My dad has a lot of guns - he collects them in a minor way. He keeps one loaded in the nightstand for home defense. (No kids in the house.) It scares the crap out of me that my mom won’t learn how to use a gun safely. If you’re going to be around them and have them in the house, you need to be able to use them and handle them safely without fear.
Sadly, I live alone. Yes.
I believe you are incorrect about what is “ideal” here.
I believe you are allowing your strong negative feelings towards guns to justify and rationalise your opinion on what is “ideal”, in this matter.
My evidence, towards what may be “unsafe” in your home, is the same evidence that turns you off to guns in the first place. Accidents happen, and too many of them are due to improper training and handling of the guns.
Given the description you gave us of the conditions within your home, I assume that you are indeed most likely not to have a problem. I don’t wish to belabor the point, because the apparent risk of accidents in your home does indeed to be low.
I noticed that you said that if the gun situation in your home changed, you might consider changing your habits, in response to the new situation. I think we agree more than not. In your case, you see no need to change, given the situation as it is now. And I am inclined to agree.
But the OP is not about Kalhoun alone, but about many homes in a more general way.
So when I say that in the ideal situation, you would learn to safety/unload the guns. But I am not annoyed that you do not, as the risk in your specific situation only goes up by an immeasurably small amount (and it is your risk to take). I am speaking of the ideal situation here, in your case (and another would be to sell the guns), not necessarilly one that is “good enough”.
Maybe I am operating under some improper assumptions, I am not sure.
Could you glance over the various scenarios in my posts above, as I laid them out, and tell me how they may be handled differently in Illinois? (Or your state, if you are more familiar with that.)
(I reserve the right to change my mind if new facts become known to me.)
Thanks!
Most phobias are not grounded in logic, but they exist. It is called an unreasoned fear. Sorry but sometimes you just have to live with it.
The point is that even if Mr. K decided to become an avid gun user again, I still have no obligation whatsoever to learn the operation of his guns. I may be responsible for what happens in my house, but not for learning to disable a gun. There’s no need to learn it. Your continued insistence that it is the only responsible approach is wrong, and frankly, a little over the line, both in a relationship and in within the Big-Ass National Gun Debate. I refuse to take any personal responsibility for what I consider to be a dangerous pasttime. Your gun – your responsibility. Being responsible for what goes on in my home does not include learning how to operate a gun.
How is “removing the gun from the reach of others” doing nothing?
“Remedy” does not necessarily mean “gun skills.”
Why is it better to turn on the safety and remove the bullets? It requires more handling, and by virtue, more risk of the gun harming someone. Trained or not, you are going to put the household at a higher risk simply by adding more steps and more mechanical interaction.
Maybe if you put a few of those guns away… 
Training does not make the gun safer. It gives the operator of a firearm the skills required to operate the gun. Removing the gun from the house is “safer” by a long shot.
Don’t mistake “changing my habits” for learning how to operate a gun. It ain’t gonna happen. I may leave him, but I will not be bullied into responsibility for something based on erroneous ideas of safety. It’s NOT safer to learn how to operate a gun. Not in my house or any house. It’s irrelevant to someone who doesn’t use guns.
And again I will say that operating the gun is infinitely less safe than never touching it at all. And if forced to handle it, simply moving it to a secure location is infinitely safer than fiddling around with it.
Does she plan to use the gun? That’s a different animal altogether. I agree that anyone who has an interest in using it, recreationally or defensively, should learn how. However, if she wants to leave it sit there, nothing wrong with that.
Leaving a gun sitting on a table as a permanent parking place does not seem to me to be the safest way to store a gun, though.
In the nightstand. In the drawer.
You never know when you might need to use it. Should there be an intruder while she’s there alone, does she want to be the only one who doesn’t know how to use the gun? It’s essentially like learning how to drive stick - it would sure suck if you were in a position where you really needed to know how to do it but you never bothered to learn and so that drunk guy drives you home.
