MA Gun Grab 2024: Senate bill S.2572

milktree said:
I said nothing of the sort.


I agree with all of that.

My point is that it would never be the feds coming down on state actors. It would be individuals suing state actors. The federal government has nothing to do with it.
Click to expand...
Yes it would be the feds because that's where you would file suit.
And once a department was ordered to cease enforcement, the feds are.the ones that would carry out any contempt orders.
 
This whole attempt to restrict firearms has always been a fugazi.
About power and money as it always is.

My opinion is the state wanting to give a big F you to the scary Bruen decision, because "you aren't going to tell me what to do".

Couple of charts on murder and suicide rates in Massachusetts in 2021 (latest available). Also looked at 2018 just in case covid skewed the data...they were about the same.

With a population of almost 7 million (and shrinking) 152 homicides...very low. Out of those 152 murders 60.5 percent caused by firearms.

Then the other reason the state wants to restrict would be for suicide. Only 22.3 percent of suicides used a firearm.

When you consider how many murders are committed with "Assault weapons"...probably extremely low, can't even find a specific number.

Their time and effort would be better utilized if they started locking up people who are committing crimes and leave the firearms alone.

Mass suicide data

Mass homicide data


Massachusetts homicide rate 2021.JPG


Massachusetts suicide rate 2021.JPG
 
Last edited:
Devils Paintbrush said:
This whole attempt to restrict firearms has always been a fugazi.
About power and money as it always is.

My opinion is the state wanting to give a big F you to the scary Bruen decision, because "you aren't going to tell me what to do".

Couple of charts on murder and suicide rates in Massachusetts in 2021 (latest available). Also looked at 2018 just in case covid skewed the data...they were about the same.

With a population of almost 7 million (and shrinking) 152 homicides...very low. Out of those 152 murders 60.5 percent caused by firearms.

Then the other reason the state wants to restrict would be for suicide. Only 22.3 percent of suicides used a firearm.

When you consider how many murders are committed with "Assault weapons"...probably extremely low, can't even find a specific number.

Their time and effort would be better utilized if they started locking up people who are committing crimes and leave the firearms alone.

Mass suicide data

Mass homicide data


View attachment 864597


View attachment 864599
Click to expand...
There is a very high rate of suicides in a very fragile mentality that happens to be democrats. So there is a connection to liberal gun control.
 
Devils Paintbrush said:
This whole attempt to restrict firearms has always been a fugazi.
About power and money as it always is.

My opinion is the state wanting to give a big F you to the scary Bruen decision, because "you aren't going to tell me what to do".

Couple of charts on murder and suicide rates in Massachusetts in 2021 (latest available). Also looked at 2018 just in case covid skewed the data...they were about the same.

With a population of almost 7 million (and shrinking) 152 homicides...very low. Out of those 152 murders 60.5 percent caused by firearms.

Then the other reason the state wants to restrict would be for suicide. Only 22.3 percent of suicides used a firearm.

When you consider how many murders are committed with "Assault weapons"...probably extremely low, can't even find a specific number.

Their time and effort would be better utilized if they started locking up people who are committing crimes and leave the firearms alone.

Mass suicide data

Mass homicide data


View attachment 864597


View attachment 864599
Click to expand...
Well what I have learned.
White men prefer to hang themselves instead of shooting themselves, black men really don't kill themselves, black men kill more people with firearms and and/or all wepons then any other group. Thanks for the stats. This puts it all into perspective.
 
Do you really want to save lives?

Gun deaths are made up of several categories, the biggest is suicide. It's reasonable to conclude that if a gun is not available and someone wants to kill themselves they will simply find another way. So the focus for this should be mental health.

Another group would be deliberate, premeditated murder. Similar to suicide, if a gun is not available they will simply find another way. They have the time and drive to do so, so gun bans/restrictions have no meaning. Stopping this means addressing the many widely varied motivations, and this would likely cross over it a huge number of subjects/issues. And it can only be addressed there.

