Trigger-locks? What? Eh? Are you just making this up as you go along?
TheMadHun said:
If you want to shoot because you simply like shooting then that’s cool. Go do it in a controlled environment and take proper safety measures. Join a club or something. Y’know I think the whole problem (and there most certainly is a problem) is with the way fire-arms are so readily available to robber and Joe Bloggs alike. Get the gun wracks out of supermarkets, make it difficult to obtain guns, make the whole subject taboo, punish the morons carrying concealed weapons, remove the whole gun-culture from society. People like you will still be able to fire your weapon (oo-er) but the fuckheads will be less likely to use them. “Impossible to implement, a beurocratic nightmare” I hear you scream but hey, I’m just a dreamer baby.
But seriously, folks: take a breath! If the danged search engine would work, I could include a thread that happened last year which discussed this topic in depth. IIRC, it was titled “People hunting” - not a very attractive title and content was a little, uh, ah, shall we shall…vitriolic. If you are seriously interested in this topic and would like to know the opinions of many of the people who post here, I would recommend taking a look at that thread. More recently, there was a thread called, IIRC, “Safely storing guns” or some such. In that thread, I described how most responsible gun owners would keep firearms in their homes. To summarize my post: I strongly recommend that all long guns (shotguns, rifles, carbines), all revolvers and most semi-auto pistols be stored with a locking device installed on the firearms and locked in a safe closet, desk, etc. There are some semi-auto handguns that can be made safe to store by removing the magazine from the pistol; these guns can then be stored in a locked drawer, desk, or what have you, separate from the loaded magazine - which also should be locked. The insertion of the magazine into the pistol would then make the gun ready to use in an emergency. I’m pretty sure this description will do nothing to further the discussion here, but at least it will clarify a few points on home safety. Oh yeah, and KTW bullets (“cop killer” bullets mentioned above) have been condemned for civilian use by the NRA since they were first introduced to the law enforcement and military communities. And “plastic guns” are not made solely from any synthetic material such as plastic; the gun that more or less started it all was the Glock - it has, of course, a metal barrel and also has metal plates molded into the frame. Other handguns have lots of parts of them made from new-technology materials, but there is still substantial metal in them all. These two misconceptions were brought to light by that shining torch of democracy - the media.
Ummm, yeah, I guess I am just making this up. But after going back to find my comprehension error, I see you are more of an idiot than I thought. Maybe you should have just let it rest.
Oh really? Perhaps you’d like to qualify that whole “idiot” thing. This board is for bitching and if you can’t be bothered to continue the thread with thoughtful but argumentative postings then stay the fuck off in the first place. 'Kay?
Well, I don’t know where YOU do your shopping, but it’s a hell of a lot easier for “robbers” to get guns than honest citizens.
Well, the Dominics I do my marketing at doesn’t have gun (w)racks. Again, must be where you are doing your shopping. And again, it IS difficult. You can’t just waltz into KMart and say “Gimme an Uzi”. At least not for honest citizens. It is for the criminals, though. Taking my gun from me isn’t going to change that scenario, buddy.
Good luck. And let me know when you find that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. And tell the little green guy I just LOVE his accent.
I do not know if you are just trying to be annoying or really don’t see where people like UncleBeer are coming from. IT IS OUR RIGHT. And what in the world makes you think that taking MY gun away is going to make a criminal less likely to use one? It works the other way around, baby.
What do people like the gun grabbers think is going to happen if we keep on legislating? We don’t enforce the laws we have now.
More legislation is not going to make the following scenario come true, no matter how much you scream, yell, and infringe on my basic rights as an America Citizen.
Criminal No. 1 - Hey bud, gotta drive by shooting tonight. Gotta run down the street to get a gun.
Criminal No. 2 - Cool man - I know this guy sells em outta his trunk, cheap.
Criminal No. 3 - Yea man, he’s right, but were you aware that you must fill out this paperwork and get a background check and then wait 72 hours? Perhaps you had better plan your drive by for another night.
Criminal No. 1 - My man, thank you for this important piece of consumer information! I will go down to the police station right now to get the legal, honest, ball rolling! Thank you for showing me the error of my ways!
Give it a break! Am I entitled to have a gun? Hell YES. Am I entitled to do something really STUPID and let a kid get at it? Hell NO. But if I did, then am I also entitled to pay for my negligence? Hell YES. But is Uncle Beer entitled to pay for my negligence? Hell NO.
It’s time people took some responsibility for their actions. I don’t need you, or some moron from Capitol Hill legislating my life and making my decisions for me based on what YOU think I’m entitled to or able to “handle”.
Is there a differance between gun control and anti-gun?
Seems that you have lots of guns but…
What control there is,is laughable,sure responsible folk can get guns,why should that be stopped?
How do you,responsible folk propose keeping them out of the hands of the drug crazed muppets out there?
This is impossible. That is why the honest citizen needs to have the ability to defend themselves.
What we can do however, is something similiar to what Virginia is doing. They are pushing a program called Project Exile.
What Project Exile does, is punish the criminal. (novel idea) Any offense committed with a gun gets you 5 years in a Federal Prison. This program is heavily supported by the NRA and is working. The NRA recently helped kick off the same program in Denver (I think) in the last week or so.
Freedom, Missy. Thanks for discussing this rationally (although, as I said, this is the pit and I’m a bit less heated in GQ); I seem to have lost my patience over this argument recently. I am now going to bow out of this conversation until I regain a bit of composure. I’m probably doing more harm to the cause than good. Carry on.
