The very reason I like to use an axe instead of a gun. Plus, that hand axe....if thrown properly...can do some real damage . Surf ------------------
MY typical approach? Hi kettle, my name's pot. You're sure looking black today! To each his own. I personally think the difference in MOMENTS is akin to the difference between world-class runners. It might only be a couple seconds but it means the difference between winning or losing. And I am not about to let my guard down just because you think burglars are smart enough not to enter my bedroom by mistake. Maybe your burglar wants DVDs; maybe the one I'm thinking of wants jewelry or other valuables that are typically kept in the bedroom. jamcracker, if you could take a moment out of patting yourself on the back over your change in analogies, I'd like to ask why you changed in the first place. Lighters, aspirin bottles, seatbelts-- it doesn't matter. You still have not dealt with the issue of usage. The safety features on those products do not constitute an impedence to usage for self-defense.
Whoops. As for fingerprint identification, do you know how much it costs? How reliable it is? Any of the details of how it works? Or should it just be passed because someone has to "PLEASE, THINK OF THE CHILDREN!"...?
Kagy, I learned from the best! I understand what you are saying, and I totally defend your right to have a gun handy to stop an intruder. But my guess (and true, it is a guess) is that the intruder is there to steal, and that you'll catch him before rather than him coming into your room. You'd have moments to unlock the gun. As for the fingerprinting technology, I don't know the answers to your valid questions. I'm guessing the only reason it would be expensive is because the gun manufacturers would make it expensive (that's not a shot a gun manufacturers as it is to manufacturers in general). If it proves not to be very effective, then I don't think it should be required. However, from an idea standpoint, I think it's the best and most compromising solution. ------------------ www.swirve.com...The reason Al Gore invented the internet.
Lighters, aspirin bottles, seatbelts-- it doesn't matter. You still have not dealt with the issue of usage. The safety features on those products do not constitute an impedence to usage for self-defense. You cann't compare guns to lighters, aspirin bottles or seatbelts because the reasoning behind the restrictions is completely different. Gun safety is being championed because of the danger to others. I shouldn't have to suffer because someone else wasn't smart enough or didn't take the time to secure their gun from their kids. All of the other things are to protect people's own self, family and kids from their stupidity. While some gun safety is to protect kids, mostly it is to protect other people unrelated to the gun-owner. The reasoning behind it and need for it is substantially different. It's more similar to speeding laws (public safety). ------------------ http://www.swirve.com ... more fun than a barrel full of monkeys and midgets.
BK, You admit that it is possible to devise a satisfactory gun lock. If a cheap, reliable, quickly unlocking gunlock was developed, would you support it?
Don't underestimate Kagy's ability to make people mad. (BK -- JUST KIDDING!!!!) ------------------ Stay Cool...
Yeah, dc...I'm guessing if Kagy's house gets broken into, it won't be by burglers, it will be by someone he pissed off, and forgot he's well-armed! ------------------ www.swirve.com...The reason Al Gore invented the internet.
There are weak-minded people who own guns and there are weak-minded people who don't. There are spineless people who own guns and there are spineless people who don't. I think the point of the matter is that if you own a gun, and children live in your home, you had better go the extra mile and make sure that the children do not have access to your gun and ammunition. If one of your children kills themselves or someone else with your gun, you should be held accountable in some way because your child was able to access your gun. What the hell is so difficult to understand about this? ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
This is a case of asking a basic question and having the devil in the details. Do most gun owners oppose mandatory gunlock laws? Depends on the law. I don't think you'll find any gun owner honestly opposed to requiring every gun sold to be sold with a trigger lock. The NRA supports the principle, and most gun manufacturers actually do so already. (I'll bet it doesn't even bother Kagy. ) I don't think any of these groups, oppose the use of these locks to secure a weapon -- in fact they probably would encourage it in households with kids. Most wouldin't mind using it on weapons that are stored, or being transported. What they do oppose is mandating that all guns have them at all times. There's probably nothing wrong with someone like Kagy -- no kids in his home -- keeping his gun without a lock secured in his home in a place where it won't be accidentally discharged (I'm assuming it's not under the pillow here). The thing they strongly oppose is integral gun locks -- built into the gun -- because they are expensive, unreliable, and can easily break. IMHO there is no reason to add something like this to a gun, when a safer, cheap, and more reliable lock can be added which physically prevents the gun from firing. My gun lock has a hard plastic piece that fits over the trigger, and is locked in place by a padlock. I could remove it with the key in a few seconds. There are others available -- more or less complex. Gun safes are also an option. I had a friend (Police Officer, with a child) who even had a locked box which attached under his bed, and opened using a combination lock which had keys arranged in groves which one's fingers fit into -- allowing very quick access, by feel, in case of an emergency. It wouldnt' open after three unsuccesful attempts. No, nothings perfect, and it won't keep an industrious child out. That's still not an excuse for using nothing. Parents know what their kids are capable of, and are able to act appropriately. In almost every incident you hear about, they just don't. ------------------ Stay Cool... [This message has been edited by dc sports (edited March 08, 2001).]
