What's the end game on this conversation? They confiscate hair gel and toothpaste these days.
My conversations are not specific with TSA. I work closely with many LEO and "security" type jobs. The conversations about "weapons" come up frequently. Especially from those who have little knowledge, or are misinformed.
The "end game" as you so put it is what I have always stated: An ordinary everyday item can become a weapon. That is what most fail to realize. Again, a weapon is nothing more than an inanimate object someone uses with the intent to harm someone.
Not being snarky. Actually curious. I see the knife/gun comparison often, and find it hard to follow. There is a difference. If someone comes at my family with a knife, I can fight back or sacrifice myself while they get away. I could jump in between a knife and my loved ones and make a difference. It takes a lot more effort for someone to kill multiple people with a knife. Still, some knives are illegal in some states. Even brass knuckles are illegal in some states. Meanwhile, if someone entered my house with an automatic weapon, even being responsibly armed (locked gun case, unloaded gun) is probably not going to save anyone.
Let me break your comments up a little:
1) Knife, or other item which can stab/slash/pierce/bludgeon/crush/etc. Sure, someone could try and fight back. But, what usually winds up happening is one of two things: They panic and freeze in fear. Or, more than likely they attempt to flee. What happens if you're in a room where there's no window, or other means of escaping?
2) If someone enters your home with an "automatic weapon". I'm going to go out on a limb and guess you really have no clue about the differences in firearm types. Nor, about what "responsibly armed" means. Very, very few people own "automatic" firearms. They are heavily regulated by the Federal Gov't, and it requires multiple levels of background checks, as well as many expensive permits, etc to legally own one. The chances of a "bad person" having one illegally is extremely unlikely. But, not unheard of.
Now, about your definition of "being responsibly armed". What you describe, is but one form of it. Which, is very poor when it comes to self/home defense. If that is what you want to do for yourself in securely storing firearms, then I support you in doing so. However, it is not how I and many others legally do sp. I keep a loaded pistol near me most times, even including while in the house. Though, do not carry in places which are illegal such as Federal Buildings, Post Office, courts, etc.. I'm legally allowed to do so, and I have had a significant amount of training and continue to practice for proficiency.
Doing so is not because I am in fear of something. Rather, it is my right and is more of a "what if" situation. In your home invasion scenario, this allows me to have a good chance of stopping/slowing down anyone who breaks into my home while I am there. To me, this is equivalent to the fire extinguisher I have in my house. It allows me to take action and most likely prevent a situation from quickly escalating into something significantly worse before police/fire/medics arrive on scene minutes later.
This discussion can go back and forth almost indefinitely, and we will most likely not change either person's view. If you read my previous posts, with an open mind, you will hopefully have a more clear understanding of what I was saying. If you take away firearms from legally responsible citizens, you only hurt them and remove the means they may have of defending themselves. Laws only affect those who follow them. Criminals don't care about laws and will pick easy targets. Doesn't matter if it is with a firearm, knife, baseball bat, or a vehicle. They go after easy targets and attempt to inflict maximum damage to the most amount of people. Thus why you see shootings typically occurring in places where firearms are not allowed and will take a while for first responders to arrive on the scene.[/QUOTE]