The next group has 2 sub-groups, that is heat of the moment killing. This does not include self defence, that is not a "problem" that needs to be solved. This group breaks down to legal and illegal possessors of guns. The fix for those illegally possessing guns and using them to kill doesn't need to be further addressed, it's already illegal. As for the group legally-possessed-guns-used-for-heat-of the-moment-murder or LPGUHMM, there isn't a lot we can do but it's also a very small percentage. As a community the gun culture can apply peer pressure to enforce the understanding of the greater responsibility that comes with gun ownership. We can encourage, not mandate, training. And that gun owners have a responsibility to NOT allow situations to escalate into the use of that gun, this includes the distasteful idea of backing down when confronted if doing so ends the situation (I'm not talking about letting someone beat you or take your property, I'm talking about mean words and hurt feelings. You may want to defend you GF/wife's honor when some guy calls them names, but let's face it, those are just words and not worth killing or dying over, and having a gun on you always includes those possibilities)

And then there is accidental death.
This we can do something about. And we can extend that solution to other types of deadly risks. In fact it may be easier to get it done if positioned as a "Safety Program".
I would hope all here don't need to be told about the importance of gun safety, but at the same time I see some pretty poor habits at the range, mostly among new, younger, shooters. All I can think is they never benefited from having some grizzly old vet slap them on the back of the head at a cold range when as a kid you pick up the gun you were minutes before shooting with a loud "what the F are you doing boy, the range is cold , put that gun down....F'ing idiot"

So this gets to what I'm leading up to, we need a "safety Program" that can, and should, be included in the schools. I'm NOT talking about a "Gun" safety program, but one that covers a number of risks in modern society. Something done in the fist year of highschool when kids are pushing boundaries and doing more stupid stuff. It should include the risks and safe handling of the wide variety of chemicals that are part of a modern household like, detergents, paint, glues, lawn care chem, and on, as well as gases and aerosols, even carbondioxied and mold, or anything that carries the warning "use only in a well ventilated area".
But also include some safe basic tool handling, knife, ax, and saw (similar to the safety aspects of scouting's Totin' Chip), and safe handling of firearms (think Eddie Eagle but a slightly older target audience).
Put together with all the other stuff, it might actually stand a chance.

Anyone willing to push the idea on you legislatures? Proactive is always better than reactive.
 
All we can do is wait it out, and then go from there. Whatever the hell is going to happen will happen. Don't get me wrong I' am
as wound up as everyone else, I'm in the same boat as others, having jobs that require security clearances and spotless records to
work and you know what? If it ALL goes south the border is 8 miles away (Yeah I know I'm lucky) and anything that doesn't make
their damn (it's ok) list will make the trip north. Doesn't make it right, I agree. Reality? This state will never be a gun friendly state\
EVER, UNLESS more of us are actively spreading the word and having the hard conversations with the other side, those folks who are
fearful of firearms, who don't see the need for self protection, or don't understand the sporting side of this thing. Getting others involved
in the fight, on both sides of the political circus we call Mass, educating those who are afraid, and trying to stop this whole shitshow
attack by making our elected idiots focus on the real damn dangers, ie mental health (remember when the state government closed all
the state hospitals and mental health facilities 30 years ago because we didn't have the budget?) and freaking bad guys with guns etc.
Watched Shawn Ryan's interview with Tim Kennedy this morning and I have to agree, sadly, with them both when they say that our
country is fast approaching the "failed state" portion of our history. Sad, but reality unless we can gather more people who feel the same
as us and make our voices heard. Got to stop Rome from burning, welcome new folks here on NES and have the damn hard conversations.
Sorry for the rant folks.
 
Bmcl322 said:
In undergrad, one of my Profs, with charm and a smirk, told us, "More men commit suicide, but more women attempt suicide than men. What does that tell you, class?"

"That women aren't even smart enough to kill themselves."

Everyone in the class laughed. Today, he'd be fired.
Click to expand...
It's more like women crave attention.
 
42! said:
Do you really want to save lives?

Gun deaths are made up of several categories, the biggest is suicide. It's reasonable to conclude that if a gun is not available and someone wants to kill themselves they will simply find another way. So the focus for this should be mental health.

Another group would be deliberate, premeditated murder. Similar to suicide, if a gun is not available they will simply find another way. They have the time and drive to do so, so gun bans/restrictions have no meaning. Stopping this means addressing the many widely varied motivations, and this would likely cross over it a huge number of subjects/issues. And it can only be addressed there.

