Would you feel at ease at Atlanta’s Hartsfield-Jackson Airport if any number of law-abiding travelers (or employees) were allowed to carry firearms on their persons?

Mayor Shirley Franklin doesn’t think so and neither does airport manager Ben DeCosta.

Although I prefer daggers, swords, and knives to guns, I’ve nothing against firearms themselves as weapons of minor or major injury nor do I harbor any ill feelings towards gun enthusiasts and owners.

After the recent judicial 180 regarding whether or not the upstanding residents of the nation’s capital city could keep handguns inside of their homes (as opposed to only shotguns and rifles), I started batting an idea around that is either understandable but impractical or reasonable but silly. The idea began with the thought, “will it be easier or harder on the black market and ruthless dictators?”

Which then turned into the following (Note: read with deadpan voice):

“Forget buying from the black market, we’ll just bust into the Radleys down the street.”

More law-abiding people with guns ~> criminals have more to steal. Guns are already being stolen or bought or obtained thru other dodgy means. Now, in addition to or maybe instead of breakin’ an entering for the electronics, they’d break in for the guns, and then go back for the electronics an hour or a month later.

I wouldn’t want any law-abiding citizen owning a handgun if they didn’t know how to use it and clean it and possess documentation indicating as much. They’ve passed the class and they must buy “freak accident” insurance. Not that the latter is available…right? Maybe farmers and private manufacturers have insurance to cover accidents involving nail guns or welding equipment. There’s no current insurance to cover “my idiot nephew decided to pick up my shotgun and play with it while I was in the bathroom for twenty seconds.”

It’s so hard to legislate responsibility (as opposed to intent and motive). Whose fault is it legally? Who is to blame morally or philosophically? The uncle for having the gun out whether or not his nephew would be dropping by for a visit? His sister or brother for not keeping their kid in check? The nephew if he were old enough to know A. don’t be touching a gun B. don’t be touching a gun that isn’t yours and you don’t know how to handle C. don’t be touching anything that isn’t yours.

Kids can’t be blamed for breaking something, but if they’re old enough to know (to see a gun, know what it does and not to touch it), I think they can be blamed for accidentally doing more serious things. If the kid is five years-old, maybe not. But eight or ten? Heck yes.

Swap out the gun with anything else that can do harm if not handled properly: hot water, an art project with sharp edges, food allergens. There has to be a line somewhere that says the kid is to blame (philosophically) or the parent (legally)..not any other adult.

There’s a murky combination in anticipating that someone could hurt themselves on your property, and then as the potentially injured, making sure that you don’t or those in your care don’t.

Restaurants have to put up warnings about nuts and dairy for people with allergies so that the consumer can’t plead ignorance and sue. Beware of Dog signs go up so trespassers can’t plead ignorance and sue. Does this mean that people should put up signs with every possible danger to someone?

Beware nuts, chocolate, shellfish, bleach, wheat, dairy, dog, firearms, civil war memorabilia, then it would never end.

Should parents find out if their friends or relatives have anything like the above and either be more vigilant about watching their kids or telling their friends or relatives to keep all that stuff locked up? Ultimately, though, parents can only do so much. When a kid starts fiddling with their own agency, it’s terrifying for the rest of society.

Click here for some thought-provoking readers’ comments from 11alive.