General Gun Control DISCUSSION Thread

[Lost Cause]

As a gun owner, all of the guns in our home are locked in a large Browning safe in the master bedroom, and only myself and my husband know the combination. The pistols were licensed to carry are stored on the night table next to the bed of stored in one of those safes Vexx described.
If there is a magazine capacity limitation passed, fine I'll just start carrying a more powerful handgun. And if it is a revolver, they do make "speed loaders" for them that does speed up the reloading process.
Smart gun tech does exist to a degree. Both Ruger and Smith & Wesson offer their revolvers and some semi-auto pistols with a lock installed in them, and are shipped with a set of keys. Another device if the 70s was the Magna Trigger Lock. It came with two magnetic rings that were to be worn by the user(s) in order to deactivate the automatic locking mechanism installed inside a revolver. Without said ring the gun was useless!
Now while the debate here has mostly been aimed at us legal gun owners. I want to know how you deal with the criminals who get their guns by illegal means, be it theft, barter, trade, black market, and such? And should mental health records be made available to both the BATFE, and FBI for a data base?

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

You can use a gun to protect yourself without killing the other person, though. There was an instance in the 1980s, for example, where a woman managed to fend off someone who attacked her with a knife in the backseat of a taxi cab (Woman A being the crazy ex-girlfriend of a guy that Woman B was currently dating) by shooting her in the shoulder, ensuring that an encounter which very well could have resulted in death ended with nothing more than an injury that healed after a few months. There are also stories where warning shots manage to scare away the attacker, which prevents the situation from escalating and results in nobody being killed or even injured.

Not to say that I'm ultimately for or against gun control; just that using guns for self-defense doesn't always mean 'kill someone who's trying to kill you,' but that it can also mean 'deal someone who's trying to kill you a recoverable injury, or scare them off so that nobody gets hurt at all.'

That doesn't change the fact that the gun was designed to kill. When they created the first guns, was it because someone said, "Make me a weapon that I can brandish without killing anyone! Or at least make me a weapon that I can use to injure my enemy without killing him!"

You CAN injure or threaten someone with a gun. But you can also use a hammer as a paperweight. It doesn't change the fact that the hammer was designed to pound nails. Hell, I can use a hammer to threaten, injure or kill someone. It's still a hammer, and it's primary purpose, the purpose it was designed for, doesn't change: to pound nails.

(and this is where someone gets cute and points out different hammers)

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Now while the debate here has mostly been aimed at us legal gun owners. I want to know how you deal with the criminals who get their guns by illegal means, be it theft, barter, trade, black market, and such? And should mental health records be made available to both the BATFE, and FBI for a data base?

Agreed, which is why I've been trying to focus on the handguns, which are used in the vast majority of gun homicides. As I pointed out earlier, a few gunships are being less-than-scrupulous in who they sell their guns to, and the ATF has no power to regulate them (they were neutered at the behest of the NRA). Give the ATF back it's power to track guns and regulate gun shops and sales, and you'll see far fewer guns ending up in the hands of criminals.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

Now while the debate here has mostly been aimed at us legal gun owners.

No, you guys are fine. In fact, the legal process of gun ownership should be expanded to bring more people into compliance. If anyone wants guns, then they should be subject to the process of licensing and training.

* Freedom of gun ownership.
* Safety of gun use.

Such solutions should satisfy both sides of the argument.

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

I want to know how you deal with the criminals who get their guns by illegal means, be it theft, barter, trade, black market, and such? And should mental health records be made available to both the BATFE, and FBI for a data base?

Arrest them. Hunt them down. Subject them to the full extent of the law.

Mental records? Yes. This will satisfy part of the mental health aspect of the issue.

[Archon_Wing]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

Also sometimes the threat of the gun is enough to defend oneself. From the "Beware of Owner" stickers to the sound of an shotgun's pump action working to freak out an intruder. But if the threat is no enough, than sometimes seeing the weapon is enough. Even firing the weapon can be enough without actually hitting the intruder (it's loud and scary).

After that, then it is wounding shots (legs is the prefered target).

After that, than you aim to kill, or if the intruder is also so armed, because unless the intruder is wounded and won't fight back, you have to assume they are going to shoot to kill you (as they did invade your home with a gun out). It is still traditional to aim to wound first.

