What I simply can't understand is why you would not want to require that those people keep their firearms of all kinds securely stored when they are not home against at least casual illicit access, which is the kind of access usually available in home break-ins in the US.
Does that not still beg the question of what physical means would be required by law? "Securely stored" is such a subjective term, and covers such a broad range of measures that it is effectively meaningless without more specificity. Are portable gun safes sufficient? Do the keys have to be secured in a certain way? What level of cost is acceptable to impose on gun owners? Should only wealthy people be able to own firearms? These are not small issues, Iverglas, and unless you can actually answer them, simply proposing more stringent "secure storage" laws is not at all helpful.