The next group has 2 sub-groups, that is heat of the moment killing. This does not include self defence, that is not a "problem" that needs to be solved. This group breaks down to legal and illegal possessors of guns. The fix for those illegally possessing guns and using them to kill doesn't need to be further addressed, it's already illegal. As for the group legally-possessed-guns-used-for-heat-of the-moment-murder or LPGUHMM, there isn't a lot we can do but it's also a very small percentage. As a community the gun culture can apply peer pressure to enforce the understanding of the greater responsibility that comes with gun ownership. We can encourage, not mandate, training. And that gun owners have a responsibility to NOT allow situations to escalate into the use of that gun, this includes the distasteful idea of backing down when confronted if doing so ends the situation (I'm not talking about letting someone beat you or take your property, I'm talking about mean words and hurt feelings. You may want to defend you GF/wife's honor when some guy calls them names, but let's face it, those are just words and not worth killing or dying over, and having a gun on you always includes those possibilities)

And then there is accidental death.
This we can do something about. And we can extend that solution to other types of deadly risks. In fact it may be easier to get it done if positioned as a "Safety Program".
I would hope all here don't need to be told about the importance of gun safety, but at the same time I see some pretty poor habits at the range, mostly among new, younger, shooters. All I can think is they never benefited from having some grizzly old vet slap them on the back of the head at a cold range when as a kid you pick up the gun you were minutes before shooting with a loud "what the F are you doing boy, the range is cold , put that gun down....F'ing idiot"

So this gets to what I'm leading up to, we need a "safety Program" that can, and should, be included in the schools. I'm NOT talking about a "Gun" safety program, but one that covers a number of risks in modern society. Something done in the fist year of highschool when kids are pushing boundaries and doing more stupid stuff. It should include the risks and safe handling of the wide variety of chemicals that are part of a modern household like, detergents, paint, glues, lawn care chem, and on, as well as gases and aerosols, even carbondioxied and mold, or anything that carries the warning "use only in a well ventilated area".
But also include some safe basic tool handling, knife, ax, and saw (similar to the safety aspects of scouting's Totin' Chip), and safe handling of firearms (think Eddie Eagle but a slightly older target audience).
Put together with all the other stuff, it might actually stand a chance.

Anyone willing to push the idea on you legislatures? Proactive is always better than reactive.
Click to expand...
A safety program as the one you outline would be considered racist.
 
42! said:
Do you really want to save lives?

....

So this gets to what I'm leading up to, we need a "safety Program" that can, and should, be included in the schools. I'm NOT talking about a "Gun" safety program, but one that covers a number of risks in modern society. Something done in the fist year of highschool when kids are pushing boundaries and doing more stupid stuff. It should include the risks and safe handling of the wide variety of chemicals that are part of a modern household like, detergents, paint, glues, lawn care chem, and on, as well as gases and aerosols, even carbondioxied and mold, or anything that carries the warning "use only in a well ventilated area".
But also include some safe basic tool handling, knife, ax, and saw (similar to the safety aspects of scouting's Totin' Chip), and safe handling of firearms (think Eddie Eagle but a slightly older target audience).
Put together with all the other stuff, it might actually stand a chance.

Anyone willing to push the idea on you legislatures? Proactive is always better than reactive.
Click to expand...

I know a great many teachers. I want no more than about 2% of them teaching freshmen anything about caustic chemicals or hatchets, still less firearms.

Here's what would happen. The schools, resentful that the state is mandating a course into which all freshmen must be scheduled, would do nothing until DESE developed a curriculum for said course. This would take DESE AT LEAST two years, more likely four. Then, the schools would grudgingly implement the course by requiring each department to give up one section of their required classes to this course. This would have the effect of increasing class sizes in every other class, so parents and teachers would both freak out. Even worse, it would be an unfunded mandate: the chemicals and axes and saws used in the course would have to come out of the general budget, meaning another year or two during which the schools are using outdated textbooks.

Meanwhile, the teacher nominated to teach this course would most likely be the least important, competent, and/or experienced in each department. They would be given a hasty two-day PD on how to teach it, then they'd be turned loose to offer instruction... on a subject they have no interest or experience in. There's a good chance most of those teachers are personally hostile to the material, too. And since they're inexperienced, they're unlikely to teach it well; students will disengage and go on their betting apps, and the teachers will lack the classroom management to stop them. Nor will they be able to express why the kids should pay attention, since they themselves don't know why.

