BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:33 PM

Bill D... I see that as a VERY disconcerting concern... to have your system of laws so disjointed by state jurisdiction means, as you have indicated, that laws made for one may be subverted by others who don't have the same concerns or circumstances. Troublesome indeed.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: olddude
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:41 PM

Bill
you hit the nail on the head. It is what most of us honest gun owners have been talking about for years. We need a federal carry permit. I would really like to see the standard set that New York uses. It is difficult and should be,   and you are checked and checked and checked. However because it varies in so many other states, New York does not accept any other handgun permit.   When I moved from PA I asked and was told no way ... PA is pretty easy to get one regrettably so I think. Now PA has agreements between other states. I have a PA permit cause I live on the border. I also have a Florida one. Now that is another issue. Florida has agreements with a pile of states ... It is quite insane actually. The ATF of the federal government really should have a federal carry standard. Now they don't have to take away the states rights, but if you are going to do this interstate thing you should need a federal carry standard and there is none. Heck even the NRA wants one, and I agree with so very little that the NRA says. Not a member , I was once but that was when I was young and stupid. I don't like what it has become frankly

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 03:52 PM

So..some of those of you who know more than I do, and who have permits and have years of knowlege & experience can also see that something is needed to sort out this mess we have now.
I would rather 'suspect' that a few licenced concealed guns are about and in the possession of carefully vetted & trusted folks, than to see these idiots strutting about displaying their interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:11 PM

Never was any question of that, Bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:12 PM

The true question is, if the antigun nuts don't stop being nuts, the gun nuts will win... on accounta, they got guns.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 04:15 PM

Oops... not a question... my opinion. Sorry, the pain meds have me looped.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Rumncoke
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 05:25 PM

Has anyone else been thinking that in the first message to this thread there is a really odd statement?

Now that it is legal to carry guns wherever you go, it reads.

I do realise that the writer means in the US and is simply not thinking about the rest of the world - I just think it is really odd that someone who is writing to an international forum would send such a message.

Anne Croucher

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: olddude
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 05:34 PM

Ann
mudcat is a US based website with world wide guests. No different than reading specific British issues such as the BNP ... The discussion was on US gun laws

Bill
The single best thing this country can do to make folks safer with firearms is to get rid of the gun shows. If you want to hunt and go into walmart there is a background check for felony conviction. A felon cannot own anytype of firearm. A gun show, the law doesn't apply
no checks ... walk in and walk out ...

That should change and change now. That is how most of those creeps holding their AK-47 got the things. Had they gone into a sporting goods store they would probably find a felony or some other restriction.

I hate the whole concept ... get rid of it ... it is a loophole that causes more problems than service to a sportsman.

they talking heads in washington keep talking about it but the NRA lobby ... oh 2nd admendment ... hell if you are not qualified to have a felony record check and that is it, then you don't belong with a firearm. Common sense safety for others.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 05:43 PM

"Now that it is legal to carry guns wherever you go, it reads.

"I do realise that the writer means in the US and is simply not thinking about the rest of the world - I just think it is really odd that someone who is writing to an international forum would send such a message." Anne Croucher

Well, E x c u s e Me! :) (Good point, though, and I apologize.)

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 05:44 PM

I'm gettin' suspicious *grin*...you're making too much sense, olddude.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 05:48 PM

Hey! Apology withdrawn. We'll just have to live with it, I guess. :)

Look at this, which one of you'rn (Royston) wrote :

For anyone interested in a tangible action against the fascist menace of the BNP, I urge you to join in the protest against them at their "Red, White & Blue" rally in Codnor, Derbyshire on 15 August.

"Unite Against Fascism Have called for a mass demonstration at the village of Codnor in which the hardcore rag-tag bunch of racists and Nazis will be effectively "Kettled" in their lonely field of shame.

"The demonstration will be civil, peaceful. It has the consent of the local authorities and Derbyshire Police.

Get the A5 FLYER

"Coaches have been booked from around the country - for a list of embarkation points and contact numbers for booking of places, go to COACHES

"Or make your own way to Codnor with a view to assembling at 09:00 on 15 August 2009.

"Check the Unite Against Fascism Website for updates."

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 05:50 PM

Don't you have to Pack Heat to get Canned heat?