I hate having to repeat myself. There is a significant difference in child-proofing a cigarette lighter and a gun. If it takes you an extra two seconds to light a cigarette, you're just delaying your tumor by two seconds. If it takes you two seconds to unlock a gun, that's two additional seconds an intruder has to harm you or your loved ones. When usage (and purpose thereof) of the instrument is taken into account (which I would think anyone with a brain would want to do before proposing legislation to force manufacturers to construct the object differently), this becomes a poorly-constructed and entirely indefensible analogy. I love it! A, if the "child" gun-locks are made as easy to manipulate as cigarette lighters, doesn't that defeat the purpose entirely...? I would think you'd want them constructed so as to present a significant obstacle to a child attempting to use a gun. B, I know how trigger locks work. If you think disabling one is equivalent using a child-proof lighter, then it's pretty obvious you don't. The crucial moment is simple: you have to insert a key and pull the lock's components free from the trigger. If you don't think that adds a significant step to shooting an intruder, you're being intentionally obtuse. Why couldn't we build a car that gets 5,000 miles to the gallon? I don't know, but heck with it, let's pass a law mandating that all cars GET that mileage whether it can be done or not! I am not saying that it can't be done. I am saying it is foolish to pass legislation mandating the use of trigger locks based on the idea that someday there will exist a version of the lock that does not significantly impede my ability to shoot an intruder. RM95, I'm guessing that you didn't ace the verbal portion of the SAT. I said moments, not minutes. Jeez, I intentionally left myself open to a broadside to see if you guys were approaching this logically and you missed it. NO ONE has asked yet, "Why couldn't you take the trigger lock off at night when you're worried about intruders, then put it back on during the day?" You guys are so eager to get any piece of gun control legislation passed that I don't think you're even considering the arguments, pro and con, thoroughly. [This message has been edited by BrianKagy (edited March 08, 2001).]
Is it impossible to lock a gun in a way that a child cannot defeat, but an adult can defeat quickly? Fingerprint Recognition seems like an easy technological solution. Expensive, sure, but a technology problem. BK, your position is that modern technology cannot devise a gunlock that a child cannot defeat and that an adult can defeat quickly?
Brian, did you word it this way, rather than "SAT-Verbal", so I could understand you? Thank you. No matter what anyone says about you, you certainly are kind to the elderly! ------------------ "Blues is a Healer" --John Lee Hooker
The box my friend had allowed him to get his gun faster than he could pull it out of the night stand, in the dark, with no noise. It was basically a combination lock, designed expressly for that purpose. Any other weapons he had were locked in a cabinet, with the ammunition stored separately. I'll bet Kagy's answer to your question will be -- No, they might develop better technology. But, you can't require people to use something that hasn't been invented yet. ------------------ Stay Cool...
BK, just because you're unhappy with the current implementations of gun child-proofing is no reason to scrap the whole idea. Lap only seat belts sucked too. We didn't just scrap the whole seat belt idea, we came up with a better solution.
A short Salon.com article that says "Zero Tolerance" policies may be the exact wrong thing to have. http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2001/03/09/shooting/index.html I do not necessarily agree with the opinions in the article. I merely present it to add to the debate. ------------------ Houston Sports Board The Anti-Bud Adams Page
Well, I live in an apartment and I shouldn't have to have my place burned down because some kid got hold of his dad's lighter. So I will stick with my reasoning instead of adopting yours. JC, I already support gun locks and I think, as I've intimated above, that people should use them at all times where they don't need to be able to fire their gun instantly. I just don't think that it's the government's job to make them mandatory. Right now I can choose which kind of trigger lock I want and I can choose when and how I use it. I do not trust the government, or the people who are swayed by Handgun Control Inc's arguments, to propose or enact rational legislation or to take the feedback of gun owners into account when designing it. I'LL KILL YOU!!!!!!!!!!!!! Seriously though, that was damned funny. I laughed at that one. Damn, if Keeley didn't kill me after our email gun control debate, I don't think anyone else will.