In my school, there are about three teachers I can think of off the top of my head who'd be even remotely qualified to teach a course like this in a way that might engage their students enough that they actually learn something. I am one of them, and I want nothing to do with teaching a required course to freshmen.

Devil's in the details. It's not a bad idea, but anyone who's spent time in schools knows this is not a great way to implement gun safety education. Not in Massachusetts, anyway.
 
Last edited:
So, do I have this right. 152 homicides in MA in 2021, does that include suicide as it's considered a homicide? Anyway 152 homicides of which 92 were gun related. About a 1/3 of the 92 was considered gang related. In any event a state of 7 million residents with 92 firearm related homicides is about 0.0013% of the population.

The media has the general public convinced that people are being slaughtered in the streets by the thousands by "gun violence" every year.

I think MA had 400 motor vehicle deaths in 2021 BTW.
 
Picton said:
I know a great many teachers. I want no more than about 2% of them teaching freshmen anything about caustic chemicals or hatchets, still less firearms.

Here's what would happen. The schools, resentful that the state is mandating a course into which all freshmen must be scheduled, would do nothing until DESE developed a curriculum for said course. This would take DESE AT LEAST two years, more likely four. Then, the schools would grudgingly implement the course by requiring each department to give up one section of their required classes to this course. This would have the effect of increasing class sizes in every other class, so parents and teachers would both freak out. Even worse, it would be an unfunded mandate: the chemicals and axes and saws used in the course would have to come out of the general budget, meaning another year or two during which the schools are using outdated textbooks.

Meanwhile, the teacher nominated to teach this course would most likely be the least important, competent, and/or experienced in each department. They would be given a hasty two-day PD on how to teach it, then they'd be turned loose to offer instruction... on a subject they have no interest or experience in. There's a good chance most of those teachers are personally hostile to the material, too. And since they're inexperienced, they're unlikely to teach it well; students will disengage and go on their betting apps, and the teachers will lack the classroom management to stop them. Nor will they be able to express why the kids should pay attention, since they themselves don't know why.

In my school, there are about three teachers I can think of off the top of my head who'd be even remotely qualified to teach a course like this in a way that might engage their students enough that they actually learn something. I am one of them, and I want nothing to do with teaching a required course to freshmen.

Devil's in the details. It's not a bad idea, but anyone who's spent time in schools knows this is not a great way to implement gun safety education. Not in Massachusetts, anyway.
Click to expand...
I think you are striving for a way to NOT do it.

Such a course isn't going to be rolled into another subject, you have math teachers and english teachers, you would have an instructor for this as well. One that is trained and knowledgeable in the subject so they can present it properly. There is a whole industry of industrial safety training that could easily adapt to supplying knowledgeable instructors.

It also isn't a full subject matter course like Math or Science, but a number of days, maybe a week in total with just one class a day (what's that now? 2 hours a class per day?).

And since this isn't a full-time position at one school, the instructors can be paid by the state working at different schools at different times throughout the school year. So no direct financial cost to the school. And as a shared resource it will minimize the cost to the taxpayer. It may even save money if it helps to prevent any type of injury where the taxpayer has to pick up the cost.
 
42! said:
Do you really want to save lives?

Gun deaths are made up of several categories, the biggest is suicide. It's reasonable to conclude that if a gun is not available and someone wants to kill themselves they will simply find another way. So the focus for this should be mental health.

Another group would be deliberate, premeditated murder. Similar to suicide, if a gun is not available they will simply find another way. They have the time and drive to do so, so gun bans/restrictions have no meaning. Stopping this means addressing the many widely varied motivations, and this would likely cross over it a huge number of subjects/issues. And it can only be addressed there.