A question for those who insist it is irresponsible or unwise for the partner of a gun owner to refuse to learn gun safety skills: Do you believe that an individual’s desire to own a gun obligates his or her partner to learn such skills? And, if not, is it at least equally irresponsible for that individual to continue to possess a gun in a home with someone who refuses to learn how to handle a gun?
I’m asking because there seems to be a whole lot of “you need to learn how to handle a gun, because your spouse has one” sentiment being expressed, and not much “your spouse needs to get rid of his gun because you refuse to learn how to handle it” sentiment, even though both options would seem to resolve the problem.
If Kim absolutely refused to learn gun safety and did not want the guns in the house, I’d toss them. I just think that would be ill-advised.
Why? If she doesn’t touch them, what difference does it make? If you’re storing them properly, what difference does it make? (speaking strictly of the safety training…not her refusal to live with guns in the house).
I have discussed a couple scenarios (unattended gun laying around) where, if you saw a dangerous situation, and did nothing, you can be held accountable in some way.
Carrying the gun away is sufficient, IMO. Unloading it, as well, would be better.
I feel that there is a need, just not a overwhelming one, in the home situation as you have now.
I don’t own a gun, you have them in your home. I feel that it would be best if you learned basic safety (but I do not believe that you should be forced to, and indeed, I think that would actually be counter-productive), but you insist that there is no reason to do so.
I really don’t see how I am being unreasonable here.
I get the sense, now, that you do equate learning gun safety as a tacit approval of “all things gun”.
There’s not much I can say about that, other than it is an unfortunate, and, in my view, incorrect belief.
I never said that, and indeed, I said the opposite. I said, in your case, it seemed to be perfectly adequate. Just not “perfect”.
Why do you continue to misrepresent what I posted?
I have already mentioned the stats and studies that indicate that a number of preventable accidents occur due to poor knowledge and handling of guns.
The “extra steps” taken to unload a weapon are no more challenging than carrying the gun to a locker/safe/car, unlocking the safe, and placing the gun inside.
You are willing to carry the gun, that alone carries a non-zero chance of risk.
While few studies exist quatifying the added danger unloading it brings to the process, I will grant you that it is probably also a non-zero number.
It is entirely up to you to decide whether to run the risk of handling it untrained, or run the risk of unloading the gun while following the proper procedures.
Again, I do not support coerced training. I respectfully recommend the training.
I think that the chance of accidents merely carrying the gun, untrained, is nearly as risky, as compared to unloading it, following all the proper procedures. Again, my belief stems from the gun safety studies I mentioned before.
I do not own a gun. Please see my entry in the sister thread in MPSIMS, post 67:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=10134311&postcount=67
The gun is only as safe as the person handling it. It is an inanimate object.
I never supported “bullying”, and I have actually said so a couple times. Why do you insist I did?
The “gun safety” studies seem to indicate otherwise. The majority of “accidents” occur either through lack of training, or not following the safety protocol. There are a handfull of mechanical malfunctions, but usually that is because the gun was not properly maintained or used, with is covered by other “safety protocols”. (Gun cleaning is not something I would expect you to know.)
You don’t want to learn. Full Stop. I understand that. But you are incorrect to state that learning the safety skills makes zero difference, especially so if you are willing to touch the gun at all (to carry it somewhere safe).
Ok. But you already indicated a willingness to carry it away (and even leave it in the rain), which brings us to…
I believe you are incorrect about the “chances”.
Also, “fiddling” implies idle, casual, or untrained handling. (Carelessness, in other words.) If you are following the proper procedures, your unloading it, not fiddling.
If I can’t “force” you to unload it. I can’t “force” you to touch it at all. Both are options that you yourself are weighing, while deciding how to handle a situation you may (but probably not) find yourself in (the unattended gun scenario). You are choosing not to learn how to unload it.
Okelli-dokelli.
Okay, either you misread my last post or are arguing with me for the sake of arguing. Given your posting history, I’ll assume it was the former; you don’t strike me as trollish.
If you’re talking about this sentence:
“If Kim absolutely refused to learn gun safety and did not want the guns in the house, I’d toss them.”
