On Apr 9, 7:28 pm, mm wrote:
On 9 Apr 2007 09:12:22 -0700, "dpb" wrote:

On Apr 8, 10:33 pm, mm wrote:
...
Nanny-state refers to protecting us from ourselves, ...
...

I think of it in the broader context than that ...

But it's already the obligation of the state to protect us from
others.

I submit that is not the obligation of the state but our collective
obligation to each other to use common sense and restraint to "first
do no harm". ...
....
And you see where that gets us, when we rely on individusala includng
the many who don't give a damn about who gets hurt because of them.
Drunken drivers, drunks who start fights in bars so that people
actually get hurt, people who leave guns around so that their kids
shoot visitors, or their own brother or sister. Etc. Etc.

I don't know the best exact boundary for what the law should say about
gun locks, but I know that preaching individual responsibility when we
already know how many people aren't responsible at all is a bunch of
crap.

Well, there's the point made for me precisely--all the laws against
drunk driving, etc., don't really mean much do they, unless people
take the personal responsibility to not drink and drive. You can't
legislate morality and you can't legislate responsibility any more
successfully. You can, otoh, with diligence behave responsibily
yourself and teach your children and others you come in contact with
the rudiments of gun safety and how to act responsibly with them.
That effort on one's part includes properly storing them to preclude
acquisition of them by unauthorized parties, of course.

You may wish laws were effective in changing behavior, but we have
ample evidence that isn't particularly effective, too. How many laws
did the guy I heard of on the radio today break in committing his
offense(s)? They didn't help much, did they?