[zincwarrior]

For the sake of argument:

A safety course would do nothing but add cost somewhere whether it be a state/federal or private citizen, it does not address or stop people from committing atrocities.

It would be an excellent way to help prevent accidents however. Again, I've seen enough yayhooism in this area that any faith I had in the common sense of other people has been shattered.

Requiring use of FFLs for private transfers not only over steps how involved the federal government can be in commerce but again does little to address or prevent future incidents.

It does however, help to make sure crazies who would fail a background check can't circumvent the system.

I've yet to see an inexpensive safe/RSC that would come close to stopping more than a curious child. Requiring such measures would only create a financial barrier to firearms ownership if the idea was to prevent a determined person from being able to defeat the safe and obtain the firearms in a limited amount of time. If the standard were set that it would not create a large financial burden, the standard of container would fail to keep a determined person from defeating the container.

Again, the strong argument can be made here that you're not trying to protect from a thief, but a child. I'd agree otherwise and would argue this should be part of a safety. It would be under the section "Don't be an Idiot. If you have firearms and kids, lock up your firearms (and if they're rotten your kids too)."

Having a safe is a good idea but mandating it is not.

I can see your point.