Eddie Eagle - Joe Camel With Feathers

...did a GREAT segment where they had a response to Eddie Eagle named "Pistol Pete" (a really lame NRA spokesmen who just tells kids to leave the guns alone like that would really help)...They actually got an amazing costume of a pistol that was 'kid friendly'...funny stuff!!!

Pistol Pete
Pistol Pete
Pull My Trigger
And Feel the Heat

pp23

where they wouldn't let the guy in the pistol costume into NRA headquarters because Wayne LaPierre felt threatened by it?

By the way, about every educational expert who has studied Eddie Eagle finds that the foul fowl makes children MORE likely to play with guns, not less so....

Really funny segment...they actually got inside the NRA headquarters, but not beyond the guard desk...instantly thrown out...

Michael Moore is a national treasure.

Could you please post a cite so we can rip your statement to shreds?

The NRA behaving like asses?

After all, that IS the NRA's M.O.

I was asking another contributor for clarification.

"By the way, about every educational expert who has studied Eddie Eagle finds that the foul fowl makes children MORE likely to play with guns, not less so...."

"“These programs haven’t been shown to work,” writes Marjorie S. Hardy, a professor at Eckerd College in St. Petersburg, Fla. “We’re accumulating a body of evidence that shows we may be unable to modify children’s behavior.”
“Though well-intentioned, many of these approaches are poorly designed, and some may even have the inadvertent effect of making the problem worse,” Hardy said in the report, “Behavior-Oriented Approaches to Reducing Youth Gun Violence,” in the July issue of Packard’s child safety journal, The Future of Children.
Better strategies include educating parents and promoting greater responsibility by gun owners, better gun designs and stronger regulation, the report concluded."

http://www.youthtoday.org/youthtoday/aasept2002/gun.html

Here's another failure from the foul fowl...

"A recent report on ABC's 20/20 program used a hidden camera while the Eddie Eagle lesson was taught to a group of young children.
Shockingly, 17 out of the 20 children just taught the lesson picked up and tried to use an unloaded gun when left unsupervised.
But as many people suspect, the NRA is less concerned about using Eddie Eagle to promote gun safety, than they are about getting their pro-gun message out to a whole new generation of American youth.
In fact, Eddie Eagle was created in 1988 as part of a NRA campaign to stop Florida from passing a law holding  parents responsible for keeping guns away from their children.   As part of a national recruitment campaign by the NRA, the mascot is used in advertisements in gun shows where parents are encouraged to bring their children to meet Eddie Eagle."

http://www.sendem.com/cs/99/cs99-18.html

The first link gives lie to itself:

"NRA officials also said they were not surprised by the tone of the Packard journal, which included several other gun-related chapters.

“The credibility of the study is the question” because Packard “has a political agenda,” said Andrew Arulanandam, another NRA spokesman. “It’s not as if it’s a scientific study undertaken by a nonpartisan group.”

The California-based foundation has made grants to several gun-control and gun-violence prevention organizations, including a $3.6 million grant to the Million Mom March in 2000. The foundation did not exert any editorial pressure for specific outcomes, said Kathleen Reich, senior staff editor of The Future of Children."

3.6 million dollar grant to MMM? Is there any pretense of objectivity here?

Of course, that's the only way gun-control orgs survive; they sure as hell don't have any substantial paying membership.

The other article is a copy of a press release from 1999 supporting a bill that briefly describes a segment on 20/20. Even this wobbly little statement doesn't support the argument that children were more likely to be interested in firearms after being exposed to the program. Got anything else?

if I give a crap what the lying right wing loonies at NRA have to say.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

the safety items taught in schools along with such programs as drug awareness and sex education?

If so, what topics should be covered and at what grade levels?

Program AND taught sex education, including AIDS and STD awareness (both in public schools), I am in favor of teaching other health and safety topics as well, but I am also realistic about their limitations. I think the main problems with all such programs are:

# 1 kids believe they are immortal -- "It won't happen to me"

# 2 kids are skeptical about what adults tell them -- "They just want to keep us from having fun."

I suspect that studies of any programs that attempt to address behavior, (whether it's driving habits, sexual practices, drug or alcohol use, or gun safety) will show a certain degree of ineffectiveness because kids are resistant, for reasons I've listed, but I think it's reasonable to believe that all programs have some effectiveness as well. I think it's better to have instruction, even if kids reject some of what they are taught, than to have no instruction and allow complete ignorance to prevail.