The next group has 2 sub-groups, that is heat of the moment killing. This does not include self defence, that is not a "problem" that needs to be solved. This group breaks down to legal and illegal possessors of guns. The fix for those illegally possessing guns and using them to kill doesn't need to be further addressed, it's already illegal. As for the group legally-possessed-guns-used-for-heat-of the-moment-murder or LPGUHMM, there isn't a lot we can do but it's also a very small percentage. As a community the gun culture can apply peer pressure to enforce the understanding of the greater responsibility that comes with gun ownership. We can encourage, not mandate, training. And that gun owners have a responsibility to NOT allow situations to escalate into the use of that gun, this includes the distasteful idea of backing down when confronted if doing so ends the situation (I'm not talking about letting someone beat you or take your property, I'm talking about mean words and hurt feelings. You may want to defend you GF/wife's honor when some guy calls them names, but let's face it, those are just words and not worth killing or dying over, and having a gun on you always includes those possibilities)

And then there is accidental death.
This we can do something about. And we can extend that solution to other types of deadly risks. In fact it may be easier to get it done if positioned as a "Safety Program".
I would hope all here don't need to be told about the importance of gun safety, but at the same time I see some pretty poor habits at the range, mostly among new, younger, shooters. All I can think is they never benefited from having some grizzly old vet slap them on the back of the head at a cold range when as a kid you pick up the gun you were minutes before shooting with a loud "what the F are you doing boy, the range is cold , put that gun down....F'ing idiot"

So this gets to what I'm leading up to, we need a "safety Program" that can, and should, be included in the schools. I'm NOT talking about a "Gun" safety program, but one that covers a number of risks in modern society. Something done in the fist year of highschool when kids are pushing boundaries and doing more stupid stuff. It should include the risks and safe handling of the wide variety of chemicals that are part of a modern household like, detergents, paint, glues, lawn care chem, and on, as well as gases and aerosols, even carbondioxied and mold, or anything that carries the warning "use only in a well ventilated area".
But also include some safe basic tool handling, knife, ax, and saw (similar to the safety aspects of scouting's Totin' Chip), and safe handling of firearms (think Eddie Eagle but a slightly older target audience).
Put together with all the other stuff, it might actually stand a chance.

Anyone willing to push the idea on you legislatures? Proactive is always better than reactive.
Click to expand...
"Safety" is an upfront curriculum component of most BSA Merit Badges (Safety, Fire Safety, Rifle / Shotgun, Auto Maint, Chemistry, etc. etc.) It's too bad there isn't a way for schools to adopt some of these existing lesson plans into a "Life 101" course. Aside from safety, the three Citizenship merit badges probably teach more civics than what is found in public schools these days.
 
42! said:
I think you are striving for a way to NOT do it.

Such a course isn't going to be rolled into another subject, you have math teachers and english teachers, you would have an instructor for this as well. One that is trained and knowledgeable in the subject so they can present it properly. There is a whole industry of industrial safety training that could easily adapt to supplying knowledgeable instructors.

It also isn't a full subject matter course like Math or Science, but a number of days, maybe a week in total with just one class a day (what's that now? 2 hours a class per day?).

And since this isn't a full-time position at one school, the instructors can be paid by the state working at different schools at different times throughout the school year. So no direct financial cost to the school. And as a shared resource it will minimize the cost to the taxpayer. It may even save money if it helps to prevent any type of injury where the taxpayer has to pick up the cost.
Click to expand...

Tell me you don't understand how teachers get hired without telling me you don't understand how teachers get hired.

You're proposing an unfunded mandate. You'd need to hire enough teachers to take on a quarter of your students. That's at least 2-3 new hires in most systems, meaning at least $150k the schools would need to find (exclusive of benefits). In addition to materials.

Yeah. They're not going to do that. Because the law specifically allows schools to require teachers to teach up to 20% of their time outside of their subject area. So that's what the schools will do. How do I know? Because the last two or three times the state imposed a required course, that's exactly how the schools handled it. Why would they handle it any differently now? Your "roving teachers" idea won't work because different schools have radically different class schedules, and because each town handles its own schools. They won't regionalize for math instruction; why do you think they'd regionalize for firearms instruction?

I'm not looking for a reason not to do this; I don't need to. The union would do that for me. They'd be against this too, as would a vast number of Eastern Mass parents who'd push back against gun instruction in the schools.

Again, I think it's a good idea. I also think it's a naive one.
 
Last edited:
Picton said:
Tell me you don't understand how teachers get hired without telling me you don't understand how teachers get hired.

