With guns a line of thought says people are safer when armed. More armed people theoretically means more security. That appears insane almost immediately. I have heard this many times though. To remove the threat everyone needs one. I watched a video of a Saudi wedding and at the end of the ceremony everyone produced Ak47s and fired wildly into the air. I'm sorry we supply the Saudis with M16s... it did look like a very safe society I will admit.

What other dangerous things have people adopted with the idea familiarity makes you safer. "Drinking is safer when its only done under parental supervision". That's a good example. I myself have dealt with the repercussions of that one. Are there always the same educational experiences available but that some of us just miss them or is that belief the short comings of our own limited experience?

I know potheads that think they can educate their kids more effectively about drugs because of their experience. Is that true? Are you sure that's not a pandoras box like booze or firearms? Have those experiences with drugs ever removed any real dangers from your child's path?

I question if training and experience really increase over all safety. Human nature appears to adopt less safe habits with experience which leads to carelessness. If experience makes you safer why wouldn't skydivers with 100's of hours of free fall time be less likely to die than first timers? Statistically that's not true. You are statistically far more likely to die on your 1000th jump than your first. Confidence kills more people than bullets.

The Confidence that effects a teen on a motorcycle is the same emotion that effects an adult, quite often being based on no more experience than a teen. Send a teen threw drivers education and he is competent with no guarantee he is safe. He knows "safety" but exhibiting safe behavior is not the same and with experience even less likely. I wonder if statistically you're far more likely to get shot by a trained confident firearm marksman than a first time novice? Could a person with no experience change a 15 round clip on a smokey blood soaked dance floor?

Could less of a militant culture curb that horrible ability? If "Joe Camel" can turn kids on to cigarettes than why wouldn't Rambo have the same impact with guns? Two things kids want more than anything is to be "cool" and a "hero". To be cool it helps to smoke and to be a hero you need to be able to load a 15 round clip in a smokey blood soaked jungle.

Consider language, as an example, are the power of words lessened through repetition? Does the word "nigger" have less power in the black community since all the youth appear armed with that word? Maybe it has helped in some circumstances.

The problem is created when this weapon falls in the hands of the ignorant. It certainly wields every ounce of destructive power when its used even though everyone else uses it too. The N word is like a bomb that can be used ignorantly but effectively. In fact it is a weapon more effectively used by the ignorant it appears.

The N word was created to destroy. Like Bob Marley said "Babylon ain't got no fruits." Like wise guns were created to destroy and they also appear more to their point in the hands of the ignorant. Trying to educate to the dangers of racism or firearms are far more confusing when exposed constantly to the dog whistles of the vocal minority

. Are people with sensitivity training less likely to say nigger? Are people who attend alcohol education less likely to develop drinking problems? Does NRA training increase firearm safety? I'm absolutely certain you can find the answer you want to that last question.

Initially I bet this training has some benefit but ultimately with time and experience it "becomes second nature" that's when the long term statistics start saying something different.

The answer is to identify the dangerous ones who will most likely misuse the (gun,word,drug). The easiest way to identify the most dangerous of these groups is to identify the people who identify the most with the item and remove their access to it. Then you will truly remove the threat. The most vocal supporters of any of these groups invariably appear the most dangerous, whether it be guns or free speech Identify the zealots and remove them for safety reasons. Look what these types have done to religion for instance.

From my experience, skinheads and racists identify most with the word nigger and they have the most destructive use of the word. Ask a guy who drinks everyday how destructive is alcohol and he will say, "It can be destructive when used in excess." In my decades of experience growing up around a gun shop with a gunsmith as a father I knew gun safety and this knowledge helped me never accidentally fire at my brother but fire at him I did on occasion. It was all fun and games and i was confident the shot was small enough not to kill him. I proved myself right. So am I a lone idiot with that experience? With age I adopted a little safer attitude with guns btw.

I was taught hanging around someone with no gun knowledge while they were armed was extremely dangerous. They could shoot you on "accident". So I avoided these types for years, always hunting alone until one day I met a guy at work and we talked about guns. I told him about my father and he told me about his. His father was the president of the central Ohio NRA chapter. I was slightly impressed so I invited him on a hunt at my parents farm. Less than 50 feet into the woods I gave up because every time i turned and looked his gun was leveled at my back. So I ditched him immediately and went back to my parents house. When he made it back to the house my dad was there. This guy wanted to show my Dad his 45 he brought with him. The first suspicion in my mind was why bring a 45 hunting deer? The answer came immediately when the guy reappeared from the bedroom where his bags were and his 45 was stashed. When he handed it to my dad he said, "Be careful that's loaded!" I had to resist knocking him the fuck out for bringing a loaded handgun unsecured into a house with grand kids running all over the place. That's when it became clear this guy needs guns to feel whole, not in a physical sense but a psychological sense. These are not isolated examples either these are all common everyday occurrences. How many shooters weren't in the NRA? I think the NRA is a clear and consistent identifier of a dangerous gun owner. I know its a broad net I cast but I 'd rather error on the side of caution. It seems much more sane to strip the minority of safe gun owners of their imaginary govt imposed rights than to sacrifice 10,000 kids to your neighbors ego by allowing the ignorant masses to own guns. I consider myself non partisan on the subject, i don't have any specific affections for guns or children and I don't fear my neighbors. I just have no real or imaginary need for a gun.

I cant help but feel from experience that if racists were kept from using the N word, the Irish were banned from alcohol and the people identified as NRA members were banned from guns the world would be safer over night. We can deal with the Welsh later.