The sad part here is that gun education is so poor that people often treat guns like they would kitchen appliances. However, while both the pro and anti gun crowd can agree that the sort of egregious failure in education that enables a five year old to accidentally kill his sister needs correction (or shooting a family friend's mother as in another very recent example), a big part of the problem is that the NRA wants to limit gun "education" to simply talking about keeping weapons locked up and training. Where is the NRA when it comes to educating the public about the overall risk of having a gun in the house? Does the NRA want to educate citizens about the fact that a gun in the house is far more likely to be used against a member of that household than against a home invader? Does the NRA want to talk about how the murder rate in high gun ownership states is substantially higher than in low gun ownership states, especially if you exclude the criminal v criminal killings in inner city drug wars. Where is the NRA on promoting legitimate prospective data collection and education on firearm use in domestic violence? How many wife/girlfriend murders are we going to tolerate so Joe Super Hero Home Defender can feel good about protecting his castle? Where is the NRA on promoting research into how many actual home invasions occur and how many are stopped by armed residents? The prosecutor in Texas and his wife didn't live very long after their home was invaded, what is the real data on whether guns have a net benefit or not? The NRA has worked very hard to make sure that CDC and FBI or ATF don't get involved in generating exactly that type of data. We have that type of data for seat belts and air bags, why can't we have it for guns? The 2nd Amendment thumpers need to address the real safety and education issues facing us if they really want to secure their firearm rights. Otherwise those supposed rights can be changed by just one or two new appointments to the Supreme Court.
