I have a copy of the study that I’ve been going through. It makes numerous references to “non-lethal firearms” in the context of getting new shooters, who might be intimidated by firearms, to become comfortable:
Shooting sports programs utilizing non-lethal guns as a means of introducing newcomers are likely to be well-received by non-shooters and even anti-shooters. By making non-lethal guns available, such programs will reinforce safety and the importance of learning to handle firearms and becoming comfortable with them.
This terminology needs to be banished from even having the chance to enter the shooting vernacular, and I don’t know of any sport shooter or instructor who would use it. Here I’m thinking they are referring to airguns, but airguns are not “non-lethal” and are, in fact, potentially dangerous instruments that should be treated as such. I do agree with starting new shooters, who are interested in the shooting sports, but might be afraid of firearms, off with air guns. It’s a good recommendation.
But if we want to emphasize safety, we should never, ever, under any circumstances, imply a firearm or air gun does not have the potential for lethality. If you’re teaching new shooters that air guns are non-lethal, you’re shirking your responsibility as an instructor. This language should never have made its way into an industry publication.