Guns = Dangerous? (Read the first post first, damnit)

[repiV]

The whole gun thing is based around mistrust.
If we trusted everyone there would be no reason for any weapons.

Unfortunately, we don't live in a world where we can afford that luxury.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Of course they serve other purposes. Most Western assault rifles aren't even designed to kill. If you can't even get that simple and obvious fact straight, how can you possibly expect anyone to take you seriously?

your mocking me, when you arn't even saying what this other "purpose" for guns is. Please enlighten me.

 

[CptStern]

As the incident at Virginia Tech and other similar incidents show, teachers would be much more able to make good on that responsibility if they were armed.

and had an errant bullet found an innocent? what then? you've been to school, do you honestly believe these people are capable of doing the right thing if the need should arise ...these guys thought they were prepared ..they werent. how do expect a civilian to do the right thing under pressure if people with extensive training cant?

That's because they would have an emotional reaction to the situation moreso than a logical one.

they're civilians they're not police ..you cant expect them to perform as trained in every single situation ..ands what if they themselves turn their guns on their students? what will you say then?

The choice is simple really - either you can let schools continue to be turkey shoots for nutcases, or you can defend them.

of course you ignore the obvious more realistic solution: ban easy access to guns

I'd like to think I'm a good enough judge of character to know you wouldn't shoot me the moment I give you a gun.

you willing to bet your life on it? ...my life is more important than that ..more so than even yours because as a parent I am responsible for my two kids ..seriously have kids, your life changes in ways you could not have anticipated

 

[repiV]

your mocking me, when you arn't even saying what this other "purpose" for guns is. Please enlighten me.

Well, for starters there's a purpose there in the very purpose you quoted. To wound.
Do you suppose the Olympic pistol shooting team is training to kill some hos?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Well, for starters there's a purpose there in the very purpose you quoted. To wound.
Do you suppose the Olympic pistol shooting team is training to kill some hos?

No, but guns were desgined to kill, and when people practice they are only doing it to learn to use it even better.

 

[repiV]

and had an errant bullet found an innocent? what then? you've been to school, do you honestly believe these people are capable of doing the right thing if the need should arise ...these guys thought they were prepared ..they werent. how do expect a civilian to do the right thing under pressure if people with extensive training cant?





they're civilians they're not police ..you cant expect them to perform as trained in every single situation ..ands what if they themselves turn their guns on their students? what will you say then?

Your point is valid, however, I don't think anybody could argue that my solution would save more lives than it would cost. At the very least, it can't be any worse than the current situation.

of course you ignore the obvious more realistic solution: ban easy access to guns

That's not a realistic solution at all. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the US constitution, and is as important to the majority of Americans as the right to free speech is to you and I.
It's not going to happen.

you willing to bet your life on it?

I don't see that as taking a risk with my life any more than getting in a car with you or handing you a bread knife would be.

 

[repiV]

No, but guns were desgined to kill, and when people practice they are only doing it to learn to use it even better.

What's your point?

 

[Sidewinder]

this thread is full of haters,it's disgusting.

 

[CptStern]

Your point is valid, however, I don't think anybody could argue that my solution would save more lives than it would cost. At the very least, it can't be any worse than the current situation.

heh, did you mean to say that your solution is not realistic? or just a typo? and yes it could be worse than the current situation ..what if a teacher had his gun stolen and used agains his students? what if in error a teacher shot an innocent bystander? the board of education couldnt cover all the law suits that could potentially arise out of this ..there is never a good reason to put children's lives at risk ..the chances are that it wont happen in your school, why would you increase those chances by arming everyone?

That's not a realistic solution at all. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the US constitution, and is as important to the majority of Americans as the right to free speech is to you and I.
It's not going to happen.

you didnt read what I posted ..I said ban easy access to guns ..want to buy a gun? you should dive through hoops to prove you've earned that right ..at least as it pertains to the US

I don't see that as taking a risk with my life any more than getting in a car with you or handing you a bread knife would be.

you have a chance with a bread knife or an car crash ..not so with an instrument that's pretty much point and kill

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

That's not a realistic solution at all. The right to bear arms is enshrined in the US constitution, and is as important to the majority of Americans as the right to free speech is to you and I.