:-P

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: olddude
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 06:42 PM

Bill
we are not all nut jobs honest :-) for
every sportsman I know it truly is a tool for hunting or protection. I own a lot ... mostly cause my family dies off and leaves them to me. I know a crap load about every one of them, I can repair cast my own bullets reload my own etc ... I really don't like them, I used them to hunt , target shoot and protect ... I also own several chain saws .. hate them also but they are tools that I use.   Some people live and breathe these things and that is scary ... mostly only the people that should not have them .. Every serious hunter I know has them to hunt nothing more ... like when we talk about guitars.

I know of no hunter or sportsman that gets upset waiting 4 hours for clearance before taking their new shotgun home ... A gun show, if you are a felon, plop down the money and take it home we don't care ..

scary stuff actually

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 06:50 PM

"Don't you have to Pack Heat to get Canned heat?"

             If you get canned and pack heat they call it going postal!

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:02 PM

"waiting 4 hours for clearance"... 4 weeks to four months here.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: olddude
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:12 PM

I keep saying it is my final comment and keep rambling on. It really is to give people the real information about gun owners and sportsmen. When you see what I wrote about the power mix etc .. most people think wow what gun nuts who know all these things. Not the case. A real hunter does not go out to wound a deer or an elk. They go out hunting to take it home and eat it ... no true hunter will take a stupid shot only to wound something. In order to be a good hunter, you have to completely understand ballistics and powders and bullet casts and velocity. If you don't you will only wound the animal and that is cruel. Serious hunters are responsible very responsible people.

The NRA was supposed to be about the sportsman, about protecting the right to hunt and own a firearms. But they are more about power and about politics. Even when the law makes sense they will fight it ...

they do not represent the true sportsman. And even though I do not like firearms, I am an expert with them and certified instructor. I sometimes still do handgun training classes for the sheriff dept.

Write your senators and congressmen and get rid of the gun shows. Thats what I did

Thanks for putting up with my rambling

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: John P
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:19 PM

Why does everyone always say we have a constitutional right to bear arms? If the second amendment gives us that, what does that pesky "well-regulated militia" phrase mean, and why is it there?

Mind you, I'm not saying no one should have guns. I'm divided on that question. But the Constitution doesn't say or really even imply that any individual has a constitutional right to carry a gun around. One would have to ignore a sizable piece of the wording to reach that conclusion.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Rapparee
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:28 PM

I have, from the first, been in favor of a national "concealed carry law." Root out the whackos and require a renewal check as thorough as the original.

Frankly, gun talk bores me (sorry, no pun was intended): I've ordered a new-in-the-box target rifle -- Kimber of Oregon, man. It's got an MOA of 1/5 inch at 100 yards and a 1 in 16 righthand twist and a 10-insert globe front with a micrometer rear. Model 82, ya know.

Talking about ammunition gets worse....

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:44 PM

JohnP, the basic problem with understanding the real intent of the Second Amendment is, as you say, the "militia clause". The Supreme Court has looked at the Amendment exactly twice in the past 200 years or so.   Miller (1939) relied entirely on the militia clause, and basically said that no self respecting soldier would carry a sawed-off shotgun. Heller (2008) focused on individual self-defense and said that the militia clause is essentially a separate issue. Neither decision (and there is no third one) really attempts to parse the weird collection of commas, and dependent and independent clauses that make up the Amendment. What did it mean in 1791, and does it/should it mean something else today? The jury is still out.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 07:50 PM

..."4 weeks to four months here."

And, the forms and picture ID are detailed. If you are married, your spouse has to sign off... and so on. Good precautions...

But, if the economy was better, health care was better, peeps had a roof and a full belly, maybe "carry laws" could be past... ?

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: gnu
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 08:09 PM

Art... I have said this many times, and I know it doesn't sit well with many...

Freedom was gained by the poor masses thru the barrel of a gun. It's history... over and over. To deny any individual the right to defend themself with a gun or any other weapon is to deny freedom and safety. To say any defense should be denied beacause some may use that right to be offensive is illogical. After all, we are talking about defense. Those who are in offense must be liable under law. And if not under law, liable to defense by whatever means.

