Well, in your day, society wasn't the pussy-whipped, risk-averse, ambulance-chasing place it is now.
A gun that stays in the rack of the pick-up is less likely to be involved in a school tragedy, than a gun that is taken onto school premises without the school, or the gun's owner, knowing about it. A gun can be taken onto school premises safely, but the "panty waists" won't risk it. Not just because they're scared, but because it's not possible to allow that to happen for all manner of "practical" reasons.
It suits the financial interests of insurance companies to identify small risks with potentially catastrophic consequences and charge more to cover it. It suits the lawyers to prosecute any and every perceived injury, no matter how slight. And so they feed the nanny state, which in turn feeds them.
Conservatism needs to embrace the idea that the litigation industry forms a symbiotic relationship with social authoritanism. If you're free to do XYZ but someone's able to sue you into financial ruin for exercising that freedom, then freedom is an illusion.
I find nothing in your reply with which I disagree.