You're proposing an unfunded mandate. You'd need to hire enough teachers to take on a quarter of your students. That's at least 2-3 new hires in most systems, meaning at least $150k the schools would need to find (exclusive of benefits). In addition to materials.

Yeah. They're not going to do that. Because the law specifically allows schools to require teachers to teach up to 20% of their time outside of their subject area. So that's what the schools will do. How do I know? Because the last two or three times the state imposed a required course, that's exactly how the schools handled it. Why would they handle it any differently now? Your "roving teachers" idea won't work because different schools have radically different class schedules, and because each town handles its own schools. They won't regionalize for math instruction; why do you think they'd regionalize for firearms instruction?

I'm not looking for a reason not to do this; I don't need to. The union would do that for me. They'd be against this too, as would a vast number of Eastern Mass parents who'd push back against gun instruction in the schools.

Again, I think it's a good idea. I also think it's a naive one.
Click to expand...
Oohhh intentional ignorance, got to love it. Or are you just a good union doobee trying to protect the fiefdom.

I've had some involvement in schools, mostly the budget side which includes personnel. I'm sure it varies from school to school but for the most part they handle money like a bunch of idiots. Way to heavy in administration at the detriment of teaching and the students.

But let's get to specifics of your response.

It's not an unfunded mandate because, as I specifically said, the instructor would be paid by the state, the school pays nothing.

You are trying to make the person a "school teacher" probably so your union will have another cult follower. They are not. They are a subject matter expert dedicated to providing instruction.

Ya I know, the idea that they are not a "teacher" but are capable of imparting knowledge just doesn't sit well with "teachers", but its working in the business and industrial world, and the trades, from even before there were "teachers". So maybe there is something to the idea.

And schools do in fact bring in outside speakers and arrange time and location for the students to attend, this would be the same.

And this is NOT a firearms safety course. Its a general safety program focused on the risks of modern civilization (stuff they may encounter around the house or outside). Firearms would be one item out of dozens, don't make them anything more than the other items. This is not a training class and it is NOT a 2a or any other type of legal presentation.

An example.

This is ammonia and bleach.
The have many uses but there are risks as well. Some of the risks are;
A
B
C
General you never mix the two, never allow any to enter you body or get into your eyes.
There are legitimate uses for them and if you do need to you shoud first talk to your parents to be sure the use is nessisary and safe.

This is a firearm.
The have many uses, both legal and illegal, and safe and dangerous.
Generally speaking they should always be handled as if there are unsafe, this prevents accidents, which can be faitle.
For the most part you (the attendees) will not be handling a firearm unless you are participating in an activity with parental aproval. This is something you should talk with your parents about.
They are not toys, they are not something you show off, and if you find one it's best to leave it alone and inform an appropriate adult (need to work on the idea of who is appropriate).

These are knives, saws, and axes.
and so on..........

The concept can be easily promoted by pointing out that kids were chewing Tide Pods, maybe giving them some information on the risks of what is around them is a good idea.
 
42! said:
Oohhh intentional ignorance, got to love it. Or are you just a good union doobee trying to protect the fiefdom.

I've had some involvement in schools, mostly the budget side which includes personnel. I'm sure it varies from school to school but for the most part they handle money like a bunch of idiots. Way to heavy in administration at the detriment of teaching and the students.

But let's get to specifics of your response.

It's not an unfunded mandate because, as I specifically said, the instructor would be paid by the state, the school pays nothing.

You are trying to make the person a "school teacher" probably so your union will have another cult follower. They are not. They are a subject matter expert dedicated to providing instruction.

Ya I know, the idea that they are not a "teacher" but are capable of imparting knowledge just doesn't sit well with "teachers", but its working in the business and industrial world, and the trades, from even before there were "teachers". So maybe there is something to the idea.

And schools do in fact bring in outside speakers and arrange time and location for the students to attend, this would be the same.

And this is NOT a firearms safety course. Its a general safety program focused on the risks of modern civilization (stuff they may encounter around the house or outside). Firearms would be one item out of dozens, don't make them anything more than the other items. This is not a training class and it is NOT a 2a or any other type of legal presentation.

An example.