I know it sounds a bit silly and simplistic, but it's in the news every day. The guns are not the problem. Nuts are... on both sides of the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Bobert
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 08:24 PM

Problem is that there are very few people out there, gn-zer, who are all that fanatical on the gun control side...

I don't hear folks saying that guns should be outlawed... That would be an extreme position...

What I do hear from the NRA side is that society has no right to register guns or require that only sane and trained people own them... That is not unreasonable...

Wackos and folks who have no clue about gun safety should not be able to own them... That is not an extreme position... That is a very reasonable position...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: pdq
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 08:53 PM

[about the US Constitution} "What did it mean in 1791, and does it/should it mean something else today? The jury is still out.

No it isn't.

Most [probably all] of the founders who gave us the Constitution were gun owners. That shows exactly what they meant.

Individual citizens have a constitutional right to own personal firearms. Everyone agrees that minor restrictions are allowed. The firearm must be "reasonable". A bazooka in private hands is not "reasonable". In 1934, automatic weapons were deamed "not reasonable".

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: olddude
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 09:01 PM

bob
a lot of what they do is good, their safety training is first class. The hunter safety courses and shooting courses for beginners are nothing short of outstanding with the best certified instructors. I am a former one myself . The gun shows is one real issue. another teflon coated bullets that pierce a police vest. Some things like that really puzzle me with them. I know they say if you let one thing slide then soon all will be outlawed. I don't think that is really true. We outlaw machine guns and a lot of things but still have the 2nd Amendment. I think the politics and big money has gotten to them

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: artbrooks
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 10:04 PM

pdq, when 2 iterations of the Supreme Court disagree (or at least say different things), I think that my statement is very apropos. You are, of course, entitled to your own opinion. Who brought up automatic weapons, anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Bill D
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 10:53 PM

One-more-time

In the 1790s, the **Militia** needed to defend the country HAD to have their own guns. There was no standard issue firearm to be issued. There was still a LOT of wilderness and many people needed to both hunt and defend themselves against things like bears. When a call for assembling the Militia was sent out, folks HAD to have their own guns. The Founders never dreamed of either the weaponry or the situations we have today, yet those who cherish their guns still want to 'interpret' the 2nd amendment as if it were still 1790 and England & Spain were still expected to sail up the Hudson and try to take the country. This situation continued until the general time of the Civil War & after, when guns were being 'produced' by companies and rapidly improved. After about 1890, when the native tribes were not a threat and people were congregating in cities, the 'need' for firearms was largely perceptual.

It is DIFFERENT today....very few citizens 'need' firearms, and almost none need AR-15s or handguns with large magazines.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Aug 09 - 11:16 PM

The US has believed too much of what Hollywood produced. Hard not to.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 12:39 AM

One of the reasons might be that the cops have been trained and who knows if the citizens have. A cop holding a gun on ya is no joke. But a citizen who may or may not have it on safe is a different thing, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 01:26 AM

"You keep guns to keep the government honest. Simple as that. The guns at the political events are a welcomed sight. Governments need to be reminded that they serve the people, not rule them. A gun makes that statement more eloquently than any orator could."

As a citizen of a country other than the USA, that is a hysterically funny statement! :-) I know of few countries with a meek compliant population more brainwashed by their government, and incidentally also by big business (perhaps even more so!) !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 01:35 AM

Why pack heat? Lemme tell ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: pdq
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 10:16 AM

"After about 1890, when the native tribes were not a threat and people were congregating in cities, the 'need' for firearms was largely perceptual. ~ Bill D

To say that the public needed firearems from 1790-1880 and not now is pure opinion.

Please look up the meaning of "right" and "need".

I yoiu don't like what is in the Constitution, start the process to change it.

If only 20% of the people support your efforts, give it a rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 03:49 PM

"To say that the public needed firearems from 1790-1880 and not now is pure opinion."

As is your own statement.

I repeat that 'need' as relates to guns has changed in 250 years.

I have as much 'right' to state my opinion as folks have to own guns, whether or not there is much chance of changing the Constitution with the NRA spending millions to keep it as it is.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Rapparee
Date: 22 Aug 09 - 10:04 PM

Ah, Bruce, in the US if a cop is holding you at gunpoint his gun ain't on "safe."