Deterrents are definitely something to think about. I suppose it'd be less appealing to rob a place where you know you might get shot. Most people don't want to get shot, even if they are stupid

The question is, the threat to kill is still basing the gun as a tool to kill. Though killing isn't necessarily wrong, of course. It is however something of huge consequences.

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

That doesn't change the fact that the gun was designed to kill. When they created the first guns, was it because someone said, "Make me a weapon that I can brandish without killing anyone! Or at least make me a weapon that I can use to injure my enemy without killing him!"

You CAN injure or threaten someone with a gun. But you can also use a hammer as a paperweight. It doesn't change the fact that the hammer was designed to pound nails. Hell, I can use a hammer to threaten, injure or kill someone. It's still a hammer, and it's primary purpose, the purpose it was designed for, doesn't change: to pound nails.

(and this is where someone gets cute and points out different hammers)

You probably could have stood to make your point clearer, then; I thought you meant to say that killing another person was the one and only thing it could be used for.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by Kyuu

I only wrote that to be snarky.

Disappointing, though not entirely unexpected.

Listen, the bottom line here is that we're extremely unlikely to change each other's mind here, and this goes for everyone else in this thread, so the only point really is really just an exchange and critique of ideas, so maybe some can better understand the position and reasoning of another, even if they remain at odds overall.

This means that snarky comments and stereotyping of people who doesn't agree with you isn't helpful or constructive in any way. Just because one may point out the flaws in your idea, it doesn't make them "defensive" anymore than a teacher is being defensive when telling a student that 1+1 doesn't equal 5, and just because someone supports gun rights, it doesn't mean they're all hardcore bible-thumbing, NRA-loving hicks suffering from paranoia.

Now, with that out of the way,

Of course, I don't. I just said that. However, it's irrelevant, when public policy is in discussion. AND people are dying as a result of current policies. Because of this, things MUST be changed.

I would argue that it's VERY relevant. Knee-jerk reaction that disregard facts isn't going to help anyone. When your car breaks down, you don't go to a florist for repair, when a company is seeking to fix an ailing operation, it doesn't turn to a janitor for solutions, and if your computer breaks down, you probably shouldn't jump out and start replacing random parts, especially if your knowledge about PCs are on the level of those that still think the monitor is the computer.

You say that you don't care about the actual facts, as long as something gets done, even if it's ineffective. How is that any different than, say, letting creationist fanatics decide your children's science textbook?

As far as gun regulation is concerned, background checks are all that I am aware of. Yet, these can be bypassed via gun shows and Internet sales. I'm sorry. That's not enough.

Those loopholes are to be eliminated in the proposals, and I certainly have no issues with those. And there are quite a few more regulations than background checks - actual automatic weapons etc, all told somewhere around 20,000+ of them.

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

If you can't secure a gun against theft and/or use by minors, then maybe you should not be allowed to keep a gun.

On this I disagree. I think it's probably an issue where you're looking at gun ownership as a privilege, while I look at it as a right. Also, "secure against theft" is simply too vague of a requirement. You can have your pistol in a small safe, but that's not gonna stop thieves from taking the whole damn thing away.

More importantly if there was no penalty for theft, you'd be leaving a loophole wide enough to drive a tank through. You could have a situation where a person sells hundreds of guns to criminals, and then when they turn up at a crime, he simply claims they were "stolen" from him.

I think it'd be pretty obvious to a jury that one does not simply have hundreds of guns all from a private owner show up in crime scenes.

I don't think this is too onerous, the key thing is to provide a deterrent against not safely securing a gun.

My primary issue is that "safely" isn't very clearly defined, and can vary greatly depending on the circumstances.

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Offense or Defense.

Killing is killing. When it comes to Death (or even injury), there is no such distinction. A dead person is a dead person. Any difference between an offensive kill or a defensive kill would be left up to the courts. Even when someone is hurt, there are liabilities.

Completely disagree.

When someone attacks me or my family in my home, my goal is to stop the attackers, dead or alive. The idea that the live and safety of the criminal attacking innocent people should be prioritized is downright crazy.

What I find sick -- many argument on the gun side make no effort in that regard. Instead, they're far more concerned about the Freedom and unfettered ownership of guns; at the same time, they do not take responsibility for the political climate, that allows gun violence to occur.

political climate? Sorry, I must have missed the part where Adam Lanza went out to to kill all those kids because of Congress. And here I thought it was because of the lacking mental health care system and the decay of good parenting and culture in general.