In other words, if she were utterly and viscerally opposed to having guns in the house, I would be willing to give them up for her sake. Because I love her way more than I love guns.
If you mean this one
I just think that would be ill-advised
it means what it says. I think we’re better off with guns in our possession; I’m just not willing to cause her undue stress over it. It’s not like she’d be asking me to give up my glyburide.
“Obligate” is a word that carries many different meanings.
Legally? No.
Morally? Mmmph. Tough call. I would feel morally obligated. I think that if you allow your spouse to own a gun, than you accept the risks that come with owning a gun. Those risks can be somewhat reduced with training and knowledge.
Yes, I think so, to give the shortest answer.
There. I just said it, above. (I even mentioned it, in passing, in one of my posts directed at Kalhoun, above.) Is it all that surprising?
Again, one more time, for those in the back row.
I do not feel that Kalhooun’s situation is intolerable. It is not even all that dangerous, as the guns have remained unmoved from the gun safe for the last ten plus years.
I just don’t think it’s the ideal one. More of a nitpick, in her case. 
If my wife was afraid of guns we wouldn’t have gotten married. A woman who is that prejudiced against something she knows nothing about and is determined to wallow in ignorance wouldn’t keep me around long enough for it to be an issue.
I’m not suggesting she must go shooting with me, but not knowing basic safety would make her dangerous to herself and others.
I don’t see it as any different than someone refusing to learn how to fasten a seatbelt in a car.
It may be your opinion, but it’s unsubstantiated.
There is no reason for a person who doesn’t handle guns to learn gun safety. To say it makes my home safer is flat out wrong. People who use guns need to learn gun safety. People who don’t have no use for it.
Your sense is inaccurate.
Because it is “perfect.” Not handling guns is the best way to be sure no one gets hurt. Minimal handling is the next best thing.
Did those stats say it was people removing a gun from a tense situation or were they untrained people who wanted to shoot the gun? Find out and get back to me.
Sez you. You don’t know how other people will react. It requires a certain amount of strength and dexterity to do it. I know. I’ve done it.
That’s right. Which is why options 1 and 2 (asking the thoughtless asshole to pick up his gun or calling the police) were mentioned.
Gee, d’ya THINK?
Picking up a gun and moving it to a safe place is always going to be safer than picking up a gun and fiddling with the moving parts. Always.
Cite.
So then you agree that the gun that is handled least, or not at all, is really the safest of all?
I never said you specifically said that. It is the impression that comes across from you and others who are under the false assumption that handling guns is safer than not handling them.
And those accidents are happening to people who WANT to handle guns and who are untrained. Not to people who have no desire to. I know about gun cleaning. Everyone who’s ever watched an army movie knows about gun cleaning.
You still haven’t proved this. You keep saying it, but you haven’t proved this.
Which is why people who don’t use guns don’t need training. We don’t unload, lock, or fiddle. We don’t mess with guns except in dire emergencies (hint: a gun on the table is not necessarily an emergency). Contrary to what some people might think, you don’t need training to pick up a gun and move it to a safe place. Any adult with two brain cells to rub together can pick up a gun and put it in a safe place. The danger and confusion comes in when you add steps and moving parts to the equation.
It’s safer to leave the gun alone. Trust me on this.
What if she just doesn’t like them? What if she knows about them (like one of the previous posters…Antinor01, maybe?) and chooses not to have them in her life.
I know what you mean. The guns have probably come between many couples over the years. It’s a perfectly valid deal-breaker from either side of the table.
Not knowing basic safety makes her a danger to no one if she isn’t fucking around with the guns.
You may have picked that up before I edited it. I was specifically speaking about her not wanting anything to do with them, but that she could live with them under your responsible care.
Of course, it’s a moot point, since she never objected to my owning them and never seriously objected to learning how to use them.
I’m a lot like her. I did not object to our guns (in the manner my husband uses them) and I gave it a whirl. It’s not my bag. Really quite simple. My feelings about guns in general are stronger now than they were 20 years ago, but the situation as is is tolerable to me.