Subject:
|
Re: Trying to understand
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Thu, 16 Mar 2000 05:19:34 GMT
|
Reply-To:
|
lpieniazek@novera.com&ihatespam&
|
Viewed:
|
209 times
|
| |
|
|
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.
My gun is kept locked in a box with a combination lock I can silently
work by feel. It's not loaded, but the bullets are in a speed loader in
the box.
Trigger locks increase the time it takes (me, anyway) to get my gun
ready to use, when I am operating in total darkness and in silent mode,
by a large enough amount that they seriously decrease my personal
safety. Where would you like me to keep the key to a trigger lock so
that I can find it in the dark without making any noise but so that it's
safe from my kids finding it? My kids are clever but not persistent
enough to guess a 4 digit combination lock.
Trigger locks are a direct attack on the notion of using a gun in self
defense. And they lull people into a false sense of security.
Oh, and little Nik doesn't have to "find" my gun, he knows right where
it is. He also knows it's locked away and not a toy.
> 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.
Hopefully, now you do.
--
Larry Pieniazek - lpieniazek@mercator.com - http://my.voyager.net/lar
http://www.mercator.com. Mercator, the e-business transformation company
fund Lugnet(tm): http://www.ebates.com/ ref: lar, 1/2 $$ to lugnet.
Note: this is a family forum!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Trying to understand
|
| (...) how (...) would (...) by (...) little (...) Thank you Larry. I'm glad that I know of at least one individual who has a relatively safe storage method. I understand the need for speed and the need for safety as well. It sounds like you have (...) (25 years ago, 16-Mar-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