And on that note, I'm sorry. I have to point a finger in that direction. Why?! Because the gun side preferred to retain things as they are -- rather than make the effort to improve the safety of society pertaining to guns.

No, they simply disagree with you on how to achieve that goal.

To the gun people, do not fight this political change. Do not even hope that it'll blow over. Not this time. If you have recommendations on the nature of safety, then give them! All I hear is nothing more than "defensive talk" -- as if there is no such thing as a "gun problem". The truth is: there IS a gun problem. Deal with it.

Good luck with that.

And yes. My knowledge on guns is limited -- or virtually non-existent. However, that is irrelevant, because the issue is NOT whether people know about guns or not. The issue is directly linked to the sheer fact: many people in America are dying in relation to guns. Until these death numbers drop, the discussion will continue.

Read the beginning portion of this post. I find it quite hilarious that someone who openly admits that he knows nothing about a subject - including the associated use, capability, and impact, thinks that his ideas can't possibly be wrong.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

Disappointing, though not entirely unexpected.

Listen, the bottom line here is that we're extremely unlikely to change each other's mind here, and this goes for everyone else in this thread, so the only point really is really just an exchange and critique of ideas, so maybe some can better understand the position and reasoning of another, even if they remain at odds overall.

Want to see what I want?

I want this:
http://forums.animesuki.com/showpost...postcount=1023

There. Want your guns? You can have them, for all I care. Just create a system where (a) crazy people and criminals have limited access to guns and (b) a safety approach that minimizes the chances of death.

What do YOU want? Completely unregulated gun use, production, and distribution? Sorry, we've tried that.

Originally Posted by kyp275

When someone attacks me or my family in my home, my goal is to stop the attackers, dead or alive.

Do you express the right to be judge, jury, and executioner in that situation? Granted, in the case of a home invasion, that process is extremely rushed. Police and even the military have protocols of engagement, which assess necessity to use lethal force or not. Do you have similar levels of training?

Surely, anyone who kills in the name of self-defense -- I acknowledge that right. A fool invading the home of another deserves, whatever consequences that goes with it.

Originally Posted by kyp275

The idea that the live and safety of the criminal attacking innocent people should be prioritized is downright crazy

Go check on the annual budget for prisons compared to that of education.

A criminal is a criminal. But said criminal is still a person. Even this guy:

Spoiler:

Yet, if you ask me, I hope he gets the death penalty; as he had forfeited his right to life (per my own opinion).

[Dr. Casey]

I'm selling buckets of popcorn if anyone else wants to kick back and enjoy the fight.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

I'm selling buckets of popcorn if anyone else wants to kick back and enjoy the fight.

Extra butter please.

===

Anyways. Someone may need to check up on this. However, I have heard that the NRA lobbied for a law to bar the Federal government from taking numbers and subsequent research on the effects of gun violence in this country.

Is this true, or not?

As a result, there exists the argument on the gun side, where the number of guns in circulation have no direct effect on the number of gun deaths. Or something of that nature. In other words, they can freely say: "There is no gun problem!"

[Kaijo]

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

You probably could have stood to make your point clearer, then; I thought you meant to say that killing another person was the one and only thing it could be used for.

Perhaps. Sometimes we don't always phrase things well, and in that case, a rephrase is called for. But I'd like to add one more thing:

Yes, the gun can be used to protect and defend people without actually killing one... but it's also unreliable to that purpose. Just because you have a gun, doesn't necessarily mean someone is going to back off (and if we succeed in flooding the country with guns, odds are, the other person will have one as well). And yes, you can injure someone without killing them... but you want to take chances on that?

The few times I fired a gun, I was given a speech. And it is a speech that every responsible gun owner knows. When you put your finger on the trigger, you better be prepared to shoot to kill. You better damn well be prepared to take a human life. Because odds are, that is exactly what you will do. Maybe you get off lucky and only injure him and he survives. But you aim for the center of the mass and fire off a couple of of rounds. You don't aim for the legs, and you don't aim to shoot the gun out of his hand.

Every single gun owner knows this, or at least is supposed to know this. That is also why we say the gun is designed to kill, and that is its purpose.

Edit: And given that a gun in a residence increases the odds that someone in the residence will be injured or killed by a firearm, it is safe to conclude that the gun injures and kills far more than it protects.

[kyp275]

sigh, if you can't remain civil and reasonable...

