i was actually looking to get some ideas on why i'm wrong about thinking that all guns should have trigger-locks or safes, & have that mandated by law. so that, yes, when a child dies because of an unsecured gun, the parents can be charged.

i think it is terrible that these parents have to deal with the loss of their kid. but i can also simultaneously hold the view that they should be charged as criminals for having an unlocked gun. that's my right.

i did not mean to condescend to you, & i actually apologize if you really felt that way. the problem i have is that i don't think you really felt condescended to, i think that was a trope that you're using to stifle further discussion. i had absolutely no opinion on your intelligence prior to our conversation, nor do i have one now. i have lost a little bit of respect for you, in that you decided i "talk to you like [you're] stupid," because i think that was a cop-out for telling me why we really shouldn't have safety-related laws for guns.

it bugs me that i'm bugged enough to even respond to this comment. but it also bugs me that, when i talk to the "pro-gun" crowd, there doesn't seem to be an interest in compromise. it bugs me that the pro-gun crowd doesn't even seem to be willing to entertain an opposing idea, because that might mean that you're wrong.

it bugs me, because i'm entirely willing to be wrong.

please tell me why mandating basic safety measures on guns is a bad thing. whether you think it's an infringement on our Constitutional rights, or whether you'd propose an alternative that protects those rights but also suicidal children from finding guns. i would, honestly, love to hear what you have to say.

but you don't think i respect your intelligence, so i guess i'm falling on deaf ears. that was why the "yikes." i've tried so hard to have a dialogue with the pro-gun crowd, & this tends to be how it goes.

at least tell me what i'm doing wrong?