Who gives a **** about your rights, if someone who is clearly mentally ill and on drugs can just get a gun, SOMETHING is wrong, and banning easy acsess to guns is the way to solve it. Got a better idea? Lets hear it.

 

[repiV]

heh, did you mean to say that your solution is not realistic? or just a typo?

I think you just misunderstood me. Not to worry.

and yes it could be worse than the current situation ..what if a teacher had his gun stolen and used agains his students? what if in error a teacher shot an innocent bystander? the board of education couldnt cover all the law suits that could potentially arise out of this ..there is never a good reason to put children's lives at risk ..the chances are that it wont happen in your school, why would you increase those chances by arming everyone?

The way I see it, the risks it would cause are a problem with the vetting of teachers which should be solved anyway, not a problem with arming properly vetted teachers.

you didnt read what I posted ..I said ban easy access to guns ..want to buy a gun? you should dive through hoops to prove you've earned that right ..at least as it pertains to the US

Ok - I agree with that.

you have a chance with a bread knife or an car crash ..not so with an instrument that's pretty much point and kill

I would never even dream that you or anyone else I thought was a decent sort would try and kill me.

 

[repiV]

Who gives a **** about your rights, if someone who is clearly mentally ill and on drugs can just get a gun, SOMETHING is wrong, and banning easy acsess to guns is the way to solve it. Got a better idea? Lets hear it.

I give a **** about my rights. And the rights of all decent, law abiding citizens.

 

[Sidewinder]

you guys are stupid,this law is already in place,mental retards can't have guns,for whatever reason it wasn't enforced which sucks and that needs to be fixed I admit that. all you English should stop talking trash if you don't what the deal is.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

mental retards can't have guns,

Then this must just be an imaginary event. Its happened before, this one was particulary bad, if accsess to guns was restricted better then we wouldn't need to have this conversation.

all you English should stop talking trash if you don't what the deal is.

What I know is that 32 ****ing innocent ****ing people have died. Why? Because some druggy physco could buy a gun just as if I could go and buy some bread. Are you too thick too get your head round this? If i'm talking trash, then your words are already in the dumpster.

 

[Sidewinder]

if the background check discovers you have a history with a mental illness then you should be denied access to guns,for whatever reason this did not happen,Which is wrong and laws need to be enforced better,but a 15 year olds opinion from across the pond doesn't mean shit.guns won't be banned here in the US get used to it.

 

[CptStern]

I think you just misunderstood me. Not to worry.

ok

The way I see it, the risks it would cause are a problem with the vetting of teachers which should be solved anyway, not a problem with arming properly vetted teachers.

teachers should be chosen for their teaching ability not whether they can drop an assailant at a moments notice ..teachers for the most part are the last people you want to arm ..I've worked as a teacher with teachers and there's no way I'd want them armed, they're just that capable it's not in their nature ..that isnt why they became teachers

Ok - I agree with that.

I've been saying that all along

I would never even dream that you or anyone else I thought was a decent sort would try and kill me.

what if I dropped the gun? what if I pulled a pulp fiction and accidentily painted the interior of my car with your brains? you're just asking for trouble when you arm people who's primary role is as educators. Even the most rational of people have a momentary lapse of reason




sidewinder: you dont have a clue ...Cho was twice detained and court ordered to have a psychiatric assessment ..obviously that in itself is should be enough to bar him from ever owning firearms ..the law failed to prevent this tragedy by enabling a psychopath by giving him easy access to guns

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Perhaps you can't read. I am not asking guns to be banned For ****s sake. This is not the first time this has happened and will not be the last unless something is done. Another question. Are you from the south? Because we in my country we don't see much racism, just the occasinal murder, so you seem like a jolly little dicklet to me. And besides, you have no right to call me "some 15 year old" A) when I'm 17, and B) When your proboaly some 11 year old whos watched too many patriotic movies and are convinced that your countries laws are right.

 

[repiV]

ok





teachers should be chosen for their teaching ability not whether they can drop an assailant at a moments notice ..teachers for the most part are the last people you want to arm ..I've worked as a teacher with teachers and there's no way I'd want them armed, they're just that capable it's not in their nature ..that isnt why they became teachers





I've been saying that all along





what if I dropped the gun? what if I pulled a pulp fiction and accidentily painted the interior of my car with your brains? you're just asking for trouble when you arm people who's primary role is as educators. Even the most rational of people have a momentary lapse of reason

Well, seeing as we now agree that it should be harder to acquire a gun but still legal, I think the rest of the discussion points are irrelevant.