In my experience, kids are surprisingly ignorant about certain topics, particularly how to prevent pregnancy. I say "surprisingly" because the information they are ignorant of is widely available today, in magazines and books, and has been for years. This information was not available in the early sixties when I was in high school so it was normal to be ignorant of it then.

The lack of knowledge among teens, despite the information being available,
suggests that teaching these topics in school, and testing on the information, forces kids to learn some facts they would not learn otherwise. How well they retain the information is another issue, of course. I'd hope my former students remember the facts I taught them about sex, including prevention of pregnancy and disease, better than they retain the facts I taught them about photosynthesis, cellular respiration, and other topics which I know were of less interest to them.

people (teens and younger) and encourage them to smoke cigarettes, a known health hazard. Joe Camel was designed to advertise the Camel brand of cigarettes.

Eddie Eagle is the emblem of a gun safety program that teaches kids how to be safe around firearms. It is possible to use firearms safely and it is possible to teach safe practices. Since it is not possible to smoke cigarettes safely, it is not possible to teach safe smoking. The article you cited is at an anti-gun site so it's not surprising that it opposes safe use of firearms.

I notice the last paragraph contains an unsubstantiated statement:

"Finally, public health researchers have found that "gun safety" programs like Eddie Eagle are ineffective in preventing unintentional death and injury from firearms. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that "ecause even the most well-behaved children are curious by nature and will eagerly explore their environment, the safest thing is not to keep a gun at home."

Why are there no citations of research that indicate that Eddie Eagle and similar programs are "ineffective"? I'd like to be able to read the research for myself. Even more importantly, has anyone done unbiased research (i.e. research not sponsored by either side of the gun issue)?

As for the statement from the American Academy of Pediatricians, I agree that children are "curious by nature and will eagerly explore their environment" but wise parents don't just lock up the dangerous items in the home (or somehow have nothing dangerous in the home -- no matches, poisonous substances, knives, medications, no stairs for a child to fall down, no small objects that a child can choke on -- no coins in the home!) Wise parents teach their children that the stove is hot, matches and knives and many other things can hurt them and must be used properly, in addition to using locks to protect younger children from dangers in the home.

and the unlocked ones that the "patriots" like to keep lying around in case of foreign invasion.

from http://www.nra.org/display_content/show_content.cfm?mod_id=61&id=0

"The Eddie Eagle GunSafe® Program, NRA's groundbreaking gun accident prevention program for children in pre-K through the sixth grades, celebrates its fifteenth anniversary this year.
Created by past NRA President Marion P. Hammer, in consultation with child psychologists, elementary schoolteachers, and law enforcement officers, the program gives children a simple, effective action to take should they encounter a firearm in an unsupervised situation: :If you see a gun, STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult."

Over the years, the program has been praised by numerous groups and elected officials, including the National Safety Council, the U.S. Department of Justice, the National Sheriffs' Association, and 24 state governors, to name just a few. The program has now been delivered by 22,000 educators, law enforcement officers, and civic leaders to 17 million children in all 50 states, Canada, and Puerto Rico."

That didn't make the Dukes a worthwhile program. And neither is Eddie Eagle.

*

Look how many people voted for Pretzelboy.......

LaPierre, Heston, Nugent, McVeigh, they've all gone off the deep end, just like Marion.

It's obvious that the NRA-ites want to encourage children to use guns. "Hey, Eddie Eagle says I'm mature enough to handle a gun safely, so I guess I am." At least Joe Camel takes most of a lifetime to kill people.

that you don't know anything about the program.
http://www.nrahq.org/safety/eddie/index.asp

that not everyone is dumb enough to believe the NRA's lies.

are content to make asinine assumptions based on thier own wildly uninformed and inaccurate misconceptions and prejudices. Rarely do they provide a shred of documentation to back up their claims; instead they rely on ridicule and hyperbole to prop up their anti-gun dogma. Arguing with them is like arguing with a brick wall.

about how mean we are not to fall for this NRa crap.

just incapable of intelligent discussion.

as intelligent anything...

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

"Eddie Eagle is not allowed to appear anywhere that there are guns."

Can you provide more info? For example, of the many rooms where the meeting took place, which one was Edde in, and were there any guns there? Was he appearing in order to make people aware of the program, or was he actually teaching his safety class, etc.?

The answer is that you do not know. The backstory is that you grabbed that pic from the VPC site. Can you find that item anywhere else? If I posted something from the NRA, you would instantly poo-poo it and claim it was false. Why should I hold you to a different standard of proof?

