Potential Energy Vs Kinetic Energy

"What is the difference between a brick sitting on a shelf 6' above the ground and a brick that's released from 6'?"

The brick on the shelf has potential energy and the falling brick has kinetic energy.

The value will be the same.

But it's not the same, that's why the labels are different.

The anti-gun argument typically boils down to treating the potential to do harm as actual harm done.

It was refreshing, for politics, that the pro-gun side focused on actual benefits and the lack of actual harm done by owning guns and shooting them.

Where we got speculative was in the "what happens in court if you used X to defend yourself" and not the same "what about the children" arguments used by our opponents.

Until lately that is.

Now I'm seeing the "pro-gun" what about the children argument with regards to safe storage.

It's a fucking minefield to talk about.

My guns are locked up because fucking thieves.  They're locked because I want to keep my shit, not because I fear what a thief will do with them if they steal it.

The has the salubrious effect of also keeping small children's hands off the guns.

Where I'm getting upset from the "pro-gun" side is, once again, the insults and name calling towards anyone who doesn't practice safe storage exactly and precisely like they do.

When they're condemning anyone who doesn't lock up as they demand, they're presenting some tells of their other positions.

The theoretical, potential scenario is a pistol in the center console where a kid from another household was left unattended and found the gun and shot someone.  Blame gun owner for leaving the gun.

Why not blame the gun owner for leaving the child unattended?  Why not blame the parents of the kid for not teaching them to keep out of other people's shit?

An analogy to putting a latch on the kitchen cabinets was made.

I asked around, I know lots of parents with grown children.

You know what I found?

Nobody locked up the poisonous cleaning products.  EVERYONE taught their kids to stay out of the cabinet and to not do the "drink bleach challenge".

Hardly anyone of that age locked up their guns either.  Astonishingly, none of their kids shot anyone and none of their kids friends rifled through the house and found a gun to have an accident.

This brings us to another anti-gun parallel with the "pro-gun" argument.  Blame the innocent minority and their potential harm for the actions of a small minority and actual harm.  Citing an event where a child came to harm that affected you personally makes you no different from the anti-gun mouth pieces citing their own personal tragedies to effect political change.  When it's them, you're against this tactic, when it's you...  Oh, it must be different now?

Why aren't I worried about this horrible danger to children?

Because without the "pro-gun" nannies, gun accidents (including those with children) have been steadily declining for decades.

With steadily declining accidents, demanding in insulting terms that everyone change their behavior to suit the "pro-gun" and prevent a very rare event all it does it provide yet another "even the pro-gun people think everyone should do this" talking point for the anti-gun side to make leaving a firearm unlocked and unattended a crime.

There's a huge difference between pointing out the advantages of securing your guns and demanding that everyone adhere to your paradigm.