http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment032900b.html
> 3/29/00 10:30 a.m.
> Are Gun Locks Like Aspirin Caps?
> "Childproof" will never mean completely childproof.
>
> By Dave Kopel
> Mr. Kopel is research director of the Independence Institute.
> Gun control advocates often analogize proposed laws requiring gun-makers
to
> build internal locks into handguns to current federal law requiring
> "childproof" caps on medicine bottles. This is a very good analogy, and it
> shows the lethal dangers of mandatory locks.
>
> As Harvard's Kip Viscusi has detailed, federal laws requiring "childproof"
> safety caps appear to have led to a documented increase in child
poisonings.
> Lulled by the presence of the federally-approved safety device on medicine
> bottles, many adults have been leaving dangerous medicines within easy
reach
> of children. Although the caps may be "childproof" to some three year old,
> they can never be completely childproof. The cap may be put on improperly
by
> the consumer, or the child can simply break open the bottle, or cut
through
> a plastic bottle with a knife.
>
> Mandatory seat belt laws have a similar effect, increasing the deaths of
> innocents. Seat belts make it much more likely that automobile occupants
> will survive a crash. And for decades, safety-conscious drivers and
> passengers have worn safety belts voluntarily. But in recent years,
> governments have began imposing fines on auto occupants who choose not to
> buckle up. This strategy increases seat belt use - but it also increases
the
> deaths of innocent people. Studies have shown that when forced to buckle
up,
> reluctant bucklers drive faster. Recognizing that they are safer with the
> seat belts on, these drivers compensate for the increased safety by
driving
> more dangerously. As a result, innocent, non-risky pedestrians and
occupants
> of other automobiles end up being injured or killed in accidents caused by
> the extra risk-taking which resulted from mandatory seat belts. In
essence,
> the government increases the safety of careless people - by decreasing the
> safety of careful people. Even if this policy results in a net saving of
> lives, it is immoral to kill (indirectly) innocents in order to protect
> fools from their folly.
>
> With firearms, the consequences of the lulling effect will be much
deadlier
> than with medicine caps or seat belts. If the government claims that a gun
> is "childproof" (because it has some device which the government
mandated),
> then firearms safety training will be severely undermined.
>
> The National Rifle Association, and every other organization that conducts
> firearms safety training, teaches the first rule of gun safety: "Treat
every
> gun as if it's loaded." The second rule is: "Always point the gun in a
safe
> direction." And the third rule is: "Keep your finger off the trigger until
> you are ready to shoot." People who follow these rules will never cause a
> gun accident.
>
> If the gun is "childproof," than some parents will violate the firearms
> safety rules, and they will let their children do the same: they and their
> children will point the gun in a dangerous direction; they and their
> children will put a finger on the trigger even when not ready to shoot;
they
> will store the gun loaded even when the gun is used only for sports.
>
> All this behavior might not cause harm, as long as these "childproof"
> devices work properly. But what happens when these adults and children -
> conditioned to ignore gun safety rules - come across a gun that does not
> have one of these devices? Whatever laws are enacted today, there is an
> existing supply of 80 million handguns in American homes, virtually none
of
> which have built-in locks. It is terrifying to imagine what will happen
when
> people think that guns are "childproof" because the government told them
so.
).