desert dude
Well-Known Member
Washington, DC had a regulation on the books that said your gun must be dismantled and kept in separate parts in your home. Good idea?
It does limit their defensive utility. It seems like a very sneaky way to undercut the reason to own a gun in the city. cn
Washington, DC had a regulation on the books that said your gun must be dismantled and kept in separate parts in your home. Good idea?
Dumb idea. I don't own guns, and don't plan on buying one anytime soon, but even I can connect the dots here and see the flaws in this "logic". What would be the point in owning a gun to protect your home/family if you don't stand a reasonable chance of being able to assemble and use the gun??
I agree. A very similar argument could be made against gun safes. Don't get me wrong, I own two gun safes, but I keep one gun "handy".
This is one of the main reasons I don't own a gun. I have small children in my house. On one hand I have a strong desire to protect them from random nuts. On the other hand I could never in good conscience leave a pistol out accessible to them. The only option would then be a gun safe, and I really don't like my chances of being able to effectively use that weapon to protect my family if it is locked up in a safe and I need to get at it in a pinch.
So, a hockey stick under the bed it is!![]()
I see a need for gun safes if you value your weapons and don't want them to be stolen or handled by your children.
So what is better? a gun in a gun safe or no gun at all?
I see a need for gun safes if you value your weapons and don't want them to be stolen or handled by your children.
So what is better? a gun in a gun safe or no gun at all?
Although I do have a gun safe to keep my vast supply of weapons and ammo safe, I also see the necessity of keeping one available firearm out of he safe for immediate protection. Even with that being said, I don't always have that firearm readily available. I usually keep it hidden in my headboard, which does me no good at all if intruders kick in my front door and isolate me from my bedroom. having two granddaughters, (Which are both schooled and aware of all my guns, their usage and safety concerns) still won't allow my conscience to let one stay in close proximity to me, Kind of a flawed situation. If my granddaughters didn't live with me, I'd more than likely keep one within reach at all times, not that I'm paranoid, just a realist. Home invasions are a fact of life, and if an invader was met with a 1911 with 258 grain hollow points, they would be going back out the door in one form or another, their choice.
Although I do have a gun safe to keep my vast supply of weapons and ammo safe, I also see the necessity of keeping one available firearm out of he safe for immediate protection. Even with that being said, I don't always have that firearm readily available. I usually keep it hidden in my headboard, which does me no good at all if intruders kick in my front door and isolate me from my bedroom. having two granddaughters, (Which are both schooled and aware of all my guns, their usage and safety concerns) still won't allow my conscience to let one stay in close proximity to me, Kind of a flawed situation. If my granddaughters didn't live with me, I'd more than likely keep one within reach at all times, not that I'm paranoid, just a realist. Home invasions are a fact of life, and if an invader was met with a 1911 with 258 grain hollow points, they would be going back out the door in one form or another, their choice.
I got a text once from my sister in law. It said something along the lines of "your brother is outside of my room racking and reracking his shotgun and muttering that he would l love to see a bullet exiting from my head".
My brother has a collection of weapons and he is very angry that I insisted that his wife get a restraining order for him. As you know the instant that restraininig order is established, the person being restrained must surrender all of his weapons.
At what point are we obligated to interceed in a situation where there are guns present and controled by a man of questionable sanity?
I would say "at the point where the intercession is no longer a pre-emption". cn
Am I reading this correctly"? you are saying that I should have waited until it was not pre-emption but a funeral?
At what point are we obligated to interceed in a situation where there are guns present and controled by a person of questionable sanity?