kids do find things while out playing (I have found pill bottles, knives, etc at the creek over the years).

You can, of course, choose to keep kids ignorant of guns - but then you might have problems in history class when discussing revolutions or wars, politics class discussing rights of citizens, etc.

Knowledge used to be a progressive ideal and not something we feared.

[kcr]

34. Now this is just downright hysterical

I can't speak to what they might be telling you in any fringe whacko news sources, but I assure you, no one is calling for the removal of the depiction of guns in the school books

I grew up with guns in my home, too. I grew up in an area where hunting was pretty popular. But my parents knew better than to trust that kids could be trusted around guns. They were pretty smart.

Knowledge is indeed a progressive ideal. That's why I'm often puzzled when some turn to rather non progressive ideals spread by decidedly right wing groups. They're duped all in the name of the all mighty dollar ultimately. It's sad. All the ridiculous talking points we end up dealing with, the ridiculous nonsense comparisons, that make me wonder how progressive minded people get sucked in. I don't get it.

[Lost_Count]

8. The Eddie Eagle program is solid...

Thought it is focused on pre-K to 3rd grade so it may be a bit basic for the older kids...

If you see a gun:
STOP!
Don't Touch.
Leave the Area.
Tell an Adult.


Eddie Eagle is never shown touching a firearm, and he does not promote firearm ownership or use. The program prohibits the use of Eddie Eagle mascots anywhere that guns are present. The Eddie Eagle Program has no agenda other than accident prevention - ensuring that children stay safe should they encounter a gun. The program never mentions the NRA. Nor does it encourage children to buy guns or to become NRA members.

http://eddieeagle.nra.org/

If it were me I would use that program for the younger kids.

The older ones gets a bit stickier with the politics but it's hard to go wrong with the basic commandments and you could even create an individual product.

If it were me I'd have one slide with the rules and then just run scenarios with the kids.

Variants range from the NRA big 3, to Cooper's 4 and all the way up to 10 or 15.

[sarisataka]

11. I have ordered EE materials

For them to evaluate. We are early in the planning at this point. It would be nice to teach this year but it might be fall before the administration and board feel ready.

We may end up using EE for the youngest, a more advanced for older and there is an idea of adding anger management presented by the psycholgist with the middle school age.

[petronius]

13. Speaking as a former 8th grader, my answer is "lots of range time!"

Seriously, for that age group, I'd say the emphasis could be less about guns themselves, and more about strategies for 'opting out' - handling the inevitable peer pressure to participate in potentially risky situations, teaching them that it's possible to leave or decline without fear of being a dork (or whatever the kids say these days). I have no idea how you do that, of course...

As for gun instruction itself, it seems that the good old "don't touch, leave, get an adult" is a nice starting point. When they inevitably ignore that, perhaps adding on the basic safety rules of gun handling (especially that one about not pointing guns at people). And maybe letting them know that removing the magazine is not necessarily the same thing as unloading the firearm.

Of course, you could just bring in a bucketload of (unloaded) firearms. Let them play with them until they get bored, and maybe they'll realize that sneaking into Dad's gun safe is a lame waste of time...

[sarisataka]

17. While I like range time...

this is going to be a non-shooting course. Whether there will be any display of imitation, real guns or nothing will ultimately be decided by the school board's parents and teachers.
My choice would be to allow the oldest grades to handle deactivated guns to actually see what the (non) mystery is, but I will present all three options with no endorsement to allow the board to vote their own way.

[CreekDog]

28. I think people should be able to opt their kids out of a pro gun class

[sarisataka]

43. The goal is to be niether

pro nor anti. If anything the message will lean anti in that guns are very dangerous and a bullet cannot be called back or damage undone.
Even so, being a controversial subject I believe it will be on an opt-out basis

[CreekDog]

44. would you teach about lead pollution from ammunition and shooting in the class?

both the dangers to the environment from shooting, to animals and also to people exposed to the shooting (breathing lead) and/or shooter (via lead residue on clothing and what-not)?

[sarisataka]

48. I think that would be more for

adults or older children who may already be involved in shooting. I do not mind promoting the use of environmentally less damaging ammunition.

We are more looking at teaching a do not touch message to start.

[CreekDog]

29. What about kids whise parents don't want their kids shooting?

Is that elective?

[petronius]

35. I don't think there should/need be any shooting at all in a safety course

like the OP described. (The previous subject line was in jest.)

Of course, shooting sports as elective PE activities are appropriate and desirable, IMO...

[CreekDog]

41. there should be no shooting involving children unless the ammunition is lead free

agreed right?

[petronius]

46. Minimizing children's exposure to lead is a very good idea, yes... (nt)

[G_j]

24. require the parents to attend also. nt

[sarisataka]

27. The idea of a parent-child class

is on the table. There is concern that attendance would be low but perhaps not. As we get closer to completion a newsletter will go out to gauge the interest of such a class.

[CreekDog]

39. i wouldn't attend a pro-gun class

[Throd]

47. It is pro-safety, not pro-gun.

[CreekDog]

25. Teach them that guns are dangerous.

That guns aren't toys.

You can add to that obviously but those are requirements...guns are dangerous, period.

[HockeyMom]

38. Teachers and staff can say that every day, and do

REQUIRE that kids, and non-gunner parents, have to take a gun safety course? No, no, no.

[sarisataka]

45. That is the two sentence summary

now to figure out how to plant it as firmly as possible into a child's brain. If successful, these children would grow up to be the next generation of gun owners (or not gun owners) and pass along to there children the warnings of the risks associated with guns.

[BainsBane]

50. Keep your guns locked up and away from kids

or spend twenty years in prison, or more. Any parent whose child accesses one of their guns and kill with it should be convicted of felony murder, period.

What's next? How to teach your kids how to "safely" cook meth in the kitchen? I can think of no grater sign of national sickness than the very idea of giving guns to children. No wonder we are the most violent nation in the world when we have people who justify teaching children to kill.

[notadmblnd]

51. Where I live, there's the Oakland County Sportsmens club.

My dad's a member. Grandpa wanted my son to go hunting with him so he had to take a gun safety course before he could get a license to hunt. He was around 12 or 13.

I do think over all the group leans right, but as far as I can see, they're pretty tolerant.My son is half African American and they're bugging him to become a member.

So, if you have a local sportsmen's club, maybe give them a call and talk to them? When my son took the course it cost seven dollars. Parents were required to attend the first session. The very first thing they did was play a powerful video of a young man killed senselessly while hunting.

[okaawhatever]

52. Here is a link to a separate program from EE it's called childsafe. It's sponsored by the Nat's

shooting sports foundation.

http://www.projectchildsafe.org/

[lindysalsagal]

54. I really hope this is a joke thread.

I'm a teacher, and if they tell me I have to "teach" anything about guns, I'm taking a personal day.

This society is totallly sick if they think children have to be responsible for adults who arm themselves for no good reason.

Let me say this clearly: Children cannot be responsible for guns, in any way, shape, or form.

There's a reason we don't give kids cars or money: They're not ready.

This is another person justifying their job with something that doesn't need to be done. It's as nutty as teaching children what to do with nuclear missles, or stolen diamonds. It's nuts.

We're stealing children's childhoods, and it's time we admit it.

[Throd]

55. Best to keep them ignorant.

[Sissyk]

56. Locked

Discuss politics, issues, and current events. No posts about Israel/Palestine, religion, guns, showbiz, or sports unless there is really big news. No conspiracy theories. No whining about DU.

No big news exceptions at this time.

Please consider posting in the gun group.