If you’re including all non-experienced shooters

Even if you include only gun owners that think they’re experienced, it’s still easy-ish to be better than average with focused practice. There are a lot of people that think going to the range once every six months and shooting 100 rounds of slow fire makes them good. Meanwhile, the people that are actually good do dryfire drills daily, and shoot thousands of rounds each month.

I’m solidly low-middle when it comes to shooting competitions like local PCSL, local USPSA, Brutality, Gun Run, etc. That probably puts me in the top 5% of gun owners though. (And I absolutely suck at long range shooting; I’ve done a little, but I don’t know my holds, because I’ve had very limited ability to shoot past 100y. I really struggle past 300y without a spotter, and past 500y it’s basically pure luck for me to hit a full-sized steel IPSC target.)

Absolutely. There are certain things that will make it easier–like having very good proprioception/kinesthesia, or perfect vision–but with enough focused time and practice, almost anyone can become a highly proficient shooter. Some people will definitely have an easier time than others, and some abilities in other areas will help more than others. And yes, you absolutely need to practice or else you’ll start losing your ability.

But.

As far as needing to be introduced to shooting early, absolutely not. There are a number of people that have moved to the US in their middle age from other countries (Korea, in particular) with no experience with firearms, taken up shooting, and have become USPSA masters and grand masters, because they understand how to practice.

Depending on what you want to learn, my first suggestion would be to look up NRA classes. Yes, yes, I know, but trust me, the NRA classes are very good for foundational work. You want to start with safety and get very, very familiar with that before moving on, because carelessness with a firearm can kill. From there, you can do something like Project Appleseed to get proficient with rifle marksmanship, or you can take classes with Ben Stoeger and Joel Park for pistol.

Hunting specifically is going to require far, far more than shooting ability; you’re going to need naturalist skills, like being able to see trail sign, land navigation, getting a feel for movement without spooking animals, and so on. For hunting, most of your time will be spent in observation and waiting, with only a single shot at the end of it all. Spending a lot of time outdoors, in the woods or fields, paying attention to animal behavior is your ‘practice’ for hunting.

Aside from all of this, something to consider is that the average shooter is… Pretty bad. Most people that own firearms don’t put in any significant amount of time training. The police are no exception; most cops are not terribly proficient with their weapon, because they only have to qualify annually, and qualification is slow fire at a target 10y away, not a practical shooting course.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with the NRA rifle courses; the instructional courses are where the NRA really shines. The NRA as a 501©(4) is great. It’s the NRA-ILA that’s a steaming pile of shit.

The Socialist IRA is… Very dependent on the chapter. Some are fantastic, amazing groups. Some are very cliquish, and you’re going to need to know your theory cold and never, ever voice any contrary opinions in order to get membership. (E.g., if I say that I think that come degree of professional policing is necessary, both because not all criminals are a product of material circumstances, and because ‘community policing’ can be the autobahn to vigilantism and night riders, that would get me thrown out of some chapters.)

There’s also the Liberal Gun Club, which has some pretty decent people in it, but they’re as scattered as the SocialistIRA is.

Operation Blazing Sword lists instructors that are willing to work with LGBTQ+ people; I’m on there for one of the states.

Appleseed events are a great way of learning the basics of rifle shooting over 2 days. Some of the history they teach as fact is highly suspect–it’s more the American myth than American history—but they nominally keep contemporary politics out of it.

you’re just a Christian who hates God.

I’m a former Christian that’s been deeply disappointed by the followers of god, or gods; the hypocrisy and mental gymnastics of the purported followers was what eventually led me out of Plato’s Cave. If Jesus was real, and Christians truly followed the actual words of Christ in the four gospels (not Paul, Paul was a dick), then I’d likely never have started questioning my own faith. As it was, it still took me 25 years, four years in seminary, and working as a missionary before I started to question anything.

The reaction is certainly part of it. But that’s definitely not all of it.

Atheist says what I don’t believe: I don’t believe in any god, or anything supernatural. (Could there be one? Sure. But I haven’t seen any falsifiable evidence. So technically I’m agnostic, but I round up to atheist.)

