If you think standard gun "safes" are actually safe, you are sorely mistaken. Our house was broken into a few years back, we had 3 of them, all bolted into the floor, or the wall. Two smashed open with what the cops suspect was a sledgehammer, they took the third one with them by sheering off the stud it was connected to. We've also had friends that have had whole gun safes stolen.
We bought new ones, supposedly super secure, DH and I can both pick the locks on them in under a minute. Most locks in general including those on gun safes are PURELY a psychological barrier to anyone that really wants in them.
Only time we use them now is when we are gone on vacation and the neighbor child comes over to feed the cats. Pretty much what you are saying is that I should be in jail because a criminal had the intent, and means to break into my home, and my safe, and violate MY privacy...but it's my fault because they weren't "secured" enough. That is where your argument fails, you are affording more "rights" to the criminal then to the victim.
Why is this comment being directed at me? When did I ever say that gun safes were "safe"?
Also, NO. I have absolutely no idea where you got the bolded part, but do NOT put words in my mouth that I have never said or even implied. I seriously have no idea how you got any of that out of anything I have said. Frankly, I would like an apology.
Kris, your general tone, outside of getting offended at what everyone says to you regardless of "Snark" (heck I didn't think Chris22 was snarky at all to you), has been that guns need to be locked up and "controlled" even in an individuals house. I'm simply pointing out that safes, and standard locking mechanisms, don't do an iota of good if someone is intent on wanting access. People aren't being irresponsible when they leave them in their house, they are simply exercising a different definition then you of what safe is.
Saying that "tone" tells you something that my words never said is a pretty damn weak argument.
If you will go back through everything I have said, you will notice the following things:
1) I responded to Chris22's original question to Gin by saying that having guns "locked up" could be considered one
reasonable example of "controlled". Not the only one. I would like to point out that I never said "locked in a gun safe". I actually never used the words "gun safe." I would consider that having a gun in a locked house when you aren't home is "locked" as well.
2) I never said the word "safe". That's your word. I used "controlled". They are different concepts. So your entire argument about whether a guns in a safe are "safe" is an argument you are having with someone other than me. Which is why I asked why you were addressing me.
3) And following from that, I never once said that someone who wanted access to a gun wouldn't be able to get to them if they were in a gun safe. Again, that's something you introduced. My point in saying that a gun is "controlled" if it's locked away when a gun owner isn't home was that I don't think a gun owner can be held responsible for someone accessing a gun if they break into his locked house. (Or his locked safe, for that matter.) Go through the thread. Read it again, with that in mind.
4) As I ALSO pointed out, I have three guns in my home. I also stated upthread that I do not own a gun safe, nor have I ever owned a gun safe. So can you please tell me how it is that I am saying that "People (are) being irresponsible when they leave them in their house" or arguing against that "they are simply exercising a different definition then you of what safe is" when I AM DOING EXACTLY THAT IN MY OWN HOUSE?
And on a similar note, can you please tell me, given that I have guns in my house and no gun safe, how it is that "Pretty much what you are saying is that I should be in jail because a criminal had the intent, and means to break into my home, and my safe, and violate MY privacy...but it's my fault because they weren't "secured" enough"?