 

[CptStern]

I dont think guns should be legal so dont pin that on me ..however with slogans like "not from my cold dead hands" it's obvious they wont give up their guns any time soon ..so the realistic solution is to curb gun purchases ..but even that isnt effective because in the majority of these cases these people have no prior criminal records ..meaning they'd easily get a gun if they wanted one

 

[Sidewinder]

who's the racist now?

I'm not from the south btw


also I'm 3 years older then you as well.reading over your post it's apparent you are just another hater.The laws in the U.S are right,they just need to be enforced and you're opinion (thank god) doesn't mean jack shit.And also what if I was from the south?Do you know every single person that lives in the southern states?
are all people from Mississippi rednecks and have sex with their cousins?
It's pretty obvious that you are racist,not me.



/leaves

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

also I'm 3 years older then you as well.reading over your post it's apparent you are just another hater.The laws in the U.S are right,they just need to be enforced and you're opinion (thank god) doesn't mean jack shit.
It's pretty obvious that you are racist,not me.

You clearly have no idea what rasict means. You have TWICE offended my country, not only that, you continue to sopport your laws when they have failed time and time again. No laws are perfect but as I keep saying, when a twice detained physcopath on drugs can get a gun, there is a problem. The fact that your 3 years older than me doesn't make you surpior or more mature. Yes I'm a hater, but perhaps I don't want to live in a world where some lunatic can just get a gun anytime s/he wants.

EDIT: In fact, judgding from the way your posts are laid out and your general "i can't think of a proper argument so I'll just offend the guy who is more ratinol" tackling of this, I'd say your less mature.

 

[Sidewinder]

lol "offended",I stated the obvious I,ll say it again you are in england you're
opinion doesn't mean anything here,you are in a different country spewing bloody non sense on a forum.




QQ more.

 

[63]

Ban all firearms.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

this thread is full of haters,it's disgusting.

you guys are stupid

all you English should stop talking trash if you don't what the deal is.

but a 15 year olds opinion from across the pond doesn't mean shit.guns won't be banned here in the US get used to it.

reading over your post it's apparent you are just another hater

you're opinion (thank god) doesn't mean jack shit.

QQ more.

Sorry, if you weren't intending on bieng offensive you have certainly done a good job.

Oh and please tell of this nonsence I'm spewing? That perhaps, evne for a second, guns should be made difficult ot get hold of, which you continue to claim happens, but never seems to when this kind of thing happens. Most of the time isn't good enough, it needs to be all the time. And if people can't sell guns responibly, WTF are they doing selling them? If people can't use guns responsibly, then why the **** are they allowed to use them? Its called common sense.

In fact, to me it seems you think that anyone who disagrees with you and proposes a sensible solution that does not involve banning guns you automatically assume they are idiots and they don't know what they're talking about.

 

[Dynasty]

Guns dont kill people, its stupid ***kers with guns that kill people.

The gun itself doesnt kill, its the internal damage/bleeding that kills ya.

And no, i dont a humorous attitude toward guns. Yes they can kill, thats the whole point, but i dont believe they should be sold to anyone that wants one.

 

[Nemesis6]

Guns are dangerous. That's the entire idea behind their invention. Anyone can use them, and sometimes, that "anyone" is a kook. Shifting the blame for that issue onto the guns themselves is ignorant of human nature; If I want to kill some people, and I'm truly committed, I, being a European, am not gonna be stopped by the public absence of guns in my daily environment. The guy in Germany wasn't. He found a gun anyway, but still, anything, if wielded properly, can be used for evil.

 

[sinkoman]

Well, guns are dangerous, but that's still no reason to ban them outright.

I do agree though, that it's stupidly easy to get a gun in the US. We really need to lock down gun security, and track all ammunition and firearms purchases more diligently.

Slam in a ton more background checks, allot more fire-arm safety training.

Hell, i'm not even opposed to making it so that your weapon won't fire unless you're at a range.

The whole "self defense" argument is bullshit. If anything, we shouldn't be submitting ourselves to being able to buy a ton more weaponry, just for our "safety". If that's really the issue, then we need to look more towards reform of our law enforcement agencies.

