I'll say this:

Look, it's not a question of who is right, and who is wrong because the question isn't black and white, so how could the answer be. I think in theory many of the laws would work, I also think in theory time travel works--we know how that one figures out don't we? It will never matter how many facts are presented from either side, in the end it comes down to what is right for the individual. The principles are the same in both instances: understanding, respect, safety.

I want you to understand why I come from the position that I do, just as you want me to understand yours. We all want our positions to be respected. Safety is really the abstract here. It's a question of what makes someone feel safe, and what doesn't. How can one be safer than the other? Can you chose safety for someone else, and how do you determine for them what that looks like? Now, I'm not saying that you're doing for me--at least, I'm not intentionally steering us in that direction. I'm simply posing the question to us all. How do we determine what is safe?

Is a pistol behind three locks safer than one that isn't? At first glance I would argue that it is, in certain aspects. It is safer for a child. Is it presenting a safer environment all around? That's subjective; you have to factor in the human equation which is difficult enough on a good day.

Where do we draw the lines between what a safe weapon is and is not? Is a semi-automatic rifle safer to the public than a bolt action rifle? Again, is subjective and depends on the person behind the trigger. There are too many variables to consider, so how do we arrive at an answer to the first question: What is safe? I'm not asking the questions to challenge your knowledge, I'm asking the questions in the hope that instead of regurgitating statistics you will not only think for yourself, but think about something other than yourself.

So I pose a question to you all now.

How do we determine what is safe for everyone?