The Nuts Ruining America claim Eddie Eagle never appears where there there are guns, and then they have someone dressed up as Eddie Eagle at a gun show. That's all the proof I need to show that once again, the NRA is talking out of its organizational ass.......

used as a lobbying tool by gun nuts trying to get taxpayer money for this imbecilic piece of crap.

http://scopeny.org/eagle.html

If you wish to accept at face value the propaganda from the VPC, then there is no reason for me to bother trying to educate you.

The ad in question doesn't describe a gun show. Under your reasoning, if an Eddie Eagle program was being taught in a school with an armed security guard that would be enough to give lie to the statement that Eddie Eagle "never appears where there are guns".

On the left side, it says "MEET EDDIE EAGLE".

On the right side it says "See the largest firearms exhibit in NRA history". (Emphasis mine.)

If that doesn't qualify as a gun show and Eddie Eagle appearing where guns are, I don't know what does.

I was thinking of a "gun show" in the way it's usually defined, where guns are being bought and sold. The ad refers to an exhibit, most likely from the NRA's firearms museum.

While this may qualify as appearing "where guns are", it may not. The conferences are big affairs, involving many different areas and sometimes different buildings. What I'm looking for is a picture with EE and a firearm in it.

It's obvious your claim was hooey.

"If I posted something from the NRA, you would instantly poo-poo it and claim it was false."
Mostly because the NRA and its like spouts rubbish like "Eddie Eagle never appears where there are guns" which is outrageously and obviously unntrue.

We still do not know that facts about the picture you posted. I am trying to research it further, and will post what I find out, if anything.

It occurs to me that I probably should have said that EE does not teach his program where there are guns present, although I was under the impression that it was the former. For instance, I know that EE couldn't be booked for the "Big E" (a coutry fair type of thing in western Mass) because part of it was a gun show.

Of course, having EE appear at an NRA MEETING, where EVERYONE IS A GUN PERSON is hardly problematic in any way that I can see. The claims of "Joe Camel" melt away like last winter's snow when looked at from that perspective.

And the title of the thread is 100% accurate...this is Joe Camel with feathers.

That image is SEVEN YEARS OLD. What else ya got? One appearance in seven years is hardly a pattern, particularly when it is a private NRA meeting and not a public event.

Got anything else?

That's desperate spinning.

"The Southern Tier Gun Owners and S.C.O.P.E are sponsoring a Second Amendment Rally and Picnic featuring NRA's Eddie Eagle. The picnic will be from 12 Noon, to 4 p.m. on September 15, in War Veterans Park, Olean, New York."

"Training: Junior rifle; Eddie Eagle programs; NRA safety courses; Hunters' Safety. "

http://www.goalhotshots.org/clubswithJuniorprograms.htm

That must be some snappy junior rifle training with NO guns...."Now Timmy, point that broom at the target and shout 'Bang!'"

Here's a gun loony's newsletter showing the fowl foul greeting little targets, er, kids, at the 2000 NRA klavern....

www.wrpa.com/pdf/July_2000.pdf

"The Southern Tier Gun Owners and S.C.O.P.E are sponsoring a Second Amendment Rally and Picnic featuring NRA's Eddie Eagle. The picnic will be from 12 Noon, to 4 p.m. on September 15, in War Veterans Park, Olean, New York."

This does not seem to be on the page cite that you posted. Please substantiate.

"Training: Junior rifle; Eddie Eagle programs; NRA safety courses; Hunters' Safety. "

http://www.goalhotshots.org/clubswithJuniorprograms.htm

Those items are separated by a semi-colon. They are a list of separate items. How lame. Oh, excuse me, I mean "what a pant-load". :)

Here's a gun loony's newsletter showing the fowl foul greeting little targets, er, kids, at the 2000 NRA klavern....

www.wrpa.com/pdf/July_2000.pdf


No guns in that picture. Try again. Oh, and if you are going to use offensive terms like "klavern", expect me to refer to outfits like the VPC with equally offensive terminology.

and if you do any more you'll be airborne...

and if you do any more you'll be airborne...

and if you do any more you'll be airborne...

You only have to do it once.

DU has been double- and triple-posting lately. Skinner is working on the problem.

Maybe Eddie Eagle stood out in the parking lot, where there was only one gun per person, instead of inside where they had tables full of guns on display?

