In response to your point about safes and their costs. As others have said since I went to bed last night, it is about dissuading the opportunist.
No safe is unbreakable, but it is still going to put off the guy who'd initially come in looking for TV, DVDs and other household valuables.
If someone comes to ones home planning to open a gun safe, then they know about it already.
I also believe if you can afford several guns, you can afford a safe. If you only have a couple of hand-guns a small document safe, well-placed and well-secured, is plenty big enough and cheaper to boot.
Still if it became a requirement, I think we can "safely" rely on the American market to provide cheaper alternatives for the less well-off.
I notice that you've asked Frank where you and he disagree, explaining how you have spoken in support of safes.
I also notice I had done the same, especially as I have not said that there must be a law to cover this.
All the same I've been challenged on a desire for a law you seem to think I hold.
I've only said that if people don't take precautions and further shootings may arise, then the likelihood of law increases, and I've also said that if I had a choice of legislation on storage and on what I could buy, I'd choose storage as it seems the more effective prevention for people using guns in criminal ways...
When the right to effective self-defence is denied, that right to self-defence which remains is essentially symbolic.
Freedom: Please enjoy responsibly.
Any idea that relies on murder for its survival in intrinsically weak.
Last edited by Pond, James Pond; January 27, 2013 at 04:20 AM.