I'm really hating how the US' opinion towards guns has turned. I really think that they should be something available to trusting and forthright citizens, and understand WHY they were originally allowed to people, but the way people debate and argue about them, I feel that it might have been easier to just never allow them, just to shut everybody, and all the arguments surrounding guns, up.

 

[Bob_Marley]

I think the reason for differing opinions and laws, in part, is due to the perception of what guns should be used for. In the US the primary argument seems to be that they should be possessed for home/self defence first. In rural areas of the UK (and possibly the rest of Europe, I wouldnt like to make generalisations) guns are owned for pest control and sport. One of the first things I remeber being told by my dad is that you never point a gun at something you're not prepared to destroy, and that you should not destroy humans.

Now, to me, it seems like in the US the argument is that if everyone had a gun, all the time there wouldnt be any crime because the potential criminal would be in a MAD situation. He cant do anything bad with his gun because while he may kill some one, he would be killed as well. Essentially it seems that this stems from a lack of trust in both law enforcement agencies and other humans in general.

In the UK to get any firearm (by and large) legally you have to have a thourgh background check, have people in positions of social responsiblity who will support your application for a firearms certificate, provide a valid reason for having the weapon and so on. This means that it's very hard for someone to legally get a weapon that would realistically be capable of something like what was recently seen in virgina. Hand guns, centre fire semi-automatic rifles, fully automatic weapons and stuff like rocket launchers and flamethrowers are completely out lawed. Rifles and shotguns have restrictions on barrel length, overall length and in some cases capacity. Also, they must be stored in police inspected gun cabinets, the ammuntion must be stored in a seperate secure cabinet. Similar laws apply to the transportation of firearms.

While these safe guards have not ended gun crime in the UK, they have ensured that gun crime from people who are legitimate owners of firearms is virtually nill.

In the US however, many of the weapons that are restricted in the UK are avalible fairly freely in the US (example: Handguns. To get a handgun in the UK you need personal permission from the Home Secratry) for (seemingly) the reason that they should should be availible for home defence.

I'm not saying that restrictions stop gun crime, because they dont and it would be foolish to think that they do. However, they do mean that a legitamte firearms user is much less likly to turn their weapons on thier fellow human beings.

Thats not to say that I totally agree with how the UK's firearms laws are now, personally I think that centrefire semi-automatics and .22 target pistols (the single shot/very low capacity type used in competitions like the Olympics) should be reclassified from section 5 to section 1. However, the laws do do a good job of keeping the people with a legitimate reason to own a firearm from using them for criminal activity.

 

[Gunner]

Guns are dangerous. That's the entire idea behind their invention. Anyone can use them, and sometimes, that "anyone" is a kook. Shifting the blame for that issue onto the guns themselves is ignorant of human nature; If I want to kill some people, and I'm truly committed, I, being a European, am not gonna be stopped by the public absence of guns in my daily environment. The guy in Germany wasn't. He found a gun anyway, but still, anything, if wielded properly, can be used for evil.

Yes because obviously you can go on a rampage with a baseball bat killing 33 people including yourself with it, right?

Why do you feel it's necessary for ordinary citizens to have guns? explain that one.

 

[Sidewinder]

I want guns,because I collect them.

 

[Gunner]

I want guns,because I collect them.

Collect something else.

 

[_Z_Ryuken]

People are dangerous. End of discussion (or not).

 

[Skar]

Hello. First, I'd like to say that I'm not very good at expressing my opinions or beliefs, or debating. I'd also like to mention that for background I am from Texas, am relatively educated, and own 21 firearms of various types. I feel that everyone in the United States has the right to own firearms, regardless of the stigma on that firearm.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
repiV, I respect you for standing up for gun rights, but I'd like to add a couple of technical notes to your comments. The rifle caliber of which you spoke in some of your initial posts is not 5.62, it is 5.56x45mm (also commonly referred to as .223 Remington). It was derived from the .222 Remington varmint hunting round, and shoots a very light projectile (40-75 grains usually) at very high speeds (over 3000fps; for comparison the 7.62x39 Soviet round found in Ak-47's usually clocks around 2400fps).

