Tucson School District Asks Parents to Agree to Be Responsible Gun Owners, Freak-Out Ensues

Categories: Guns
gun-shooting-top.jpg
ManOnPHI via Flickr


Among other things in school-registration packets, a Tucson-area school district has a pledge for parents to sign, asking for them to agree to be responsible gun owners.

Of course, someone's offended. Apparently, this has to do with Obama-loving liberals trying to tell free Americans how to live their lives.

This agreement from the Flowing Wells Unified School District was posted on the website of Gun Owners of Arizona, which took particular issue with the statement, ". . . I will keep any guns and all weapons I own under lock, away from school grounds and away from my children."

The Arizona Daily Independent, a right-wing website, says the following:
Perhaps the most disturbing provision in the contract for Tucsonans is the requirement that parents must "carry out my responsibility to teach my children how to settle arguments without resorting to violence and to encourage him/her to use those ideas when necessary, and to follow school guidelines for reporting guns and weapons they see on campus to an appropriate adult."
Boy, that is disturbing. These liberals think children should be taught to settle arguments without going straight to murder? What is this country coming to?

The Independent also says that the district fielded complaints from two parents about this contract.

This could mark the first time a parent actually read all the crap in a school-registration packet.

Obviously, the punishment for not signing the contract is a 20-year sentence in Obama's mind-control camps. Oh, we read that wrong -- turns out, there's no punishment for not signing the contract.

On the Daily Caller, a national right-wing website, readers commented as to why locking up guns is a bad idea -- "when some Democrat/meth addict kicks in the door, the homeowner is unable to defend himself."

Duh.

See the communist manifesto contract from the school district below:

gun-contract.jpg
goaz.org

Send feedback and tips to the author.
Follow Matthew Hendley on Twitter at @MatthewHendley.


My Voice Nation Help
23 comments
WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

Didn't a 3 year old just shoot his dad in the butt this past weekend?  And a wife handed her hubby a shotgun that "accidentally" went of and killed him the same day?

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

They should have included a picture of Don Shooter storming the school in this packet!

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

"I will teach, including by personal example, my teenagers about the dangers and consequences of the misuse of guns and weapons".

They're requiring parents to teach, by personal example, the consequences of misuse of guns.

Maybe they should have thought that through a little better.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

I think some of the objection is that the schools are trying to take authority over the home lives of the kids, and that's really not within their domain.   Even if they're asking the parents to sign a contract saying they will do things that are as simple as having the kids brush their teeth, that's really overstepping their authority.

Some of us don't want our kids to grow up believing that the government controls every aspect of our lives.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

They should also require parents to sign a pledge that they will be responsible liquor owners and teach their children how to be responsible around liquor as that is where most high school drinkers I know, both in my high school days and today, obtained their alcohol.

Of course, parents with common sense would already know that, just as they would klnow to be responsible gun owners, and if they don't already have that common sense no amount of paperwork coming home from the school will instill that in them.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@WhoKnows  

Yes, and a lot of people were killed in traffic accidents.  Careless people get hurt and hurt others.

If you leave a gun where a 3yo can reach it, or if you ask a person who you know doesn't know how to handle guns to hand one to you (if anybody believes that's what happened), you're shooting yourself in the foot, so to speak.

Signing a contract saying you won't be an idiot doesn't really solve anything.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative  Nice catch - I suspect that this particular line was written by the head of the English department.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative  Yes and no.  The school is trying to control those things that impact the educational environment and a school shooting would clearly impact the educational environment so I understand that.  But the point that you made is similar to the point I was trying to make below - they can't control for everything and while this may make them feel good, it neither has any real world impact nor is it even the most important thing that they could probably try to control for.

jeanjb
jeanjb

@JohnQ.Public no,,,but a signed contract would be something the surviving family members could use in court to win a huge civil judgement,couldnt they counselor?

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@valleynative @WhoKnows More people are killed by guns in AZ than are killed by cars.  


vpc.org/studies/gunsvscars13.pdf

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public  

They have the right to tell parents to stop their kids from bringing guns onto campus, but, even though it may impact the school, they don't have the right to tell parents what values to teach their kids or how to store their firearms.    I'm afraid that in a free society, the school has to find some way to deal with the consequences of bad parenting.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@jeanjb. I doubt it. First, the contract is between the school and the parents/child so if the child killed a fellow student or teacher, the parentsof the victim would have no privity to the contract - meaning that they aren't party to it and therefore aren't entitled to enforce it.   Second, I would be surprised if this type of "contract" could be enforced in court because while it creates a moral obligation I don't know that it creates a legally enforcable obligation.  Further, there is nothing within the contract that says that this obligation on the part of the school or the parents/child runs to anyone but the other parties to the contract. While this type of "contract" may be used by a plaintiff's attorney, it wouldn't be dispositive (in my view) and would be used as just one of many reasons to establish that the school has an obligation to protect other students in an educational environment. That being said, the parents of a victim don't need this contract in order to sue the gunman's parents. The parents of the Columbine victims sued the parents of the two shooters and settled for (my recollection) somewhere near $2 million. However, all of the victim's lawsuits against the school (I believe - again by recollection) were dismissed.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@WhoKnows

Several reasons.  Many shootings in Arizona, accidental and otherwise, occur much further from emergency medical care than in many other states.  Auto accidents, on the other hand, are much more common in areas of high population, near emergency responders.

Arizona has a relatively high suicide rate, partly do to the elderly population and partly due to all the losers who migrate here from elsewhere and find that their new life isn't any better.

Statistics require some interpretation.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@whoknows  Guns are designed for the purpose of killing, cars are not.  A gun that kills has simply performed as desinged.

WhoKnows
WhoKnows topcommenter

@valleynative Then why is AZ one of only 12 states where more people are killed by guns?  Read the link I posted!

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@WhoKnows

That's only because of air bags and paramedics.  Far more people are killed or seriously injured by automobiles than are killed or seriously injured by guns.

And on top of that, your stats include criminals shot by police or citizens, which isn't really a bad thing.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public  

Yes, their intentions are good, but they've overstepped by moving their efforts from community programs, in which participation by individuals is voluntary, directly into the homes of those individuals.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative  Again, yes and no.  Schools are community institutions and serve the communities in which they reside in many ways.  From partnering with parks and rec for afterschool programs to, in some cases, having a variety of social services available.  So this can also be seen as an effort to be engaged in the community although in this case, like you, my opinionn is that they've overstepped.

valleynative
valleynative topcommenter

@JohnQ.Public  

Yes, and I agree that it's unfortunate, but the solution is not to insinuate themselves into the private lives of the students' parents.

If they want to take on the task of educating the parents, and the parents are willing to be educated that's great, but they don't get to set rules for the parents to live by, even if they're common-sense and completely harmless.

JohnQ.Public
JohnQ.Public

@valleynative.  Unfortunately, our schools have been dealing with the consequences of bad parenting for many, many years. 

Now Trending

Phoenix Concert Tickets

From the Vault

 

Loading...