Satanism says what I do believe: I believe that men are free to do as they want, as long as the don’t infringe on the rights of others. I believe in bodily and personal autonomy (including abortion, drugs, and yes, suicide). I believe in being free from unjust and unwarranted authority. I choose to model my life as much as I reasonably can on the version of Lucifer presented in Paradise Lost and other Romantic-era books.

Anton LaVay was an ass, a misogynist, a bit homophobic, and generally a bit of a douche-canoe, but he was very right in that the idea of a Satan, and of sin, was the best friend religion ever had; without the idea that men are inherently sinful, no one has any need for religion, because no one needs to be redeemed. You need to feel bad, because if you don’t, then there’s no reason to keep showing up at church every week to receive forgiveness.

Most of history from that time period is from books that don’t cite sources.

Most of the history that’s accepted from that time comes from multiple sources–rather than just one–and has some kind of archaeological evidence backing it up. In contrast, there’s essentially zero writing about a Jesus of Nazareth aside from books written a minimum of 70 years after he supposedly lived. If you choose to treat a single book as proof of truth, why the bible? Why not the Torah, or Quran? There’s certainly better evidence that Muhammed is at least a historical figure, although even that is debated. For that matter, why not the Tao Te Ching (although, again, the actual existence of a Laozi is very debateable)?

I do not condone that.

You say that you’re a Christian; the vast majority of Christian sects condemn homosexuality and marriage equality. Christians are called to evangelize (Matt. 5:14-16), and likewise the bible says in multiple places that homosexuality is sinful (along with divorce, eating cheeseburgers, and, well, just about everything that’s enjoyable in life). But you don’t condone it?

Never heard of this happening.

Oh really? You’re not aware of laws being passed that prevent access to and criminalize reproductive care, or laws that ban gender affirming care? Really?

Really?

Okay, what evidence convinces you? HOW do you “know”?

And what is your belief based on? What falsifiable evidence do you have that it’s actually correct, factually true?

In other words, how do you know?

Because Jesus Christ rose from the dead. OP is a Christian and believes that.

Any evidence for that, aside from a book that doesn’t cite sources? Look mate, I can believe that Harry Potter really defeated He Who Shall Not Be Named and saved the muggle world from his domination, but does that make it right? Would that be a positive thing to base all of my life on?

This is the same as a Christian telling an atheist that their gay relationship is wrong.

…And yet, they do that all the time, don’t they? Not only that, but they try to pass laws preventing them from happening. Or to prevent trans people from accessing appropriate healthcare. Or to ensure that women don’t have rights to their own bodies.

No, it doesn’t matter to the universe. Morality can still matter to you. This is the idea that existentialism is built around: you have to make choices for yourself.

There’s nothing particularly wrong with lust, sexual attraction, desire for connection, etc. It’s all part of simply being human. Why would you assume that the teachings of the Christian bible are correct, not in just this matter, but any other? Why not any other scripture? Buddhists, for instance, would say that any desire prevents you from progressing spiritually. Satanists (me!) would say that no desire is inherently wrong, and that it’s how the desire is expressed, and it’s whether it overrides someone else’s autonomy that makes a thing right or wrong.

I don’t view paying a prostitute for sexual services as being inherently wrong. It’s wrong if you’ve agreed to sexual fidelity with another person (terms and conditions apply), and it’s wrong if you’re using a prostitute that has been forced into sexual labor. But if you haven’t promised a partner (or partners) that you will be sexually faithful to them, and the prostitute is in the field willingly–or, at least as willingly as anyone that works at any job–then it’s not really any more wrong than, say, paying someone to make a meal for you when you’re hungry. Labor is labor, regardless of the nature of the work.

The first step to overcoming this ‘problem’ is therapy. You want a sexual and emotional connection, and you feel like you’re unable to find it otherwise. You should find a licensed psychotherapist–not a member of the clergy, not a life coach–and work on why you have problems finding that.

Why do you believe that it does?