This gives it a very flat projectile path over a given distance, and due to its weight, it is also very light and one can carry a great deal of it. It IS designed to kill, and if a military, any military, is shooting at you, I can promise their intent is to kill you. It achieves this lethality through fragmentation. Assuming that the projectile (depending on its weight and structure) is moving more than ~2700fps it will often break apart inside its target and cause very nasty tissue damage.

7.65, again, is incorrect. The caliber of which you speak is 7.62x52mm, or .308 Winchester. And an 'mp5' round will have much less chance of causing a fatal wound because the caliber (either 9mm, .40, or 10mm) is designed for pistols. And there is no guarantee that a shot to the chest will kill a man instantly. Only a hit to the central nervous system will do that, regardless of whether the bullet is a .22LR or a 20mm Anti Material round.

Granted, there are some firearms whose sole purpose are sport. See competition race guns, benchrest rifles, bullseye pistols, biathlon rifles, some shotguns, etc... However, they all share a quality of deadliness that can not be denied. To answer the poll question: Yes, firearms are dangerous.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also would like to call into question the comments I've heard on here and elsewhere regarding the 'types' of weapons. 'Assault weapon' is a very generic term that seems to be often applied to guns of a certain cosmetic appearance. I can promise you that your 'Average Joe' hunting rifle is not so different from the one the military uses. The difference in most cases is purely cosmetic: a separate pistol grip instead of one carved into the stock, an adjustable stock, a bayonet lug or grenade launcher mount (when was the last time someone was killed with a bayonet or grenade launcher in the United States :dozey The internals of an Ar-15 (m16) or Ak-47 clone are very similar to other semi-automatic weapons, but they are 'discriminated' against, if you will, because they look scary. Nothing more. A .223 fired from one of those high end SAKO hunting rifles will kill you just as dead as a .223 fired from an AK clone or AR-15. I'd also like to add that many of these 'assault weapons' are by far and away the most expensive, and for that very reason are rarely used in crimes. In fact, I think, but do not have any back up for this other than I'm pretty sure I read it at some point, that there have only been one or two murders with registered NFA weapons (silencers, short barrel shotguns/rifles, full autos) in the United States since the law was passed in 1934. The people who have legally bought these assault weapons under current laws are generally very responsible and stand up citizens.

After the Virginia Tech shootings, there has been much to do over magazine capacity. I see the argument for restricting the number of rounds in a magazine (not a 'clip'), but I feel that such bans are ultimately useless. Whether I can shoot 10 rounds before I must reload or 16 makes little difference. It seems that in a great deal of gun crime, the number of rounds fired is usually very small. The case of the Virginia Tech killer seems to be an exception. Nonetheless, even with a magazine of only a few rounds, he could of ejected one and replaced it in very short order. Furthermore, having multiple rounds is beneficial should you need to defend yourself or someone else: Indeed, police have pretty much universally switched to semi-autos for this very purpose.

--------------------------------------------------------------

As for the whole concept of guns being built on mistrust, well I'll agree to an extent. However, I feel that this is the same mistrust of people that one has when you tell your children about stranger danger, or what makes you scared when moving through the bad part of town at night. I am not suspicious of everyone, everywhere even though I own many firearms. On the contrary, I try to be as nice to people as possible as do many of the gun owners I know. I have never felt unsafe at a gun show or at a shooting range. In fact, these places generally seem to be the most crime free (at least when your inside the place). I very, very, very rarely hear of an incident occurring at a gun show / shooting range (unless you account the occasional person who comes in, rents a gun, and shoots himself on purpose, even then they are very rare).

I know you've heard these arguments before and disagree but I will say them again. One has guns for fun and for defense. A gun is a tool. If I carry a gun, it is not because I am an introvert and mistrustful of society and people as a whole: it is because I want to be prepared should, god forbid, a situation arise that I would need my gun to diffuse. It better to have it and not need it, than need it and not have it as the saying goes. Many would argue that the police exist to handle such situations, however I disagree. Police are 'first responders' but 'responders' none the less. They arrive after something has happened to mop up, investigate, and press charges. They can not be counted on, as is so apparent shootings like Columbine, Virginia Tech, and many of the killings that have occurred that are not infamous, to save you. It is first and foremost your responsibility to protect yourself.

And again, people who have concealed weapons do not rampage around the streets with guns drawn dishing out vigilante justice. They are like most of the 40+ million gun owners in the United States, responsible people. It is part of the independence that I, an American citizen, feel I have and am proud of. I'm sure many other gun owners feel this way. I, and many others, are not willing to give this up because of an occasional madman. I know that sounds callous, and I don't mean it to, but that is my mindset.

