I wish they covered more of the sporting/hunting uses and had some footage of a competition, hunting group, and women and children shooting.
The NRA did counter the stats shown from the "Injuries and deaths due to firearms in the home" report (https://www.nraila.org/articles/20011211/22-times-less-safebranti-gun-lobbys-f). Stats only included actual shootings and not those where firearms were displayed or no one was injured.
Why didn't they mention the study that was a result of President Obama's EO? You know, the one where the CDC commissioned The National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine. It found that Defensive Gun Uses were "...at least as common as criminal misuse...", that armed citizens that resist using their gun suffer fewer and less severe injuries than those that don't resist or use other self defense tools, that Mass shootings and accidental firearm deaths account for a small fraction of gun-related deaths, and both are declining, that Gun buyback/turn-in programs are “ineffective” in reducing crime, that stolen guns and retail/gun show purchases account for very little crime, and that The vast majority of gun-related deaths are not homicides, but suicides.
Questions I wish were covered:
Do citizens having guns deter crime, inside and outside the home?
There are numerous studies that address this issue. Most suggest that armed citizens decrease crime. Some do the opposite. Guess which ones are most frequently cited?
Why are police allowed to carry and ordinary citizens, who have a greater need for one, cannot?
It's not about the need to protect yourself or your family, it is about control.
Can the police give us a 100% guarantee that they can protect us?
Of course not. 98% of the time police do not arrive in time to prevent a violent crime. Furthermore, the Supreme Court, along with several state courts, have consistently held the police have no legal duty to protect you. See Castlerock v. Gonzales, Warren v. District of Columbia, Davidson v. City of Westminster, or Riss v. New York. For even more perspective on this, read the account of the New York subway incident where police hid in the motorman's car while they watched citizens being stabbed, and an unarmed citizen subdue the bad guy...
http://reason.com/blog/2014/10/22/man-gets-stabbed-on-subway-guess-how-helWhy can we use a gun to protect ourselves in the home, but not outside in public? What's the difference?
Control...
I agree with lack of training in the gun community. Most gun owners buy a gun and think they can shoot when they can't. The vast majority of training that have a gun for safety have minimal or no training besides shooting at paper targets without shooting themselves. And even those probably haven't shot their guns in years or decades. To use a gun safely in a self-defense scenario they should be proficient with the operation, go through scenarios, low light training, hand to hand defense, know they'll be willing to take a life to save a life, etc.
Yes, I think all gun owners should get training, the more the better. The problem in "agreeing" that there needs to be some mandated training is twofold. First, there is the Constitutional issue. What other core, fundamental Constitutional right requires mandated training before you can exercise that right? Free Speech, voting, choice of religion...?
Second, as we can so clearly see by Hawaii's onerous rules, if the government is allowed to make the training requirements they are likely to be expensive, onerous, and sometimes just plain stupid (compare hunter's ed with the class requirements for 4 hours of classroom training and 2 hours of live firing).