Eddie Eagle is not allowed to appear anywhere that there are guns. He does not promote guns in any way, shape or form. His message to children is simple:

"If you see a gun, STOP! Don't Touch. Leave the Area. Tell an Adult."

How can anyone, particularly someone who dislikes or fears guns, be opposed to such a message?

People on this board spend a lot of time on the idea of child-proofing guns. EE approaches it from the other direction: gun-proofing the child.

Question to the anti's here: Is it not a good idea to teach children how to avoid getting hurt by guns?

Finally, public health researchers have found that "gun safety" programs like Eddie Eagle are ineffective in preventing unintentional death and injury from firearms. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that "because even the most well-behaved children are curious by nature and will eagerly explore their environment, the safest thing is not to keep a gun at home."

The best way to keep kids from getting hurt by guns is to keep them as far away from guns as possible. So if you choose to own guns, it's YOUR responsibility to keep them secure.

The best way to keep kids from getting hurt by guns is to keep them as far away from guns as possible. So if you choose to own guns, it's YOUR responsibility to keep them secure.

ABSOLUTELY!! You are 100% correct. Anyone who allows a kid access to a gun (unsupervised) and the child is hurt, should be found guilty of things like gross negligence and reckless endangerment of a minor, etc. Those are laws that exist everywhere.

The point of EE and programs like it, is to train children to do the right thing if they happen across a gun when they are out in the world. I liken it to things like "do not talk to strangers, or accept rides from strangers", etc.

I cannot help but think that if an identical program came from anyone else but the NRA, you and the others would welcome it. Isn't it ironic that the "anti's" cry about how "bad" the NRA is, but when the NRA tries to have a program that has nothing to do with guns and actually teaches children to leave the gun alone and get an adult, this is seen as bad...

....is to subliminally convince kids that the NRA is a bunch of good guys, when as long as they have assholes like Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent in leadership positions, nothing could be farther from the truth.

It's Soviet-style propaganda, pure and simple.

a similiar program? Is that program designed to subliminally convince kids that the "Scary Brady Bunch" is a bunch of good guys, when as long as they have assholes like "Scary Brady and Diane Feindstein" in leadership positions, nothing could be farther from the truth?

Given that Brady and LaPierre are two dominant players in the RKBA arena, how can we honestly educate kids about gun safety without the "Soviet-style propaganda" from both groups?

Brady and LaPierre make several hundred thousand dollars a year in their positions and love the media attention they receive. We need to strip the BS from both and get to the facts so that our children receive at least a minimal exposure to gun safety.

And here's the part directed at kids, from their web site.

http://www.bradycenter.com/clarence/index_0.html

No rap, no songs, no cutsey cartoon characters - simply a straight-forward presentation of scenarios. Far better than that Eddie Eagle crap in presenting facts, because a child can relate easier with a child their own age easier than they can relate to a talking eagle.

You can make a coherent argument for as an indoctrination program.

"A gun is a serious threat to safety,..." Not an inanimate object, but a serious threat to safety. Why?

"...and eliminate the chance of it discharging in his bookbag." Because guns frequently discharge on their own and claim the lives of innocents!

I like this little gem, "GUNS ARE NOT COOL!" It always works so well when authority figures tell kids what isn't cool. Look at the success of the DARE program.

"IF YOU FIND A GUN IN A HOUSE, DO NOT TOUCH IT-FIND AN ADULT IMMEDIATELY. Leave the area right away."

Does that sound familiar?

"William is cleaning his handgun on the kitchen table and their children are playing in the next room. When Uncle William left the room, he also left the gun on the kitchen table next to a box of bullets."

Typical gun owner. I'm surpised he didn't leave a fifth of Jack sitting on the table too.

"Let’s find Uncle Robert and tell him he should always lock it up out of the reach of children and keep the bullets separate from the gun."

No disagreement with the locked up part, especially with little snots like Clarence around. But people who keep a loaded weapon for home security are evil, no matter if it's secured.

Not a terrible little game, but ideological underpinnings are obvious. Can anyone show the same with the Eddie Eagle program?

because a child can relate easier with a child their own age easier than they can relate to a talking eagle.

That's why Barney, Teletubbies, bananas in pajamas, spongebob square pants, and others are so unpopular with children then right?

Am I right in that your complaint isn't with the Eddie Eagle message but rather with the Eddie Eagle character?

Gee and every one of the Brady scenarios on the above link can be covered with Eddie Eagle, teaching elementary school age children to "Stop! Don't Touch! Leave the Area. Tell an Adult," if they should find a gun.

