I feel like you've abstracted one level too far. We're not comparing sex and firearms in a concrete sense; we're comparing one type of education as an appropriate way to mitigate the potentially damaging effects that being untrained causes, and another type of education as an appropriate way to mitigate the potential damages of being untrained.
As it stands, it's no worse or less than the nauseatingly constant comparison between firearms and automobiles, when the more apt comparison (in my opinion) is comparing firearms rights vs. voting rights.
Arbitrary rules. In that case, no guns allowed in grocery stores, zoos, museums, public places of gathering, anywhere where one might find humans.
"And no firearms (unless carried by an officer) in schools, on campuses, or in places of worship."
Why? It's legal in my state (KS) and there have been no shootings.
Goddard, Kansas
Armed with a rifle and a handgun, 14-year-old James Alan Kearbey, killed principal, James McGee, and wounded two teachers and a student at Goddard Junior High School.
Firearms: - A tool which can be used for a varierty of purposes - Must be purchased, i.e. it is a choice. - I suppose one could compare firearms training/use to martial arts, in that it can have personal benefits, but at the same time it's original purpose and base function is to defend oneself from, or (with guns) attack and kill another person.
So why are we comparing these two things again?
I am for anyone owning a firearm being educated. I don't own a gun and enjoy knowing a bit about them. I am also for a reasonable degree of gun control, and for acknowledging the fact that the U.S. appears to be unique in terms of the frequency of mass shootings, and of taking action (increasing the availability of mental health clinics, finding ways to restrict mentally ill people from owning firearms which does not violate the second amendment, etc) to do something about this.
[Edit]
And no firearms (unless carried by an officer) in schools, on campuses, or in places of worship.