This is ammonia and bleach.
The have many uses but there are risks as well. Some of the risks are;
A
B
C
General you never mix the two, never allow any to enter you body or get into your eyes.
There are legitimate uses for them and if you do need to you shoud first talk to your parents to be sure the use is nessisary and safe.

This is a firearm.
The have many uses, both legal and illegal, and safe and dangerous.
Generally speaking they should always be handled as if there are unsafe, this prevents accidents, which can be faitle.
For the most part you (the attendees) will not be handling a firearm unless you are participating in an activity with parental aproval. This is something you should talk with your parents about.
They are not toys, they are not something you show off, and if you find one it's best to leave it alone and inform an appropriate adult (need to work on the idea of who is appropriate).

These are knives, saws, and axes.
and so on..........

The concept can be easily promoted by pointing out that kids were chewing Tide Pods, maybe giving them some information on the risks of what is around them is a good idea.
Click to expand...

I'll just shrug and say, "BTDT." I have no clue why you suppose the state should care about safety courses, nor why you imagine DESE would want to go to war with the school committees, but you seem to have it all sorted out.

Like I say, I think you're WAY underestimating the pushback. But you clearly know all you need to know about how schools work, so good luck in your endeavors.
 
MetroWest said:
"Safety" is an upfront curriculum component of most BSA Merit Badges (Safety, Fire Safety, Rifle / Shotgun, Auto Maint, Chemistry, etc. etc.) It's too bad there isn't a way for schools to adopt some of these existing lesson plans into a "Life 101" course. Aside from safety, the three Citizenship merit badges probably teach more civics than what is found in public schools these days.
Click to expand...
Couldn’t agree more! Scouting fills in many of the gaps that the school system can’t, or won’t.
 
42! said:
I think you are striving for a way to NOT do it.

Such a course isn't going to be rolled into another subject, you have math teachers and english teachers, you would have an instructor for this as well. One that is trained and knowledgeable in the subject so they can present it properly. There is a whole industry of industrial safety training that could easily adapt to supplying knowledgeable instructors.

It also isn't a full subject matter course like Math or Science, but a number of days, maybe a week in total with just one class a day (what's that now? 2 hours a class per day?).

And since this isn't a full-time position at one school, the instructors can be paid by the state working at different schools at different times throughout the school year. So no direct financial cost to the school. And as a shared resource it will minimize the cost to the taxpayer. It may even save money if it helps to prevent any type of injury where the taxpayer has to pick up the cost.
Click to expand...
I appreciate you thinking outside the box, but this isn’t how the public school systems work. And in all but the reddest states it would be opposed by school committees, teachers, and parents alike.

And how about school teaches my kid the periodic table and algebra and I worry about teaching them about guns and shit.
 
71montess said:
There is a very high rate of suicides in a very fragile mentality that happens to be democrats. So there is a connection to liberal gun control.
Click to expand...

Why do you think that suicide is more prevalent in democrats or liberals? Can you point to a study?
 
milktree said:
Why do you think that suicide is more prevalent in democrats or liberals? Can you point to a study?
Click to expand...
It is well known the mind of a liberal is Highly likely to have Anxiety issues, thoughts of depression, and the thought of any chance conservatives win all three houses of our republic will cause a mass flow of said liberals to the Grand Canyon.
 
HARRYM said:
So, do I have this right. 152 homicides in MA in 2021, does that include suicide as it's considered a homicide? Anyway 152 homicides of which 92 were gun related. About a 1/3 of the 92 was considered gang related. In any event a state of 7 million residents with 92 firearm related homicides is about 0.0013% of the population.

The media has the general public convinced that people are being slaughtered in the streets by the thousands by "gun violence" every year.

I think MA had 400 motor vehicle deaths in 2021 BTW.
Click to expand...
Yes, that is exactly the point.

If you are white and living in the burbs, the chances of you being a victim of firearm violence is close to nill. You are more likely to die from suicide or a car accident.

You have generations of anti-gun liberals that are convinced that firearms are being used everywhere and they are one gas station visit away from death.
Arguing with them is a waste of breath, unless you are willing to don a black mask and rob them with a bonus pistol whip to the head to give them a different perspective.

If you weed out the hard core criminals and the gang bangers that live and die by the gun, most places (not only New England) are fairly safe.

