Not concerned about kids, just anti-gun
Via Alphecca, comes this bit of news:
Eddie Eagle – a feathered National Rifle Association cartoon character who teaches children how not to handle guns – could actually be harmful, says an alderman opposed to a Police Department plan to use Eddie in programs for children.
The City Council will decide Tuesday whether the Racine Police Department can order hundreds of coloring books from the NRA for no charge and use them in conjunction with lectures the department holds with children.
[…]
Opposition Alderman Pete Karas, who is leading the charge against the police department’s efforts, said the booklets are harmful and ineffective, teaching children that guns are for adults, which could further a child’s interest in the weapons.
“These are things that usually aren’t brought up to children,” Karas said. “This is an introduction.”
In other news, if you don’t talk to your kids about drinking, smoking, drugs, playing with matches, and sex; they’ll never drive drunk, smoke, get high, set your house on fire, or become parents in high school.
Kids should be educated about many dangerous things and guns are one of those things. Eddie Eagle teaches kids how to react to finding guns and has been credited with saving lives. What Eddie Eagle teaches is, if you find a gun:
Why Pete Karas is such an idiot, I don’t know.
Update: David has more on Mr. Karas:
But this is the kind of nonsense we’ve come to expect from Racine’s Green Party Alderman Pete Karas, who is organizing a demonstration demanding his constituents be disarmed under force of arms–and he no doubt will have a gaggle of ninnies with him bleating in agreement.
Here’s Pete’s site.
September 29th, 2005 at 9:47 am
I’ll say it right now:
They want more dead kids.
…
Let that sink in.
They want more dead kids.
It’s the only POSSIBLE explanation.
They realize that their schemes have, by an overwhelmingly large majority, been rejected by the population of the United States.
They’re losing.
Badly.
The VAST majority (46/50 = 92%) of states allow concealed carry. Of those states, another vast majority are Shall Issue (38/46=83%).
Florida’s “Castle Doctrine” is catching on – we’re seeing the horror in England of people that dare to defend themselves (with apparently sharp sticks and knitting needles) and then getting a stiffer penalty than the criminal.
They’re losing.
The only thing they have left is more dead kids.
The less educated a child is about firearms, the more likely they are to pick one up and start pulling the trigger when they find one. Not only that, but the gun-grabbers are intentionally white-washing guns out of existence – witness the ear-brushing (that’s my new term) of Steppenwolf’s “Born to be Wild” in the new Disney “Herbie” movie.
Kids that don’t know anything about guns and are told, repeatedly, that guns are bad, no one should have guns, etc. (hmmm. Shades of the War on Drugs, no?) are going to want to experiment, to play with them, should they find them.
And that’s a recipe for death and mayhem, and that provides the perfect platform for the anti-gun forces to step in, dip their hands in the blood of the children, and renew their call for more gun control. “If it saves the life of just one child”…
Fucking ghouls.
This is a clarion call to ALL of us gunnies, folks. Teach your kids well. Teach your friends’ children well. Spread the word. Counter the anti-gun movement’s lies, distortions, half-truths, and fear mongering with facts, facts, and more facts.
September 29th, 2005 at 10:40 am
Well, that’s a helluva accusation and I hope you’re wrong.
September 29th, 2005 at 11:12 am
Unc,
Given their proclivity to dance with glee in the blood of dead children (it was HOURS after Columbine that they started calling for more gun control), I don’t think I can be blamed for thinking the worst of them.
At the VERY best, they hate guns with such a blinding passion that ANYTHING they see as even vaguely connected to guns must be wrong in their eyes and therefore should be stopped/banned/forbidden, etc.
That’s being the MOST charitable.
Because how else could you POSSIBLY explain opposition to a program whose aim is to educate kids about the dangers of guns and how to proceed should they find one???
The Eddie Eagle program does NOT take kids shooting. It does NOT involve any sort of familiarization with firearms. The tenets are Stop, Don’t Touch, Tell an Adult.
How the hell can anyone object to that?
Not to mention the GLARING hypocrisy – these are many of the same people that advocate sex ed in elementary school because “the kids are going to do it anyways, might as well have them be safe”.
They view teaching a kid to “Stop, Don’t Touch, Tell an Adult” when discovering a firearm as having the potential to make kids want to play with guns; yet see no link between teaching a kid to put a condom on a banana and pre- to early- teen sexual activity?
No. I don’t buy it. It’s not that they don’t want kids to become familiar with guns. They want them intentionally ignorant of them.
Maybe the reasoning is more benign – maybe they just hope that if they can raise a generation or two completely blind to guns and gun culture that the gun culture will go away.
But I have a hard time buying it in light of the anti-gun movement’s propensity to lie, lie, and lie some more.
September 30th, 2005 at 8:52 am
Wow. Apparently I frightened everyone else off.
Sorry Unc…
October 3rd, 2005 at 1:40 am
[…] Agent Save Uncle finds a strange new argument that teaching safety is unsafe, well…strange. “Yes”, Quasim thought to himself, “I will be reading reports on Earth for another 250 years if this kind of thinking keeps up”. […]