Originally Posted by Kyuu

There. Want your guns? You can have them, for all I care. Just create a system where (a) crazy people and criminals have limited access to guns and (b) a safety approach that minimizes the chances of death.

Agreed, but...

What do YOU want? Completely unregulated gun use, production, and distribution? Sorry, we've tried that.

You just had to devolve to stereotyping. For that matter, there hasn't been "completely unregulated gun use, production, and distribution" in the US for well over 80 years.

Personally, I would prefer a system where the crazy and the criminal would have zero access to weapons, but that's simply not possible. I support policies such as universal background checks and better mental health infrastructures, what I'm against are feel-good policies that primarily serves to hurt legitimate gun owners while having little to no impact on the illegitimate one.

Do you express the right to be judge, jury, and executioner in that situation? Granted, in the case of a home invasion, that process is extremely rushed. Police and even the military have protocols of engagement, which assess necessity to use lethal force or not. Do you have similar levels of training?

It's not so much that a defender in a home suddenly gets to decide the fate of anyone who enters his home, but rather that he has the right to defend himself, and the attacker forfeit his right to not get shot.

For me, I don't "shoot to kill", I shoot to "stop", whether the attacker live or die is a secondary concern, as the primary and overriding concern is for my and my family's safety.

And yes, I served 10 years in the Marine Corps with multiple combat deployments, and frankly, military ROE have little relevance or semblance to civilian use.

Surely, anyone who kills in the name of self-defense -- I acknowledge that right. A fool invading the home of another deserves, whatever consequences that goes with it.

A criminal is a criminal. But said criminal is still a person. Even this guy:

Spoiler:

Yet, if you ask me, I hope he gets the death penalty; as he had forfeited his right to life (per my own opinion).

Indeed, I'm not advocating that a home invader is somehow "flagged" for open pew pew as long as he's in your house - for example, if you managed to incapacitate an attacker by wounding him, it doesn't give you the right to walk up to him and pop one in the head to finish him off, that would cross the line from self-defense to murder.

Originally Posted by Dr. Casey

I'm selling buckets of popcorn if anyone else wants to kick back and enjoy the fight.

If this thread starts to require popcorn, it's not gonna last very long.

[Dr. Casey]

Originally Posted by Kaijo

Perhaps. Sometimes we don't always phrase things well, and in that case, a rephrase is called for. But I'd like to add one more thing:

Yes, the gun can be used to protect and defend people without actually killing one... but it's also unreliable to that purpose. Just because you have a gun, doesn't necessarily mean someone is going to back off (and if we succeed in flooding the country with guns, odds are, the other person will have one as well). And yes, you can injure someone without killing them... but you want to take chances on that?

The few times I fired a gun, I was given a speech. And it is a speech that every responsible gun owner knows. When you put your finger on the trigger, you better be prepared to shoot to kill. You better damn well be prepared to take a human life. Because odds are, that is exactly what you will do. Maybe you get off lucky and only injure him and he survives. But you aim for the center of the mass and fire off a couple of of rounds. You don't aim for the legs, and you don't aim to shoot the gun out of his hand.

Every single gun owner knows this, or at least is supposed to know this. That is also why we say the gun is designed to kill, and that is its purpose.

Edit: And given that a gun in a residence increases the odds that someone in the residence will be injured or killed by a firearm, it is safe to conclude that the gun injures and kills far more than it protects.

Yeah. Again, my post wasn't meant to impart any other message except that guns have some more variation in their function than always killing. Didn't mean anything else beyond that.

[DonQuigleone]

Originally Posted by kyp275

On this I disagree. I think it's probably an issue where you're looking at gun ownership as a privilege, while I look at it as a right. Also, "secure against theft" is simply too vague of a requirement. You can have your pistol in a small safe, but that's not gonna stop thieves from taking the whole damn thing away.

Absolutely, but it helps. Furthermore, the criminal may not know what's in the safe, or where it is. It would also prevent the gun from being used by a thief immediately after stealing it (and many a thug may not even have the means to break a hard enough safe anyway).

The smaller safe would also prevent children from accessing it, which is almost as important as preventing theft.

I think it'd be pretty obvious to a jury that one does not simply have hundreds of guns all from a private owner show up in crime scenes.

It'll probably never come to a court in the first place. If it's legal to have 1 gun stolen from you, it's legal to have 100, or 1000. The law can't discriminate based on scale, it must be exact.

