AP Photo/Lynne Sladky, File

The problem with anti-gun legislators is that they often look at guns as a one-size-fits-all issue and recommend one-size-fits-all approaches to regulate guns. This is especially troubling as so few of them (read: none) know a damn thing about defending one’s self with a firearm.

Further, almost all of them are centered around urban centers with law enforcement a couple of minutes away. While you and I may well understand that those few minutes can amount to the rest of your life during a violent attack, it’s a short enough period of time that many feel perfectly secure.

In rural parts of the country, you may well be looking at an hour response time or longer. If the deputies on duty are on the other side of the county, it’ll take them a while to get to you. When you know response times are long, you don’t expect instantaneous police protection. You learn that you may well be required to protect your self.

Anti-Gun lawmakers routinely miss that fact. More to the point, they don’t care. That’s why they’ve pushed mandatory storage laws at the state level in numerous places. Now, they’re trying it at the federal level.

 The Connecticut congressional delegation on Tuesday introduced a bill in the U.S. House named after a 15-year-old from Guilford that would place new requirements on gun owners to ensure firearms are stored safely in the home.

Ethan’s Law, named after Ethan Song, a teen who accidentally shot himself in the head last year with a gun owned by his friend’s father, would impose a $500 fine each time an unsecured, loaded gun is found in a home. The bill would also substantially increase that fine – and increase liability in a civil suit —  if that weapon accidentally wounds or kills someone.

“This legislation will protect families who own guns,” said Rep. Rosa DeLauro, D-3rd District, the chief sponsor of the House legislation.

A similar bill was introduced in January, but so far not much has happened with that one.

The problem is that this bill won’t protect families who own guns. It will, at best, protect parents who refuse to teach their children about firearms and firearm safety.

It will cost rural people their lives. It’ll cost people who live in bad neighborhoods their lives. It’ll cost stalking victims their lives.

Bills like this assume that guns are only used in hunting situations or going to the range. These politicians think firearms won’t be needed in an unexpected situation. The problem is, you don’t always get to pick the moments when you’ll need your guns. The bad guys get a vote, and the initiative is on their side. We, as law-abiding citizens, are forced to react to those situations.

That means anything that gets in the way of our ability to react also gets in the way of our ability to protect our own lives.

Folks, people will die should this become law. Plain and simple.

Ethan Song’s death is a tragedy, but perhaps his parents should consider the fact that they didn’t educate him on the handling of firearms. Maybe including firearms safety classes in our school curriculums at every age should at least be considered. I mean, if we want to keep children safe, it makes far more sense to give them the tools to make the right and safe decisions rather than trying to bubblewrap the entire planet for them.

That’s all this Ethan’s Law will seek to do, and it won’t. Nothing will.