Look mate, we’re a cosmic blip. On the scale of the universe, we don’t even register. We’re born, we live, we die, and on the scale of how long the universe has existed, it’s not even a blink. The universe is about 13,900,000,000 years old. The first single-cell organisms emerged about 3,500,000,000 years ago. Humans, in our current form, have only existed for a mere 300,000 years. Our sun will turn into a red giant in about 5,000,000,000 years, which will sterilize the surface of the earth, but it won’t matter to humans, because we will have evolved into an entirely different species and almost certainly have gone completely extinct billions of years before that happens.

NOTHING we do matters to the universe. There is nothing we can do that will affect the course of the entire universe. Any belief to the contrary is simply terror management. So how could one moral code, in the grand scheme of the universe, matter more than any other?

What makes you believe, aside from your attempts to manage your terror of non-existence, that any of your morality matters at all?

Why do you assume that a god is necessary for morality? What led you to this conclusion? What falsifiable evidence do you have?

It’s mens rea, lit. “guilty mind”, e.g. intent. If you take an action with the intent to cause a death, that’s murder (in my state, that would specifically be malice murder). If you take an action that is likely to cause a death with reckless indifference, but not intent, that’s usually something like murder in the second degree. If you cause a death through negligence or by accident, that’s usually some form of manslaughter.

Most traffic accidents are negligent; people don’t (…usually…) get into a car with the intent to kill someone, nor are they usually driving in a way that the know is likely to cause harm to other people. There are obvs. factors that will affect this–such as driving drunk–but causing a death is usually unintentional, and not through reckless indifference.

By open mind, you mean an empty head? Devoid of critical thought and rationality?

As far as I can tell, there is nothing in chiropractic practice that is not quackery.

Think about it this way: the basic practice is the idea that you have misalignments causing problems, and that you can manually manipulate the body back into alignment. But then what keeps you from getting unaligned again as soon as you stand up? (Nothing, of course! That’s why you have to keep going back!) Take, for example, the common inguinal hernia. You can manually manipulate it so that you’re forcing the intestines back through the abdominal wall. And it absolutely relieves the immediate discomfort. But you’re not actually fixing anything; you need surgery to stitch the tear up. If you have weak support structures causing a problem, then physical therapy is going to create a permanent solution. If you have a herniated disc that’s not healing and causing referred pain, then you need to surgically fix the herniation.

I opt for bitcoin because it has more utility value for me.

My bank makes it an enormous pain in my ass to buy things from overseas vendors; they won’t process any payments that are going outside of the US border. The rationale is ‘fraud’, even when you’re dealing with well-known and trusted vendors. Even when I try calling my banks and telling them to pre-authorize the charges, they won’t go through. The only way I can get around that within the established financial system is by using a 3rd party payment service; those 3rd party services make their money by lopping off a percentage of that purchase. E.g., if I’m buying something for $1000 from China (and we’re going to ignore tariffs, duties, taxes, and shipping costs for the moment), then I may have to pay $1040 for it, because of the fees that are taken out. On the other hand, if I’m buying from a trusted vendor, and I use bitcoin, I can just send it to them. Bitcoin doesn’t care where it’s going, and–assuming you don’t care about speed of confirmations–transaction fees can be quite a bit lower than using any other payment system. (And, BTW, transaction fees are built into all payment processing systems; it’s just not apparent to individuals on the purchasing end. That means that if something costs .001btc, then I have to send, say, .0010001btc to the vendor, but then the)

Speculation doesn’t play a role in it for me.

I have no direct use for gold; I can’t plate connectors.

Yes.

But many people–and I’m not saying you do this–but many people get gold, silver, and diamonds confused, and think that their intrinsic value is linked to their perceived value. does that make sense?

…Except that gold, like the dollar, and like bitcoin, has the value it does because people believe it does. Sure, gold’s a great semiconductor. But if that was all we used it for, the price of gold would be a tine fraction of what it is. Diamonds are great as abrasives and in certain cutting applications, but that’s all synthetic now. Natural diamonds only have high value because of artificial scarcity and advertising.

Remove the bag limit, put a bounty on them. Anyone that murks a billionaire wins a 2000 ft^2 home (or condo, whatever) in the location of their choice, with all taxes, fees, and utilities paid for as long as they live there.

Cruelty and sociopathy.