How big of a program does Brady have to get their "gun safety" mesage out to children? All I see for children is online interactive Clarance and kids from 10-16 can then sign up for email from the Bradys. (and must supply their name and address as well as their email)

From the NRA Schools, law enforcement agencies, hospitals, daycare centers, and libraries are eligible to receive all program curriculum materials (Eddie Eagle) free of charge.

...is that it has been proven ineffective. Plus it's put out by the Nuts Ruining America, an organization that could disband tomorrow and the world would be a better place.

It's also to get taxpayer money for the corrupt organization by forcing it into public schools.

The fact is, every educational expert that has looked at Eddie says it is worthless...it makes kids more likely to play with guns, not less so. And it puts the onus for safety on kids, not on the irresponsible idiots who leave guns where kids can get to them.

The Junior Rifle programs are for children to learn about the fun that can be had in the shooting sports.

Oh, and any group that seeks to protect my civil liberties IS a "bunch of good guys", even if some of their members are not people that I might choose.

It seems more and more to me that "Eddie Eagle" is nothing more than a recruitment tool for the NRA.

But I doubt that public schools would allow any such recruiting to go on.

FYI...

"In 1999, the Department of Justice called it an “outstanding education initiative” in a study of dozens of violence prevention programs. Last year, a study published in the Journal of Emergency Nursing Online found it to be the most effective of 80 such programs examined."

.

Right?

.

Every time I hear Wayne LaPierre or Ted Nugent open their pieholes, I grow stronger in my belief that we need reasonable gun control measures to protect the public at large from assholes like them.

...new president and starts the phaseout of the "celebrity" leadership.

a nice touch in the age of Columbine...

I've never heard of this. What is it called? I'd like to take a look at it.

...NRA homepage and there is a link to it.

...

and ranges at summer camp? Don't forget about the 4-H Club and its shooting program and the shooting programs sponsored by the JAYCEES.

What about the numerous high schools and colleges that have rifle teams?

Are they all just fronts for the mean old NRA? Is it possible that some on the anti-RKBA have unconsciously transformed the NRA into a mean old bogey man?

The Nuts Ruining America are trying to make its Eddie Eagle program MANDATORY in public schools. Propaganda pure and simple.......

...then don't you think we SHOULD be teaching kids to be safe around guns? What is so wrong about that?

I am not a parent, nor do I intend to ever be one, but if I were, I would teach my kids to stay away from guns when they were too young to understand anything else, and then teach them to handle guns safely and enjoy the shooting sports, as every generation before them has done.

What I would worry about as a parent, is all of the kids out there who have had NO gun safety training, who--given their natural curiosity--might be responsible for hurting MY kids because they came from a gun-hating family that didn't believe the in the value of safety training.

We're just not infatuated with them, like some people in this world are.......

I understand (I think) that you in particular are simply interested in taking care of one of society's problems, which is laudable. Constructive discussion of this issue is a Good Thing.

I was thinking more of some family that might send their young cild out into the world unprepared for the realities of the street. IMHO, if you have a child that is old enough to know what a gun is, but not old enough to be in any way responsible around one, then you (again, not you specifically, but you in the larger sense) must teach your child to avoid guns and to tell an adult if they come across one. In my mind, this is exactly like teaching your child to look both ways before crossing the street, and to not speak with strangers, etc.

...you have to watch where the paint goes.

What I said was:

"What I would worry about as a parent, is all of the kids out there who have had NO gun safety training, who--given their natural curiosity--might be responsible for hurting MY kids because they came from a gun-hating family that didn't believe the in the value of safety training."

True, some people are. Others such as myself just don't like them in the wrong hands.

I didn't mean that my remark about a "gun-hating family" should be interpreted as applying to anyone who does not hate guns. I would have used a term like "pro-gun control" or something else, had I meant a broader group.

has presented any evidence in this thread, from anecdotes, studies or directly from EE program materials that the program encourages or condones gun use by children or adults. The only supports that have been put forth refer to EE appearances at NRA sponsored events. In neither of these instances is EE tied directly to gun use or even the presence of firearms. In any case, the argument is that EE is an indoctrination program; it would seem that children who are brought to an NRA event are getting sufficient "indoctrination" at home.

The VPC press release contains accusations, arguments and innuendo but zero facts. Does anyone have anything which would substantiate the argument that the EE program is used as anything but a gun safety program? That's what this thread is about, right?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

what an elegant, insightful argument! Par for course, tho; I've come to expect nothing less from you.