With that said, I still carry a firearm everywhere I am legal to do so. Does that mean that it will be used...very very doubtful, it is a tool like a pocket knife or a flashlight.

The state is constantly whipping gun ownership into a frenzy appealing to people who have already made up their minds that firearms are no longer necessary for votes.
This pandering is disingenuous and they know it, but it keeps the anti-gun machine rolling.

Remember the initial resistance to constitutional carry and that there would be blood in the streets? Never really happened, especially by already law abiding citizens.

Taking away firearms is a lot like telling you where you can spend your money or what ideas you can say to other people. Freedom needs to be protected or it will disappear.
 
Last edited:
Devils Paintbrush said:
Yes, that is exactly the point.

If you are white and living in the burbs, the chances of you being a victim of firearm violence is close to nill. You are more likely to die from suicide or a car accident.

You have generations of anti-gun liberals that are convinced that firearms are being used everywhere and they are one gas station visit away from death.
Arguing with them is a waste of breath, unless you are willing to don a black mask and rob them with a bonus pistol whip to the head to give them a different perspective.

If you weed out the hard core criminals and the gang bangers that live and die by the gun, most places (not only New England) are fairly safe.

With that said, I still carry a firearm everywhere I am legal to do so. Does that mean that it will be used...very very doubtful, it is a tool like a pocket knife or a flashlight.

The state is constantly whipping gun ownership into a frenzy appealing to people who have already made up their minds that firearms are no longer necessary for votes.
This pandering is disingenuous and they know it, but it keeps the anti-gun machine rolling.

Remember the initial resistance to constitutional carry and that there would be blood in the streets? Never really happened, especially by already law abiding citizens.

Taking away firearms is a lot like telling you where you can spend your money or what ideas you can say to other people. Freedom needs to be protected or it will disappear.
Click to expand...
Exactly......and now a majority of states have constitutional carry and more will follow.
 
that suicide chart is interesting. You see a dip in suicide rate at 45-54. But then it ticks back up again to rates similar to those younger than 45. I wonder if Health issues (non-mental) start playing a part. Terminal Cancer diagnosis for example. Rather than let the cancer eat them up, they decide to go out on their own terms.

Whats curious is the method of suicide. Hanging is far more common than firearms in the state. On one hand i guess it does make sense. Firearms are likely to be locked up more in this state, however does bust the narrative that stronger gun laws will reduce suicides. Hangings being used more than Firearms shows that people will use what is at their means to end their own suffering.
 
Jsfitzgerald85 said:
that suicide chart is interesting. You see a dip in suicide rate at 45-54. But then it ticks back up again to rates similar to those younger than 45. I wonder if Health issues (non-mental) start playing a part. Terminal Cancer diagnosis for example. Rather than let the cancer eat them up, they decide to go out on their own terms.

Whats curious is the method of suicide. Hanging is far more common than firearms in the state. On one hand i guess it does make sense. Firearms are likely to be locked up more in this state, however does bust the narrative that stronger gun laws will reduce suicides. Hangings being used more than Firearms shows that people will use what is at their means to end their own suffering.
Click to expand...
GOAL has a study that reflects this focus on gun suicides as opposed to suicides in general:

GOAL - Massachusetts Gun Related Homicides Up 111%

www.goal.org www.goal.org

I personally know of one situation where a person was red flagged, had all of his guns and ammunition taken away. He then hung himself, so bravo to the state actors who carried out the confiscation. End result was the same.

The ammunition taken away did not include brass or primed brass, but they did take all of the primers and powder. Showing that the state actors do not understand the legal definition of ammunition in MA.
 

Similar threads

NH Gun Grab 2024?
Replies
20
Views
2K
Whutmeworry
Whutmeworry
NEW- Gun Grab Bill Six-member conference committee to decide Legislature's gun control proposal
Replies
24
Views
1K
StevieP
StevieP
These Are The Worst States To Be A Gun Owner In 2024
Replies
9
Views
602
Zappa
Zappa
Ma. March gun auction Major SUCCESS.
Replies
3
Views
320
Mesatchornug
Mesatchornug
TN Senate Passes Bill Allowing Armed Teachers After Covenant School Shooter Struck School with Least Security
Replies
1
Views
77
MaverickNH
MaverickNH
Back
Top Bottom