Covert Mission
New member
TRIGGER LOCKS---why not?
I started to post this on another thread (the airbag thread) regarding preventative devices and measures:
I don't understand in the slightest anyone's opposition to a law requiring triggerlocks be sold with every firearm. The logic (lack of it?) escapes me. Even built-in locks, like the one on the new Steyr M40 pistol, which is completely optional to use or not, seems good. It's passive, and almost invisible (I'm buying one). To me it's a no-brainer for these reasons:
* You don't have to use it, although locking one's guns up in some way makes complete sense to me (mine are in a 400 lb safe). You can buy pistol safes that offer almost instant access with a touch-pad lock...faster than a triggerlock. I worry not only about keeping guns safe from kids' prying hands, but as/more importantly, keeping them out of thieves' hands. Gun safes do both.
* It would earn the NRA, GOA, etc tremendous credibility among "soccer moms" etc, at little real cost. Give a little, gain a lot. It would say to the non-gun world "Hey, these people aren't nuts after all." I think the NRA should lead a campaign for gov't subsidy of pistol/gun safes, available at nominal cost to the public. How many tax dollars have gone to fund vehicle research, public safety, etc, not to mention the billions wasted on other things. The NRA would look like heroes.
Feel free to continue this on another thread, or maybe I'll post it. Flame me if you like... I know all the arguments against: less gov't interference, freedom to choose, etc. I still don't understand the problem. It is a safety issue that doesn't encroach in the least on the OWNERSHIP of guns. Last, let me say that I am NOT in favor of this "smart gun" BS the MD Atty Gen'l and MA AG are pushing. Not proven, and not necessary, imo.
I started to post this on another thread (the airbag thread) regarding preventative devices and measures:
I don't understand in the slightest anyone's opposition to a law requiring triggerlocks be sold with every firearm. The logic (lack of it?) escapes me. Even built-in locks, like the one on the new Steyr M40 pistol, which is completely optional to use or not, seems good. It's passive, and almost invisible (I'm buying one). To me it's a no-brainer for these reasons:
* You don't have to use it, although locking one's guns up in some way makes complete sense to me (mine are in a 400 lb safe). You can buy pistol safes that offer almost instant access with a touch-pad lock...faster than a triggerlock. I worry not only about keeping guns safe from kids' prying hands, but as/more importantly, keeping them out of thieves' hands. Gun safes do both.
* It would earn the NRA, GOA, etc tremendous credibility among "soccer moms" etc, at little real cost. Give a little, gain a lot. It would say to the non-gun world "Hey, these people aren't nuts after all." I think the NRA should lead a campaign for gov't subsidy of pistol/gun safes, available at nominal cost to the public. How many tax dollars have gone to fund vehicle research, public safety, etc, not to mention the billions wasted on other things. The NRA would look like heroes.
Feel free to continue this on another thread, or maybe I'll post it. Flame me if you like... I know all the arguments against: less gov't interference, freedom to choose, etc. I still don't understand the problem. It is a safety issue that doesn't encroach in the least on the OWNERSHIP of guns. Last, let me say that I am NOT in favor of this "smart gun" BS the MD Atty Gen'l and MA AG are pushing. Not proven, and not necessary, imo.