by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
The teaching of safety lessons to school children—even gun safety—shouldn’t be a cause for controversy, but it is in Maryland. Everyone agrees that promoting the safety and well being of children is an admirable goal.
The problem arises when someone outlines the road to that goal. In Maryland, there are competing approaches to legislation that would require the state’s schools to provide firearms safety instruction. The different approaches highlight the great divide and deep distrust that the issue engenders from opposing camps. Each side is convinced that the other will use the gun safety education law to promote its own public policy agenda.
On the surface, the gun safety education concept is benign, but competing approaches have become mired in controversy. And what is now happening in Annapolis is a good indicator of how the issue will be addressed in other states. In New York state last year, Gov. George Pataki vetoed a gun safety education legislation bill simply because anti-gunners were afraid that the NRA’s award-winning and highly successful Eddie Eagle program—one of several options open to schools—might be used.
Now, Maryland state Sen. Barbara Hoffman (D-Baltimore) has sponsored a Senate measure that would require school systems to use multiple sources to develop their own courses to be taught by the teachers.
Supporters of Hoffman’s legislation—most pro-control lawmakers—worry that outsiders would try to teach children that guns are good.
State Delegate Carmen Amedori (R-Carroll County) is the chief sponsor of a bill mandating that schools use outsiders and outside resources to teach students about the dangers that firearms can pose.
Supporters of Amedori’s proposal—mostly gun rights proponents—believe that outsiders, including police or NRA instructors, would be more even handed in their message.
The state Board of Education opposes both approaches. That decision was presumably based on the board’s opposition to all legislative mandates regarding any school curriculum, not on the merits of gun safety education or the merits of the individual bills.
Hoffman claims that if school districts are required to use multiple sources in selecting a gun safety curriculum, it is more likely that a balanced program will emerge.
Amedori fears that if school systems are left to their own devices, they will teach “gun aversion” instead of gun safety. Her personal choice is the Eddie Eagle program. Under her bill, school systems could shop around for the course that best suits their needs, whether it be taught by state police, local police, hunting groups or the NRA.
“The message is clear,” Amedori says of the Eddie Eagle program. “The message is simple. The message is good. The NRA is not coming in and saying ‘Here is a gun, it is a good thing.’ ”
But even if the content is neutral and the only mention of the NRA is the copyright line, the anti-gunners and people who are simply fearful of all guns are afraid to give the NRA any credit for an important social program.
Carroll County began mandating gun safety training in schools this year, and Amedori is already hearing complaints from constituents.
One parent called to say his son’s teacher told students that people with guns were bad people and they should throw their guns away.
Most gun rights advocates do not believe that a school system will come up with a balanced program, no matter how many sources they use. They believe the educational establishment is part of the gun control movement and will use safety courses to propagandize against firearms, according to Tom Stuckey of Associated Press.
The clearly stated anti-gun agendas of the national teacher unions don’t help. Meanwhile, children who could benefit from firearms safety instruction, have no influence in the outcome of this debate.