Article from 'Saturday Night Magazine' May 20, 2000
Any parent knows that the best way to defuse the curiosity of a child is to address it head on, to transform the mysterious inot the mundane. IF memory serves, there is no place more mundane than school. Adding a firearm component to the current curricula in regions where guns are prevalent would achieve two things: it would satisfy the inherent inquisitiveness that children have about guns; and it would allow educators to monitor the reactions children have to the weapons - something that might have been of inestimable value to the faculty of Columbine High School in Colorado.
IN canada, it my be argued that guns aren't prevalent enough - in homes or on the streets - to warrant a proactive approach to gun education. Tragedies such as the one last year in Taber, Alberta, and the recent spate of youth shootings in Toronto indicate otherwise.
Put a kid on a firing range under strict controls, oblige him to fire hundreds of rounds at a circular target over lengthy periods of time, and what happens? Dirty Harry becomes a junior biathlete, without the skis. THe kids who maintain an interest can be funnelled into gun cluds, where they can work through their attraction under the watchful eye of trainers adept at spotting pottential problems.
As long as guns have a mystique, they'll seem powerful. As long as kids feel there's power in guns, they'll be tempted to get their hands on them. And sooner or later someone who possesses a gun is going to want to use it. The solution is to address this desire early on and supply children with the rules of conduct. It's the same principle that lies behind sex education.
Think about it: sex education is taught so that kids will have a better understanding of how their bodies work, why they feel sexual desirees, and how to act (or not) on those desires. Basically, we equip our kids with sexual knowledge so that they'll have the confidence to act responsibly. The same argument holds true for gun education: that, armed with the knowledge and familiarity, kids will be better equiped to think about guns in a responsible manner. (In fact, the classic argument against sex education - that by providing kids with dangerous information they can't handle, we're encouraging them to run out and recklessly try it for themselves - is exactly the objection you're likely to hear raised against gun instruction.)
We accept the natural sexual curiousity of children and teenagers, and hae legislated protection for them in the form of education rather than pretending that the curiosity doesn't exist. Children are curious about guns. We should give them the same protection. We don't want our kids shooting first and aksing questions later.
Any parent knows that the best way to defuse the curiosity of a child is to address it head on, to transform the mysterious inot the mundane. IF memory serves, there is no place more mundane than school. Adding a firearm component to the current curricula in regions where guns are prevalent would achieve two things: it would satisfy the inherent inquisitiveness that children have about guns; and it would allow educators to monitor the reactions children have to the weapons - something that might have been of inestimable value to the faculty of Columbine High School in Colorado.
IN canada, it my be argued that guns aren't prevalent enough - in homes or on the streets - to warrant a proactive approach to gun education. Tragedies such as the one last year in Taber, Alberta, and the recent spate of youth shootings in Toronto indicate otherwise.
Put a kid on a firing range under strict controls, oblige him to fire hundreds of rounds at a circular target over lengthy periods of time, and what happens? Dirty Harry becomes a junior biathlete, without the skis. THe kids who maintain an interest can be funnelled into gun cluds, where they can work through their attraction under the watchful eye of trainers adept at spotting pottential problems.
As long as guns have a mystique, they'll seem powerful. As long as kids feel there's power in guns, they'll be tempted to get their hands on them. And sooner or later someone who possesses a gun is going to want to use it. The solution is to address this desire early on and supply children with the rules of conduct. It's the same principle that lies behind sex education.
Think about it: sex education is taught so that kids will have a better understanding of how their bodies work, why they feel sexual desirees, and how to act (or not) on those desires. Basically, we equip our kids with sexual knowledge so that they'll have the confidence to act responsibly. The same argument holds true for gun education: that, armed with the knowledge and familiarity, kids will be better equiped to think about guns in a responsible manner. (In fact, the classic argument against sex education - that by providing kids with dangerous information they can't handle, we're encouraging them to run out and recklessly try it for themselves - is exactly the objection you're likely to hear raised against gun instruction.)
We accept the natural sexual curiousity of children and teenagers, and hae legislated protection for them in the form of education rather than pretending that the curiosity doesn't exist. Children are curious about guns. We should give them the same protection. We don't want our kids shooting first and aksing questions later.