I don’t normally like to post in the Pit. IN fact, I rarely even come in here except I have been following this thread (the OP is ridiculous by the way, if you are going to use a story to illustrate, not prove, a point at least use a real story).
However, to answer casdave’s question, yes there is a difference between pro-gun control and anti-gun.
I am pro-gun, pro-gun control depending on the specific control we are talking about. I recognize the value of a gun in the spectrum of self protection; however, I also recognize the dangers of just letting any old idiot have a gun. I don’t train people who I think will abuse the martial arts, and I don’t train people who will abuse my lessons in firearm self defense. By extension, I don’t think those people should be armed with karate or a gun. I feel the punishment for negligent ownership of a gun should be highly punative civilly, and use of a gun in the commission of a crime should be punative criminally. With regards to the second, this is already the case, but those charges are almost always bargained out. We need to stop doing that. We need to stop releasing recividists from jail, also, but that is another thread.
So the “innovative, creative” approach that Virginia is taking on gun violence is to push it off on the feds? I’m not saying that it isn’t effective but it sounds like the first step on a slippery slope.
All right, bypassing all the second amendment stuff for the time being, I would like to answer the OP with a little story. This happened to me the year before last.
I was visiting my mother. She lives in a townhouse with very thin walls. Anyhow, I was sitting in a chair eating spaghetti, when suddenly, a small piece of the wall abruptly exploded, sending plaster chips throughout the room. After about a minute of utter consternation at this bizarre occurence, I returned my attention to my meal, now covered in plaster, and attempted to evaluate its salvageability. It was then that I noticed the bullet in my food.
Over the next fifteen minutes, all the details came out. The guy in the townhouse next door had been cleaning his gun (which later turned out to be stolen, incidentally), when it went off. The bullet tore through the side of his hand, smashed through the wall dividing his townhouse from my mother’s, impacted the opposite wall, directly over my head, and dropped onto my plate. If the bullet had followed a slightly lower trajectory, I might have suffered some serious injuries, or possibly even have been killed.
The point of this story is not to illustrate the need to ban firearms (which I don’t advocate), or to promote enforcement of existing laws (which I do advocate, and would have prevented this near-tragedy). The point is to illustrate that guns are not safe to have around. A gun is a very powerful implement of destruction, and their presence can cause as many problems as they solve, be it for your family, or for innocent bystanders who would never have known what hit them, like myself. Guns are not safe. Period.
Oh, and one more thing:
So, what you’re saying is that as long as there are a lot of guns in this country, we are going to need even more guns?
Heck is where you go when you don’t believe in Gosh.
The innovative new approach is to exist the current gun laws on the books.
When you hear Clinton whining sbout new gun laws, he is begging for more FEDERAL gun laws.
Virginia, and pretty soon Denver, is a good example of what pro-Second Amendment people have been saying all along. Exist the current laws, and crime will go down.
Very simple.
Don’t pass any new laws until you enforce the current laws. Somewhere in the back of my head I find myself hoping that the States will see the wisdom in this and pass their own laws. Then the Federal laws restricting law abiding citizens will be rolled back.
Then a tax cut…
They will give up the idea of Federal health care…
Individual liberties will be restored…
We will get out of the UN…
Stop sending soldiers out to petty little wars that don’t threaten us… SLAP
Well, no. It is this may be the tale you were told about this incident, but the fact remains, it is impossible to clean a loaded gun. You see, when a round is chambered it obstructs the barrel, thereby preventing you from passing a cleaning rod through it. What really happened was an accidental discharge caused by negligence and unsafe handling.
Please keep in mind NTG, I’m certainly not making light of this incident; it is absolutely horrifying and entirely preventable. I’m glad you were unhurt.
I’m just tring to illustrate the fact taht guns, in and of themselves are not inherently dangerous. It’s the irresponsible handling of them that is dangerous. Additionally, I hear that phrase, “the gun went off when I was cleaing it.” far too often. It’s just not possible.
UncleBeer - check out the above article. I thought it was really interesting. It’s about that town in Georgia that requires it’s citizens to have guns. Crime rate went right on down. Go figure!
This reminds me of a science fiction story I read a few years ago. It might have been a Robert Heinlein novel.
All citizens were require to either carry sidearms or wear a badge stating that they were unarmed. Now, the people who chose to arm themselves were allowed to act in any manner they chose, as long as they would take full personal responsibility for their action, including fighting the inevitable duels. The unarmed citizens were required to be polite and respectful of all others at all times. That is, if you were armed you had greater freedom of speech rights than did the unarmed populace. An unarmed person acting disrespectfully or impolitely could be shot on the spot.
If I remember correctly, the gist of the story was, “An armed society is a polite society.”
My hat’s off to you, sir. You not only read the story, you even remembered its title and author, which is better than I did. I guess I also owe you an apology, since you seem more intelligent than I first thought.
Here, you are almost correct. A trigger lock would have made a difference if the gun’s original owner had used one and the thief had not been able to get it off.
As a trigger lock owner :), I think that he was 100% correct. There is not a trigger lock on the market today that you couldn’t remove if you had an hour or so. Probably much less time for a good thief.
These are the same guys who break into cars, disable the alarm, smash THE CLUB, start the engine and drive off in less than ONE MINUTE.
Trigger locks were never meant to be impossible to remove, they are meant to keep it from being fired while legally in your possesion.
Here is a link to a thread, with pics,about Trigger locks. They are the exact same kind I own. It is my impression from knowing other trigger lock owners, that this is the most common model out there.