And yes, shooting is fun, and I would bet money that most of you dissenters have never fired a weapon. If you did, I'd bet your mind would change. It's always fun seeing the grin on a friend's face after they've shot their first round through the AR-15 (m16).

Lastly, I would like to comment on the topic of teachers with guns. I feel that if a teacher wishes to 'concealed carry', than they should do so. I also think that if a student wishes to carry a concealed weapon (assuming he meets previous requirements, mainly age), he/she should be able to do so as well. I heard someone say on television say that there is often no profile for such a killer, and that there is no way to prepare without serious security crackdowns. One gun amongst the many students would have at least had the chance of stopping the attack and at best prevented the vast majority of the casualties.

Forgive me for any point ommisions (spelling?), missing words, incoherent remarks, etc... I am not good at typing, or articulating as I've said.

Edit:

I would also like to add a note regarding a comment that Stern made. The vast majority of modern weapons will NOT go off if dropped as many have a firing pin block of some sort, or a disengage. The whole 'dropping your gun makes it go boom' I believe came from the old days of revolvers where the hammer rested against the primer of a round in the cylinder and if it was dropped, it would impact it. Any more there is a bar between the cylinder and the hammer that comes down when you pull the trigger. While perhaps not technically correct for all revolvers (I know it is for Rugers), that is the concept.

Furthermore, the vast majority of gun accidents occur because the four basic rules of gun handling were not followed. There are no excuses for these, as they are all preventable. Education about firearms is the most important part of preventing such accidents, not banning them all together.

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

Furthermore, the vast majority of gun accidents occur because the four basic rules of gun handling were not followed. There are no excuses for these, as they are all preventable. Education about firearms is the most important part of preventing such accidents, not banning them all together.

What are these four rules?:sniper:

 

[Skar]

1. Every gun is always loaded (Even if it's not)
2. Don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your aiming and ready to fire
4. Be sure of your target and what's behind it

These rules should be followed at all times, and they usually are. It's temporary laps of judgments that cause accidents, just like a temporary lapse while driving a car or working with heavy machinery can cause serious injury or death. Part of education is teaching these basic rules and reinforcing them till they are habits.

The other part, in my opinion, is basic familiarization with weapons. I know that sounds radical and extreme, but what I mean is that if people had a basic knowledge of the workings of firearms and had a little experience with one before, then the mystery of them would be gone and people, kids in particular, would be much less likely to unsafely play with them. I know that's probably a bit radical though, and in the case of children, parents would never sign off on their kids learning about guns.

 

[Jintor]

Gun debates are giving me a ****ing headache. -_-

 

[FieryGoose]

tell me can you buy marijuana, cocaine and steal a car if you wanted to?

 

[Atomic_Piggy]

tell me can you buy marijuana, cocaine and steal a car if you wanted to?

Aye, but they require a lot of work. You have to know who is selling the drugs, and then have the right amount of money. When you steal a car, you need to plan it and think about or it will or all go to shit. You can't just walk in and take these things.

 

[Jintor]

In other words, if you bant guns it would not be impossible to acquire guns, just significantly more difficult.

 

[gick]

Words about guns

Thankyou, very informative.

1. Every gun is always loaded (Even if it's not)
2. Don't point a gun at anything you don't intend to destroy
3. Keep your finger off the trigger until your aiming and ready to fire
4. Be sure of your target and what's behind it

These rules should be followed at all times, and they usually are. It's temporary laps of judgments that cause accidents, just like a temporary lapse while driving a car or working with heavy machinery can cause serious injury or death. Part of education is teaching these basic rules and reinforcing them till they are habits.

The other part, in my opinion, is basic familiarization with weapons. I know that sounds radical and extreme, but what I mean is that if people had a basic knowledge of the workings of firearms and had a little experience with one before, then the mystery of them would be gone and people, kids in particular, would be much less likely to unsafely play with them. I know that's probably a bit radical though, and in the case of children, parents would never sign off on their kids learning about guns.

This is something thats always confused me about the US. In a society that is saturated with guns, I would have thought that everybody would have been educated about firearms from a very early age, just so they know not to **** around with them.