Furthermore, there's no means for the government to collect statistics on multiple infringements anyway, as there's no database. If one of your guns turned up in one crime, and another turned up at another, the police would not be able to put two and two together.

Finally, at a Jury Trial, the crime has to be proven beyond all reasonable doubt. The defendant would always be able to claim the guns were stolen, and the Jury would not be able to disprove that claim. However, if he could be arrested on the lesser charge of losing a gun, you'd at least be able to put a stop to his criminal enterprise, and the fact he had previous misdemeanors of losing guns would give law enforcement just cause to watch him, and maybe catch him in the act of the more serious crime of weapon smuggling.

[Kyuu]

Originally Posted by kyp275

You just had to devolve to stereotyping. For that matter, there hasn't been "completely unregulated gun use, production, and distribution" in the US for well over 80 years.

Well, I had no friggin' idea what you want. Why the heck did I even ask?! The next best thing I could do is use my imagination linked with some stereotyping.

I'm only human. C'mon man!

Originally Posted by kyp275

Personally, I would prefer a system where the crazy and the criminal would have zero access to weapons, but that's simply not possible. I support policies such as universal background checks and better mental health infrastructures, what I'm against are feel-good policies that primarily serves to hurt legitimate gun owners while having little to no impact on the illegitimate one.

Just two weeks ago -- I had to sit through the DMV for an hour just to renew my car license. However, by no means, I am not hurt by that. Had I come earlier, I would have saved myself 40 minutes (because no one was around earlier, as the DMV worker mentioned). Whatever, no big deal.

A gun licensing system does not hurt anyone. Sure, that'll subject gun owners to waiting through the licensing process. This system will both prevent the crazies from having guns; AND it'll help law enforcement track the guns, when they're in criminal hands. Just recently, I learned about the prospect of bullet tracking, where individual bullets can be marked. That way, bullets can be traced to their origins.

A licensing system is well within the bounds of a legal, law-abiding citizen. Hell, I walked right out of the DMV thinking just that (aside from, finally, I'm on my way).

Well, the good news. We're on the same damned page on this whole scheme. I was so pissed earlier -- I went ahead and bought myself and my sisters some food. Some damned good food.

[kyp275]

Originally Posted by DonQuigleone

Absolutely, but it helps. Furthermore, the criminal may not know what's in the safe, or where it is. It would also prevent the gun from being used by a thief immediately after stealing it (and many a thug may not even have the means to break a hard enough safe anyway).

The smaller safe would also prevent children from accessing it, which is almost as important as preventing theft.

Heh, gun safes are...quite obvious tbh. Hiding it is frankly something many do even if they have a safe - people have gotten 1,000+ lbs gun safes stolen before, but obviously it's of little use if the thieves have time to ransack your house.

As far as children are concerned, I'm solidly in the camp of storing them in safes if there are children in your household, on that you'll find no disagreement from me.

It'll probably never come to a court in the first place. If it's legal to have 1 gun stolen from you, it's legal to have 100, or 1000. The law can't discriminate based on scale, it must be exact.

I would imagine at that point you're not being charged for letting your gun be stolen, but rather for illicit arms trade.

Originally Posted by Kyuu

Just two weeks ago -- I had to sit through the DMV for an hour just to renew my car license. However, by no means, I am not hurt by that. Had I come earlier, I would have saved myself 40 minutes (because no one was around earlier, as the DMV worker mentioned). Whatever, no big deal.

online renewal is your friend

A gun licensing system does not hurt anyone. Sure, that'll subject gun owners to waiting through the licensing process. This system will both prevent the crazies from having guns; AND it'll help law enforcement track the guns, when they're in criminal hands. Just recently, I learned about the prospect of bullet tracking, where individual bullets can be marked. That way, bullets can be traced to their origins.

Personally I don't have much issue with a licensing/registry system (already have to for my CCW), but I do understand the concerns of those that are against it - the government can't seize stuff that it doesn't know is there. Personally, if it ever gets to a point where there are open seizure in the US.... IMO shit has already hit the fan, and the zombie apocalypse probably isn't far behind.

[Ithekro]

One thing that I believe Vexx suggested was firearm training in middle or high school. Teach the young what these things are and how to respect and use them properly. Thus might also provide a record of those demended by the school district as mentally unsuited to own or use a weapon later in life. you can opt out of the leasons, but would need to take them is you wanted to own or use a gun later in life (legally).

