That's What Katanas Are For

[drone]

You should be required by law store your weapon and ammunition in two seperate locked safes.

This invalidates the firearms use for self-defense in the home.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

This invalidates the firearms use for self-defense in the home.

Not really, you can have both safes next to each other in your bedroom and wear the keys around your neck. It just stops you from keeping a loaded weapon within reach of children, or stops an idiot child picking up and loading Daddy's gun.

You still haven't responded to my posts.

Why?

I'm serious.

Show me evidence that this would be a good thing.

Obviously, it's a massive restriction to gun ownership. And not because people are incompetent; because people don't like to jump through millions of hoops.

Furthermore, it's been pointed out again and again statistically that civilians are not that much of a liability with firearms.

I made the point about car accidents. You brushed it off because cars aren't "meant" to kill.

Yet they kill more people than guns do! 43,300

And since they're not made for it, nor can they be used for self-defence, I'd say that cars are even WORSE for it!

Those are pretty much the requirements militaries place on their soldiers. It's called TOET, Testing of Elementary Training. If you don't check the safety catch before picking the weapon up. This isn't a "massive restriction", it merely weeds out those who don't really want a gun or aren't safe with one. Surely it's better in your eyes than blanket bans for certain types of weapons.

In principle, no one should handle a weapon they are not certified on. To go back to your car comparison, you don't let someone drive without a license, do you?

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Surely it's better in your eyes than blanket bans for certain types of weapons.

Still bad and unnecessary.

During the inquisition, they offered to strangle you to death rather than burn you if you signed a confession.

But, frankly, I don't see much about strangulation to be happy about. ;) Get my drift?

Not really, you can have both safes next to each other in your bedroom and wear the keys around your neck. It just stops you from keeping a loaded weapon within reach of children, or stops an idiot child picking up and loading Daddy's gun.

Respond to my other posts, will ya?!? Do I have to repost them or what?

Anyways, yes, really.

That is an insane restriction. You seem to think that you have all the time in the world to react when you're house is broken into.

Man, a criminal can be in and OUT in a matter of minutes. Usually the police are too late.

So don't tell me that from the time you actually realize someone is in your house, you can get up, fumble with your keys, open TWO safes, get everything out, assemble it, and be all set.

Rediculous. We are talking about SECONDS' worth of time here, not minutes.

And guess what you can do to stop an idiot child from picking up and loading Daddy's gun?

TRAIN 'EM, DANGIT!!! Yes, personal responsibility!!! You cannot legislate personal responsibility! It doesn't work.

To go back to your car comparison, you don't let someone drive without a license, do you?

Driving is a priviledge, not a right. ;) And driving is not a means of self-defense, as guns are.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Remember, posts #136 and #138. And #150.

Thankee kindly.

[Ariovistus Maximus]

Aggh; I wrote a reply and then the site went out; I'll have to do it again tomorrow.

Check this post later for an edit, which will be my full reply.

[Hooahguy]

This invalidates the firearms use for self-defense in the home.

indeed.