And another stupid letter

M

Monkeyleg

New member
MAKE USE OF TRIGGER LOCKS MANDATORY
Children killing children. When will it ever stop? Never.

Wake up, Bill Clinton; all the laws you have passed and all the laws you have proposed aren't worth one single dime. Let's pass a law that all handguns must have trigger locks on them in the homes where they are stored.

When gun owners are home, they could keep their weapons loaded and at their side all the time, and no police officer would be able to enter their homes and charge them for not having locks on those weapons.

But if anyone under the age of 18 is caught outside of a home with a weapon that did not have a lock on it, even if he or she doesn't shoot it or even if it isn't loaded, the owner of that weapon should be sentenced to
five years in prison without parole.

If a person under the age of 18 takes the weapon anywhere outside a residence without a lock on it and injures or kills someone of any age, the weapon's owner should get 30 years in prison without parole, period.

This won't stop all of the killings immediately, but I'll bet if the owners of the weapons used in the next killings were put in prison for 30 years, you would see a very steep decline in such killings.

Parents today who have weapons in their homes better start being more responsible. And if our federal government can't wake up, then our state should take the bull by the horns and act immediately. There is just not enough punishment in this United States of America.

There are probably more than a million handguns in private homes in this country, and stopping production entirely of all handguns in this country would not stop all these incidents of children killing children.

Fred H. Walter
Greenfield

*****************************

A million handguns? Not only can this defective not construct a proper sentence, he also cannot count. How about a mandatory 30 year prison term for idiocy?

Dick

Appeared in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel on June 19, 2000.
 
Ok,

But he is at least advocating that people taking responsibility for their firearms is the way to go, he does not seem to be attacking the evil gun. Wacko, yes, idiot, no I do not agree. With the freedoms we enjoy, comes the responsibilities of those freedoms, while I do not condone his logic, he at least is making an effort to solve a problem without banning ownership.

[This message has been edited by hube1236 (edited June 19, 2000).]
 
But, he is perpetuating the notion that I am responsible for some crackhead's actions if said crackhead breaks into my house and/or safe and steals my guns, because I didn't have a (mostly worthless) $5 trigger lock installed.

[This message has been edited by Ledbetter (edited June 19, 2000).]
 
Florida has a law that a gun owner is guilty of a crime if they leave a loaded weapon unsecured and a minor gets hold of it and causes injury or damage with it. There is a provision that the owner is not responsible if the minor gets the gun by committing a felony (burglary?). It doesn't mandate trigger locks, just that the owner keep the guns out of a minor's hands by whatever means is appropriate. If you do that by wearing the weapon 24 hours a day, fine. In my case, I have no minor children so I could leave loaded guns all over my house and not be liable. If kids visit I would have to secure them.

I'm not sure whether civil liability for negligence would be more appropriate than criminal, but I think it's a reasonable requirement that a gun owner know where his guns are and who has access to them.

Mr. Walter's 30 years mandatory seems harsh, since it's more than the actual shooter would probably get. This seems like another example of someone taking a perfectly reasonable idea and carrying it to extremes.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Monkeyleg: ... if anyone under the age of 18 is caught outside of a home with a weapon that did not have a lock on it, even if he or she doesn't shoot it or even if it isn't loaded, the owner of that weapon should be sentenced to
five years in prison without parole.

If a person under the age of 18 takes the weapon anywhere outside a residence without a lock on it and injures or kills someone of any age, the weapon's owner should get 30 years in prison without parole, period.

This won't stop all of the killings immediately, but I'll bet if the owners of the weapons used in the next killings were put in prison for 30 years, you would see a very steep decline in such killings ...[/quote]If somebody steels your car because you didn't lock the door and kills somebody, you will be held liable for that person's death and any other damage caused by your car. How will they know that you didn't actually lock your car and the thief broke in? The same way that they'll know that the owner didn't originally have a trigger lock on the gun before it was taken!

The sheer stupidity of this is amazing.
FUD
fudeagle.gif



[This message has been edited by FUD (edited June 19, 2000).]
 
David Scott's description of the Florida law makes much more sense than the proposed law in the letter above. Minor children should not "just stumble across" your gun in your home. All mine are locked away, but stealable.
 
What's the difference between a $10 lock on the gun and the $10 lock on your front door?
 