I've fired many thousands of pistol and rifle rounds from a variety of weapons. I have never taken a life with one. I've never threatened a life with one. The only injuries sustained from my use of a handgun, rifle or shotgun have been mechical issues Things like pinched skin from a slide coming back with my hand in the wrong place. Blisters from a gun that was slightly too powerful continueally rubbing the skin off the lower thumb. Bruises from not holding the shotgun properly against one's shoulder. Small burns from accidently touching the very hot rifle barrel or getting a spent cartridge land on you from someone else shooting. Bullet shrapnel from a revolver that's chambers were not quite alligned correctly with the barrel, and some freak instance were a shotgun pellet bounced off a clay and hit someone behind me in the back (no serious injury, but barely scrapped the skin)

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by james0246

I own a rifle (handed down to mt from my grandfather), and the few bullets I have are kept in a immediatly accesible, yet small, safe stationed in my room (along with the gun, which is stored in a gun rack). If I ever needed to immediatly equip myself, the entire loading process would take about 40 seconds, the time needed to unlock the gun rack, open the safe, and load a round. Why couldn't someone with a shotgun do the same thing? (Arguably, they are already doing something similar, since their gun shouldn't be loaded, but the bullets would be on hand.)

Ah, I was unaware of such products for rifle/shotguns. I'll have to go look. I have one for a small firearm. And yeah, that 30 seconds or so is also good for determining whether its a home invader or just one's son home late who forgot to call ahead.

That is where you are not understanding the debate/discussion. To many gun enthusiasts, it is not that a gun is meant to kill (humans), it is that a gun is meant to defend ((against humans). (Obviously hunting is somewhat different (what with the killing), but animals don't have rights, so screw 'em .) Whether it kills or not is secondary. Consequently, they are extremely upset by what they perceive to be a government trying to restrict their ability to defend themselves and their family. (Note I do support bans/restrictions on high capacity ammunition clips and assault rifles, and there are many other comprehensive and intuitive options available to help support gun rights and gun control.)

I can quote personal examples. I've drawn a weapon three times in my life. Each time the perp ran away once they were aware a firearm was present. *Deterrence*
Not a single one of my uses is in any study or database - one of the many reasons studies that claim "more likely to die blah blah" are so much nonsense.

Oh, and response time by dialing 911 was 15 to 30 *minutes*, even when I told them the perp was in the house. That is statistically typical for most parts of the US.

[Lost Cause]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

One thing that I believe Vexx suggested was firearm training in middle or high school. Teach the young what these things are and how to respect and use them properly. Thus might also provide a record of those demended by the school district as mentally unsuited to own or use a weapon later in life. you can opt out of the leasons, but would need to take them is you wanted to own or use a gun later in life (legally).

I've fired many thousands of pistol and rifle rounds from a variety of weapons. I have never taken a life with one. I've never threatened a life with one. The only injuries sustained from my use of a handgun, rifle or shotgun have been mechical issues Things like pinched skin from a slide coming back with my hand in the wrong place. Blisters from a gun that was slightly too powerful continueally rubbing the skin off the lower thumb. Bruises from not holding the shotgun properly against one's shoulder. Small burns from accidently touching the very hot rifle barrel or getting a spent cartridge land on you from someone else shooting. Bullet shrapnel from a revolver that's chambers were not quite alligned correctly with the barrel, and some freak instance were a shotgun pellet bounced off a clay and hit someone behind me in the back (no serious injury, but barely scrapped the skin)

Such courses do exist! NRA has the Eddie Eagle program, several state conservation departments offer a Hunter's Safety program, and several ranges offer a safety/first time gun introduction/safety courses.
The probl is to get the Neanderthal know it alls to attend said courses! Education would prevent the careless mistakes and awful consequences of ignorant gun handling!
Oh, and there are a few YouTube videos worth watching, especially those by Hickok.45, that are informative as well.

[Yahiro]

Originally Posted by Lost Cause

The probl is to get the Neanderthal know it alls to attend said courses! Education would prevent the careless mistakes and awful consequences of ignorant gun handling!

So right, and this sentence made me giggle a little. A lot of gun ranges here require someone to take a safety course (which is brief, but good indeed) before they can even become a club member and use the firing range.

[Ithekro]

I had Boy Scout training (rifle shooting merit badge and shotgun shooting merit badge), both at Summer Camp under direction of someone with a license. I could have done archery as well, but my aim with a bow was horrid.