Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 15 Mar 2000 15:23:05 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
203 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Karim wrote:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Dave Schuler writes:
>
> > I understand the more popular arguments against trigger locks,
> > (in that, if one can steal a gun, one can steal the gun's key),
>
> Actually, this is one that I can't understand at all.... I can't
> figure out how ANYONE could object to mandatory trigger locks... How
> in the world would something like that impinge on your rights? Now,
> granted, it most likely would not do a thing to combat a lot of the
> high-publicity shootings that have recently occurred (but then, no
> law would... those people were criminals... by definition, not being
> controlled by laws). However, it would probably help reduce the
> number of annual accidental deaths-by-gunshot that occur when little
> johnny finds his father's gun in the closet, which, believe it or
> not, is a pretty high number.
>
> So what is the argument here? It will add too much to the cost of
> the gun? Please! Can anyone honestly tell me that they are going to
> balk at buying a $400 handgun because it has to be sold with a $6
> trigger lock? This reminds me of the fight against mandatory seat
> belts in cars... ("But, if we make seatbelts standard, people will
> think our cars are unsafe!").
>
> Honestly, This is perhaps the ONLY reasonable and practical gun
> saftey regulation ever to be proposed by congress. I still don't
> understand on what grounds anyone opposes it. Now as for all the
> other gun control stuff they are trying to pass or have already
> passed, I tend to slide towards the NRA's viewpoint on a lot of
> them... but this one just bothers me.
>
> --Karim
(I can't believe I'm entering this debate, but...)
How, exactly, would trigger locks save lives? Parents who leave loaded
guns lying around are likely to leave the same loaded guns lying around
with the keys in the trigger locks. Children who can find ammunition
and load the guns themselves can also find the keys and unlock the
trigger locks.
We already have laws (at least in this state[1]) that say that parents
who, whether by act of commission or act of omission, allow their
children access to their guns are responsible and/or liable. Yet these
laws are rarely enforced; it seems that no one wants to punish parents
who have just lost a child through their own fault.
Legislate parenting!
[1] From <http://capitol.tlc.state.tx.us/statutes/codes/PE000031.html>:
Sec. 46.13. Making a Firearm Accessible to a Child.
(a) In this section:
(1) "Child" means a person younger than 17 years of age.
(2) "Readily dischargeable firearm" means a firearm that is
loaded with ammunition, whether or not a round is in the
chamber.
(3) "Secure" means to take steps that a reasonable person
would take to prevent the access to a readily dischargeable
firearm by a child, including but not limited to placing a
firearm in a locked container or temporarily rendering the
firearm inoperable by a trigger lock or other means.
(b) A person commits an offense if a child gains access to a
readily dischargeable firearm and the person with criminal
negligence:
(1) failed to secure the firearm; or
(2) left the firearm in a place to which the person knew or
should have known the child would gain access.
(c) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this
section that the child's access to the firearm:
(1) was supervised by a person older than 18 years of age
and was for hunting, sporting, or other lawful purposes;
(2) consisted of lawful defense by the child of people or
property;
(3) was gained by entering property in violation of this
code; or
(4) occurred during a time when the actor was engaged in an
agricultural enterprise.
(d) Except as provided by Subsection (e), an offense under this
section is a Class C misdemeanor.
(e) An offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor if
the child discharges the firearm and causes death or serious
bodily injury to himself or another person.
(f) A peace officer or other person may not arrest the actor
before the seventh day after the date on which the offense is
committed if:
(1) the actor is a member of the family, as defined by
Section 71.01, Family Code, of the child who discharged the
firearm; and
(2) the child in discharging the firearm caused the death of
or serious injury to the child.
(g) A dealer of firearms shall post in a conspicuous position
on the premises where the dealer conducts business a sign that
contains the following warning in block letters not less than one
inch in height:
"IT IS UNLAWFUL TO STORE, TRANSPORT, OR ABANDON AN UNSECURED
FIREARM IN A PLACE WHERE CHILDREN ARE LIKELY TO BE AND CAN
OBTAIN ACCESS TO THE FIREARM."
Added by Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 83, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1,
1995.
--
Susan Hoover
Houston, TX
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) Actually, this is one that I can't understand at all.... I can't figure out how ANYONE could object to mandatory trigger locks... How in the world would something like that impinge on your rights? Now, granted, it most likely would not do a (...) (25 years ago, 15-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
139 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