Although these days it's as likely to be a Taser as a gun.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 12:41 AM

no it is not on safe if the threat was severe enough for him to draw the weapon it is ready to go ... by the way a Glock which most carry today have no external safety, the safety is the way the trigger is designed, it takes a deliberate pull to discharge but the gun has no external safety feature it is all built into the trigger. There is a small catch on the trigger that engages to discharge the weapon but it takes a deliberate finger pull not something just catching on it accidentally. Pretty neat design actually.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 12:54 AM

the theory is that in times of extreme stress fumbling with the external safety officers have discharged the weapon when they were not ready. With a Glock that cannot happen since the trigger is the safety. It is a good design but requires training. I carry a Glock due to its light weight but I still liked the external safety that a colt had. The cocked and locked worked for 90 years. Without proper training people have shot themselves in the leg by holstering the gun and having their finger on the trigger when they do it ... never touch any trigger unless you are going to shoot but officers have forgot that rule. With a glock it even more of a rule. One of the NFL guys Burris just found that out, carried an illegal weapon in New York and just got 2 years in prison for having an illegal weapon ... shot himself in the leg ... yup a glock ... too bad huh ... had no legal right to have it and no training on it either. He deserved what he got

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 01:05 AM

most modern weapons today for handguns don't have external safe on them. The glock uses the trigger, more common is a double action semi auto. With that the first round on the trigger pull is about the same as a revolver. Usually 3+ lb pull to discharge the first round. Subsequent rounds are then typical semi-auto pull like half that. The safety is the strength of the trigger pull like on a revolver ... me the glock design is safer but the cocked and locked is the best overall. You can drop that off a building and it will not discharge.

I know too much info but you asked

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 01:34 AM

and if I were granted one wish in the thing we call life, it would be that we could take everyone ever made and throw it in the deepest trench of the ocean never to be seen again .. wish that was the case in the world

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: 3refs
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 09:40 AM

I fired a 9mm semi-auto pistol(European something)that had a lever on the back of the grip that had to be depressed to fire. It was separate from the trigger lock and a pain in the ass. The way I gripped the the pistol made holding in the lever difficult.
I'd still like to give one of those .600 Nitro Expresses a go!

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Stringsinger
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 09:51 AM

Anyone who carries a gun to a town hall meeting is a kind of terrorist. The purpose
of sporting a weapon at a political rally is sheer intimidation and bullying.
The people who bring guns to political rallies should be arrested.

The Second Amendment did not give anyone permission to do this.

Where are the police here?

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 10:10 AM

The police are waiting to see how this all develops. As long as no one actually threatened anyone, they don't want to get into court cases over whether arresting someone or confiscating theit weapons in an "open carry" state was legal or not.
   The militias probably HOPED for such a confrontation and a favorable court outcome.
   Sad, but that's how it is until the laws are made sensible.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: SharonA
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 11:25 AM

"Why pack heat?" To store it until winter, of course. I sure could use some of this 90-plus-degree weather come next February. I'm gonna need a LOT of insulated pizza boxes...

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 12:05 PM

"The purpose of sporting a weapon at a political rally is sheer intimidation and bullying." Stringsinger (love that name!)

That is the only reason I can think of for open carrying at that kind of event. Concealed carry is more logical. If the person packing claims that he/she is doing it to avoid trouble when it erupts that is the only way that makes sense.

Open carry in a crowd of enemies is a challenge, a dare, an invitation.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Rapparee
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 12:15 PM

I have friends on the local police force AND the state cops, but I don't try to call attention to myself when they're on duty...ESPECIALLY with regard to a weapon.

"If carrying a gun makes you feel nine feet tall and covered with hair, you shouldn't be carrying one."

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 12:38 PM

Here are some snippets from a Leonard Pitts Jr column.

"Our story so far: Last year, Barack Obama was elected president, the first American of African heritage ever to reach that office. If this was regarded as a new beginning by most Americans, it was regarded apocalyptically by others who promptly proceeded to lose both their minds and any pretense of enlightenment.

"These are the people who immediately declared it their fervent hope that the new presidency fail, the ones who cheered when the governor of Texas raised the specter of secession, the ones who went online to rechristen the executive mansion the "Black" House, and to picture it with a watermelon patch out front.