It's all the argument that was required.

It's Joe Camel with feathers and it's worthless...now go snivel about your hooey elsewhere.

Ever sat in on an Eddie Eagle class? I'd be interested in knowing your thoughts. If you haven't been to one, please don't bother responding with BS and conjecture.

Also, Brady Campaign offers a very similar program to Eddie Eagle. Has anyone had any experience with this program?

the Brady organization teaches the same basic thing as the NRA? Who'da thunkit.... ;-)

Is it the same thing? Is there a fundamental difference? Has anyone been to both and can shed some light on this?

I may see if I can attend a class from each to get an idea of what exactly they teach children.

I got that from the Boy Scouts. I had to earn a merit badge (Rifle and Shotgun Shooting) showing that I was:

1) Capable with a firearm
2) Safe with a firearm
3) Understanding of what responsible firearm use means

Any program, be it the BSA, Eddie Eagle, whatever that teaches kids to be safe around firearms and not ignorant around them is a good program.

B

I learned it from my stepfather when I was 10. He was a World War II combat veteran and later served as a rifle instructor in the Navy. Some kind of gun safety education is needed for kids not fortunate enough to have an expert parent or youth organization available to them.

It was optional.

The NRA and its mindless lackeys in the GOP are trying to make Eddie Eagle MANDATORY in the public schools.

my Dad made me do it. He had guns around the house and before I was allowed to use them, I had to demonstrate that I was mature enough to use them.

The NRA (and the mindless moron Republicans they support) trying to get this stupid program shoved down the throats of every child in the country.

From Clarence:

"WRONG! A GUN IS NEVER THE ANSWER TO A PROBLEM! Juan and Clarence could shoot themselves or someone else accidentally. Juan or Clarence never thought that MAYBE the bully could have a gun and use it just because he is frightened by Juan’s gun. A GUN ONLY MAKES THIS PROBLEM WORSE!! NEVER HANDLE A GUN!!

Clarence and Juan are both suspended from school for endangering the lives of everyone.

START OVER"

Yep. Never the answer to a problem. That's why cops and the military go about unarmed. Every criminal ever justifiably killed by a home owner or would-be rape victim really weren't problems.

"By telling a teacher, the gun can safely be given back to its rightful owner and eliminate the chance of it discharging in his bookbag."

Yes, as we all know, guns are possessed of free will and will go off without human agency.

"Clarence and Robert find Uncle William and say "You should always lock up your gun! Lock and keep the bullets separate form the gun, too."

Because as everyone who has ever cleaned a firearm, you do it with the ammo about in the presence of two wet-nose know-it-alls coached by Scary Brady, who should probably really be teaching kids to stay away from cigarettes.:eyes:

in clarifying a few points.

I understand that the Brady Campaign has it's own program for gun safety. Since rifles, shotguns, pistols, and revolvers are fairly generic in terms of teaching gun safety, then some of the topics taught in the Eddie Eagle program must be essentially identical with the Brady program.

Still, you are angrily opposed to the Eddie Eagle program and your opposition must be against those things which are not common with the Brady program.

From previous threads, I know that one or more participants on this thread are NRA members and I feel sure that if your objections have merit, they will write NRA and suggest such items be modified.

I blieve it would be helpful to this thread if you could identific the specific things in the Eddie Eagle program that you find objectionable.

Is that possible?

to second the part about NRA members complaining about any reasonable objections to the EE program. Any facet of the program designed to persuade young folks one way or another about guns would be dishonest and politically self-defeating. Please, do as Jody asks; I'm wide open to constructive or at least relevant criticism of specific parts of the program.

...is its connection with the NRA. Nothing will alter that. I see Eddie Eagle as nothing more than a way to make kids curious about guns and drum up future NRA members.

I believe that having a policeman come in to the classroom and talk about how guns and children don't mix would be more effective. Especially in the younger grades. Kids look up to cops and listen to what they say, a lot more than they's listed to a cartoon eagle.

Given the many children's programs where education is offered through various fantastic characters, I believe that many childen are indeed open to learning from such characters. I saw it in my friends' younger siblings when Sesame Street first came out.

Additionally, there is the factor of "age-appropriateness" (is that a word?) to consider. Older children might be more likely to pay attention to a cop, but a younger child's mind might wander. I could go back and check in my educational psychology text, I suppose, for such things...

topics would be covered? I assume the objective is to talk about gun safety in a way that DOES NOT "make kids curious about guns and drum up future NRA members."