Jeff, one can possibly stop a criminal from gaining access to your gun. The other can possibly stop you from having access to your gun.
 
Because of the controversial nature of trigger locks I now propose that all children (for their own safety and moral protection) be outfitted with the Finger-Locke. Not necessarily a revolutionary new product the Finger-Locke nontheless will be hailed by Gun-Grabbers everywhere as the "Chastity Belt of the Fingers" (sound of an embarrassed Bill Clinton sobbing in the background). The Finger-Locke can be worn 22 hours a day as prescribed by benevolent govermental regulation. Not only will it protect the moral sensibilities of children and those who think like children; but it will improve muscle tone of the arms and shoulders. Millions of young American schoolchildren will bask in the warm and fuzzy glow of enhanced self-esteem derived from the pride of having a muscular upper torso that would be the envy of a Mountain Gorilla. And its cheap too, costing only as much as a pair of recycled boxing gloves. All hail the Finger-Locke!
 
I can't see it. While I'm for parental responsibility and safe firearm handling I can't see forcing adults to keep trigger locks on firearms. Firearm education would be much better. Children are fascinated with firearms and most any other object they don't fully understand and are most likely going to examine one at the first opportunity.

Remember when we were told that "crack cocaine" was so addictive that if you used it one time you were hooked and that it was better than sex? Think about it. What kind of message is this? Doesn't this tell people to use it?

When people unfamiliar with firearms see them misused and abused on a daily basis in the movies and in video games it seems to reason that many are going to want to get their hands on a firearm either legally or illegally and see what it is like. What amazes me is that we seem to look at deaths from firearm differently than deaths from other objects. Why? Someone who drowns in a pool or one killed by a drunk driver is just as dead and more die from alcohol than firearms yet we don't hear calls for waiting periods or licenses to buy alcohol.

A firearm locked up may cost you your life. I realize also that a firearm, alcohol or car keys for that matter in the hands of a child or some other person not properly trained may be just as deadly. While I think it should be safely stored "trigger lock laws" are not the answer. I will take the risk.

The better approach would be to teach in all schools the safe handling of firearms just as they are trained to drive automobiles. Certainly education would debunk the many myths they have learned by listening to the anti-crowd and those who think all guns, even toy guns are evil and for killing.
I received toys guns when I was five or six years old, my first rifle at 14 and pistol at sixteen.

Age doesn't mean that someone doesn't know how to properly handle a firearm. Training not age is the key. Just because someone is 18 or 28 for that matter doesn't mean they are more responsible in the handling of firearms than someone 14. Physical age is not the answer and neither is gun locks. I had much better have my children trained in the use of firearms as I have (all my children took hunter safety education courses before way before they were 16) than think that my magic they will somehow be safe handlers when they reach the magic age of 18.

Seems to me that requiring trigger locks or any other locking mechanism for firearms stored in one home is somehow violative of ones rights. Parental rights, One home is their castle, right of privacy, right to bear arms or equal protection. I'm not quite sure but it sure doesn't pass the smell test.
 
What's the difference between a $10 lock on the gun and the $10 lock on your front door?

Colombe:
Jeff, one can possibly stop a criminal from gaining access to your gun. The other can possibly stop you from having access to your gun.

Well, that I agree with, but what I meant was, apparently, it doesn't matter that the thief who stole your guns had to break into your house, i.e., had to defeat the lock on your door, to get them. It seems that a locked door doesn't get you off the legal hook, but somehow, a locked trigger does. Does this make any sense? (of course not. It's a gun control law)
 
Fred may not be an idiot, but he is ignorant. And, anyone who wants to put me and my family away for 30 years because we don't store our personal property according to his wishes ... well, that man is a dangerous human being, IMHO. Just the kind of dangerous human being that requires me to have a capable firearm to defend myself and my family.

I'll bet Fred Walter would be a little less keen on this idea if he had to do enforce this himself, instead of paying another citizen (LEO) to use a gun against me.

Fascism is alive and well.

Regards from AZ
 
No, it doesnt make sense. It's a gun law. I'm sorry, I was being somewhat sarcastic there. Sadly, it was more true, than funny.
 
What do I think of Fred’s letter? Justice Brandeis said it best…

The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding. Dissenting, Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 479 (1928) Justice Louis D. Brandeis


------------------
Richard

The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top