"On tax day they were the ones who, having apparently just discovered the grim tidings April 15 brings us all each year, launched angry, unruly protests. In the debate over health-care reform, they are the ones who have disrupted town hall meetings, shouting about the president's supposed plan for "death panels" to euthanize the elderly.

"Now, they are the ones bringing firearms to places the president is speaking."

**************************

"These are strange times. They call to mind what historian Henry Adams said in the mid-1800s: "There are grave doubts at the hugeness of the land and whether one government can comprehend the whole."

"Adams spoke in geographical terms of a nation rapidly expanding toward the Pacific. Our challenge is less geographical than spiritual, less a question of the distance between Honolulu and New York than between you and the person right next to you. Such as when you look at a guy who thought it a good idea to bring a "gun" to a presidential speech and find yourself stunned by incomprehension. On paper, he is your fellow American, but you absolutely do not know him, recognize nothing of yourself in him. You keep asking yourself: Who "is" this guy?

*****************************

W"e frame the differences in terms of "conservative" and "liberal," but these are tired old markers that with overuse and misuse have largely lost whatever meaning they used to have and with it, any ability to explain us to us. This isn't liberal vs. conservative, it is yesterday vs. tomorrow, the stress of profound cultural and demographic changes that will leave none of us as we were.

"Round and round we go and where we stop, nobody knows. And it is an open question, as it was for Henry Adams, what kind of country we'll have when it's done. "Can" one government comprehend the whole? It may be harder to answer now than it was then.

"The distances that divide us cannot be measured in miles."

Divded We Fall

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 01:02 PM

I packed heat one day when driving to a consulting gig through a known serial-killer freeway zone-- bodies had been piling up. I was concerned about being targeted if I had car trouble-- and this was WAY before cell phones. But it made for some pretty interesting gyrations of logic when I arrived at the preschool for the gig.....("NOW what do I do with it?!?!?!?!") The hosting administrator, fortunately, found the conundrum as hilarious as I did, and provided a secure storage location for the unloaded item and, elsewhere, the ammo.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 01:19 PM

One great Supreme Court Justice once said that freedom of speech does not give a person the right to yell fire in a crowed room.

so with the 2nd Amendment do they have the right to branish a weapon in public. Well No they shouldn't it depends on what state you live in and what the corresponding law (if any is),   just like the freedom of speech argument. The only reason to display a firearm at such an event is to instill fear, to intimidate .. all of which has nothing to do with firearm ownership or lawful carry. no honest 2nd Amendment supporting citizen thinks it is ok to do this. A weapon is for hunting, for target shooting, for protection in cases of life and death. The law needs refined and adjusted to deal with this stuff and now. In many states they would be arrested. Again many such displays are not federal violations but state violation and it depends on the state you live it if you even broke a law. Clearly they did not and that is a very sad thing indeed ..

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 01:25 PM

and the term branish is to display a weapon for the sole purpose of instilling fear by most state definitions. If a weapon is pointed at someone however it is reckless endangerment unless the cause is self defense

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: robomatic
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 01:53 PM

I have never packed heat. I've traveled more than once in the Alaska outdoors with people who did, and the reason was we were in bear country.

As for self-protection reasons, I've weighed the pros and cons and it took less than a second for the cons to outweigh the pros. A weapon would have to be kept track of all the time, there was no guarantee it wouldn't make a situation worse instead of better, etc.

But as for why other folks carry weapons, I can quote a friend I met while on the road. "If I'm in my tent and I look out and see someone doing something to my bike, I don't want to say "pretty please, mister, leggo my stuff", I wanna be able say "bud, stop in yer tracks or I'll blow your head off!"

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 02:06 PM

And if he turns around with a gun in his hand, robo?


I do understand what you are saying, though.

Subject: RE: BS: Question: Why Pack Heat?
From: olddude
Date: 23 Aug 09 - 02:09 PM

In most cases the cons will outweigh the pro's for sure. Especially if you have a house with small children. I would disassemble for cleaning pull the slides off and lock everything up in the safe when mine were small. I also had locked trigger guards on all rifles with the bolts out and in the safe. I do not recommend carry to people. It is a personal decision and one that better we well thought out. But if they do decide they have to do it the correct way for safety reasons. Owning any firearm comes great responsibility. Don't care if it is a hand gun or shotgun for hunting. For most people the decision to avoid completely is the proper one.