Should that be the major goal for kids in the K-3 grade level?

Perhaps some educators will weigh in and discuss the pros and cons of a "cartoon eagle vs policeman" for delivering a short powerful message to very young kids.

Starting with the four rules. I will not rely on some E-School 'tard or some doughnut chaser to indoctrinate my kids with yet more emotion laden, fact-free bleating from their know-nothing mouths.

Guns can solve problems, at least some of those problems are ones that our ever more lenient justice system has proven incapable of solving through not reducing or eliminating recidivism. If guns had no utility they wouldn't exist and next to no one would find them desireable to possess.

Every "progressive" should be taught at one time or another:

1)Violence is not the first solution, rarely the best solution, but it is sometimes the valid last resort, even according to such pacifistic experts as Ghandi and the Dali Lama. There are not nearly as many accounts of people successfully begging for their lives and being spared as there are of people successfully defending themselves with lethal force.

2)You have the right to effectively defend yourself from criminals and other threats to your life or from great bodily harm. Anywhere. Anytime. Without governmental say-so or by-your-leave. You are the citizen of a republic with rights, not a subject in a welfare state.

3)Criminals will never obey the laws that freedom limiting politicians would have you observe to satisfy their own egos.

4)Lamentably, there are many "progressives" out there who believe in every liberty under the sun except in the right to own a firearm. Beware these inconsistent "friends," for they do not truly love liberty, they love the idea of controlling you and what you can own or use even more.

5) There are essentially two kinds of people in the Democratic Party when it comes to guns. The first are those who believe that all of the Bill of rights need defending and that all who are eligible be allowed to own and carry any firearm ever made without further inquiry into their motives or need. Merely establishing that they are not mental defectives or criminals is enough. No further infringement is warranted nor should be tolerated.

Then there are those for whom equality is for everyone else but themselves. They wiilingly support the exempting of people from the laws they would employ to disarm you. In California they give concealed carry permits to politician buddies and movie stars. In Chicago the politicians and judges get armed police guards and other considerations while Joe Blow takes his chances with the street gangs and common thugs. In Washington DC, you can not even own a loaded handgun, but hysterical anti-gun crusaders such as the late Carl Rowan of the WP editorial staff can shoot at kids for illicitly using the swimming pool and not be brought to justice for violating the facially unjust laws they cheerlead into passage. In New York, they walk by the metal detectors they subject others to while packing iron, or they can get dispensations for armed bodyguards and concealed weapons permits not available to the mere proles, even ones being robbed dozens of times per year in their bodegas.

IOW, there are true Democratic believers in all of the Bill of Rights and then there are the hypocrites and their apologists.

...group, although the message will obviously have to be tailored differently for each group's age. One part of the message that I would like to see is that guns are not unloaded the way it is often depicted in movies. There is not always a simple "pop the thingy that holds the bullets out and you are safe" situation in real life. One old girlfriend of mine, who hated the idea of talking about guns in school for reasons I never could quite figure out...along with her in general...but that is another story...changed her mind somewhat on the issue when I showed her a little Beretta 22 auto pistol that I had at the time. I popped the clip and asked her if it was unloaded and she responded with the affirmitive. It had the "pop-up" barrel which I lifted to show her one round sitting all ready to go. It kind of shocked her but I got my point across.

I would hope not, I spent 20 years in law enforcement and trust me you don't need them teaching gun safety. Most cops view their duty weapons as something that adds weight to their duty belts. There is a lawsuit against tazer right now because a cop shot a handcuffed suspect with her duty weapon after she mistaken it for her tazer.

a police woman.

CO_Liberal is angrily opposed to the Eddie Eagle Program. I respect his views and decided to evaluate the materials and program for myself. I obtained copies of handouts and teacher materials and read it very carefully.

The lesson plan is designed to be taught by a regular school teacher and it suggests that the teacher contact law enforcement for assistance.

the officer from the local police station gave the talk. The program focused on keeping kids away from guns.. But the officer didn't seem to understand that a child's curiousity is supreme... and he had all these guns on the table to show the kids what they look like.. (all unloaded)... and a few kids could not help themselves..right as the program ended they all leapt up to touch the guns.. the officer was beside himself as he tried to snap up all the weapons and he kept saying..."Don't touch"... it was funny in a sad way... no matter what...kids will not always listen.

How old were the children in question?

Since you have a child and are all too aware of natural curiosity, maybe you can teach your child how to leave guns alone. If the child is old enough and you have this ability, get ahold of a gun, and sit down with the child and show it to him/her. Let them hold it and check it out, so that their curiosity is satisfied. Then do what you have to do to explain to stay away just like a sharp knife and extract a promise from them.

Once the curiosity has been satisfied (which probably won't take long, as a lump of wood and metal is not all that interesting to most kids after a little while) you may be ok. I am reminded of a story that a guy I know tells of his young daughter. He goes shooting at the range quite frequently, and although he never pushed his children toward shooting, he was happy to take them along if they wanted to go. His little girl (about 9, I think) never wanted to go until one day she asked if she could go shooting with him. He was delighted to think that they could do this together. So, he gathers up all of his gear, and takes her to the range. They get there, he sets up, and sits her down and gives her the safety lecture, shows her the controls, etc. Then it is time to shoot. He sets up a target for her and very closely and carefully supervises her very first shot. She shoots ONE shot, and then says "ok, we can go home now." My friend was bummed (but didn't let on) and packed up all the gear, and drove her home. It turned out that she was curious about it, and once she had tried it, she was done. Pretty funny...

children not to cut themselves with knives and not to handle guns for a long time and it worked. Note I used the qualifier "responsible parent" and I believe that's part of our problem today. Many parents believe that schools are responsible for teaching everything including morals, safety, and things other that "reading, writing and arithmetic".

The poor teachers are overburdened and many students leave schools without the basic skills required to survive in a competitive labor market.

I don't know the answer to all society's problems, but I do know our school systems are not the answer and I suspect "responsible parents" will be part of the correct solution.

scheduled event. The kids were in the 4-12 age group range.

I personally don't own a gun but have no problem with teaching my kids to not touch when they are in homes where there may be a weapon..

However there have been a lot of accidental shootings in my area over the past few years that involved kids so they are trying to educate people.

I have told my kids not to touch weapon's if they should find them..that includes knives..etc..
but like sex... you can talk until you are blue in the face but you just never know if it all sinks in.

I do however ask parents if they have weapons in their home before my son or daughter can play in their home... If they do I ask if they are locked and out of reach of tiny hands...

surprised if they grow up to be responsible adults and make you very proud.

:thumbsup: :hi:

I think the Eddie Eagle program is a sincere attempt to address gun safety. Is it effective? I have no idea. I'm skeptical that a program in school, whether it's Eddie Eagle or DARE can have much impact on behavior.

That said, I am saddened by the loss of high school rifle clubs and similar activities that were commonplace in my father's day. Such supervised activities are as wholesome as any other sport and offer the same benefits and values. I would love to see air rifle re-introduced as a sport into schools -- but I'm not holding my breath.

As for the NRA "recruiting" children into the "gun culture," I wonder why that is a bad or suprising thing? The shootings sports are a wholesome family activity. Do you not expect MLB to promote its sport to children? I do everything I can to involve as many children and adults in the shooting sports as I can. I "recruit" constantly, offering lessons and range time at my expense. I even bought a youth rifle in anticipation of teaching my son when he's ready.

When I was in Junior High - around 1965. It wasn't much more than a way to get out of the house one Friday a month and mix with girls. Very little training, other than never point the gun at anything but the target.

It wasn't much more than a way to get out of the house one Friday a month and mix with girls.

LOL. Isn't that true of most junior high school activities?

Still, not pointing the gun at anything but the target is one of the four basic rules of gun safety. Probably the most important one.

Sadly, the days of the rifle clubs were gone by the time I was in junior high in the early 80's, at least in urban Ohio. Instead, I played soccer, another great sport, but one I'll never be as skilled at.

posters, and video tapes use in the Eddie Eagle program. The words NRA were used in a couple of places in very small print to preserve copyrights. I did not find a single instance of trying to encourage children to play with or use guns. The message was simple and repetitious "If you see a gun, stop don't touch, leave the area, tell and adult".

I'm not an educator, but I don't know how you cover more than that with a few minmutes with young children.

If educators want to debate the merits of cartoon characters in teaching, then have fun, but I didn't see anything that smacks of using the learning experience for political objectives.

If someone else can review the Eddie Eagle material and identify parts that are political or pro-RKBA or anti-RKBA, then please do so an cite me the material in which such statements are found.

Until someone can rebut my observations with specific cites, then I'll stick with my analysis that the Eddie Eagle program is not political and neither pro-RKBA nor anti-RKBA.