Follow up on Gun Safety
In the comments to this post where I stated that gun safety was a code word for gun control (and it is), I got some grief in comments from a few people for my opposition to mandating some of these safety features. First, I oppose these measures because they are, essentially, stabs at gun control. The anti-gun lobby method of operation is to pass as many gun restrictions as possible whether they are beneficial or not. You can’t polish a turd. Second, some of the features proposed in the original article simply are ineffective. Here’s a rundown:
Childproof guns: Impossible to do. Period. The best method for preventing tragic child deaths is for parents to keep guns where kids can’t get them. An ounce of prevention, and all that.
Loaded chamber indicator: This feature is available on many guns already. If you want one with that feature, I have no problem with it. What I take issue with is a false sense of security this feature and manual safeties offer. I’ve seen countless folks who have safeties on their guns practice unsafe handling. If you say something to them, their response is that the safety is on. Mechanical devices fail. Also, the chamber indicator may fail. Often times, these are just holes that allow you to see into the chamber, which you can do any way by pulling the slide back and visually checking the chamber. The latter method also has the advantage of unloading the gun if it turns out to be loaded. In the event a particle of dust should cover the hole, the gun may look empty when it is not. Then someone who relies on the safety feature instead of gun safety rules may make a fatal mistake.
Require magazine safeties so a gun cannot be fired when the clip is removed: Many guns already have this. This feature is not desirable for everyone, such as police. The reason is that there may be a need to cover someone with a round in the chamber while changing the magazine. If you change the magazine, the gun is inoperable therefore making it pointless to cover someone.
Smart guns: I do not want any electronic device on a weapon other than an optic platform. Even on weapons with optic platforms, I have backup sights. The reason for backups is because electronic devices fail. In the event the electronic device failed, the gun would be inoperable and become nothing but a paperweight. Plus, it is a device that could be rendered useless through nefarious tinkering. No thanks. This feature is the perfect example of gun safety meaning gun control. In New Jersey, a law was passed mandating smart guns. The problem is that the perfect smart gun hasn’t been developed yet. And those that are available are unreliable, expensive, and not yet generally available.
Start public safety campaigns urging families to keep guns locked up in a gun safe or with a trigger lock: No problem for me here. However, I prefer a quick access safe as opposed to a trigger lock where I would have to potentially fumble with keys during a high stress situation.
Encourage doctors to counsel depressed patients not to keep guns, and to advise new parents on storing firearms safely: No problem there, either.
Make gun serial numbers harder for criminals to remove: And how the Hell are you going to do that?
Create a national database for gun deaths: No problem here other than to the extent that such information would be used by the usual suspects to mislead regarding gun deaths. But they do that already.
November 16th, 2004 at 9:32 am
Why do Liberals believe they need to legislate common sense? We’ve become so inured to litigation that we’ve transferred the “common sense” label onto everything we do. The iron gets hot, don’t lick it. The coffee is hot, don’t pour in on your crotch. Here’s another one: guns are dangerous, learn how to safely handle one. I’m not going to walk into a construction site and start operating a crane. It’s dangerous, and I DON’T need a sign to tell me that.
Some people are just stupid. Let natural selection take over. Everyone else knows better.
More laws for guns? Have you counted how many there are today? Go find something more dangerous to legislate, like water buckets or bathtubs. Legislating guns is NOT a social agenda, it’s a political one, and it’s proven utterly disastrous for the Democrats.
The fire is hot – don’t touch it, stupid.
November 16th, 2004 at 10:18 am
I wrote Kristof an email on Saturday explaining how dangerous his proposal was and that it would actually increase the number of firearms accidents.
I’ve posted it here.
November 16th, 2004 at 12:39 pm
It wouldn’t be hard to make serial numbers more difficult to remove. Serial numbers could be encoded and embedded in the gun itself. To remove the number, you’d have to destroy the gun.
Or put an RFID tag in there.
It can be done.
November 16th, 2004 at 12:46 pm
BH:
You mean, like stamping them into the metal?
I fail to see what an RFID would gain you (which are trivially easy to disable, as well).
Serial numbers are currently very hard to remove – the impression can be picked up far into the metal even if they’re “filed off”.
What does SN have to do with anything, though?
November 16th, 2004 at 12:48 pm
A gun is the sum of its parts. Not all parts have serial numbers. In most guns, only the receiver has a serial number. If you replaced a part, it would not have a serial number. The reciever is beg and metal. I don’t see how you can prohibit someone from filing off the number. I don’t see how it can be done.
[snark on] Besides, the point is moot. The .gov is prohibited from maintaining a gun registry, right? [snark off]
November 16th, 2004 at 11:29 pm
Make gun serial numbers harder for criminals to remove: And how the Hell are you going to do that?
Molecular level signature? Microscopic striations on the surface of the gun that can be easily read by some sort of device, but not easily removed.
This one is too easily dismissed. If we can make money harder to counterfeit, we can make serial numbers harder to remove. Crooks will eventually figure it out, but that’s the nature of predator/prey cycles.
November 16th, 2004 at 11:32 pm
Why do Liberals believe they need to legislate common sense?
Many of them don’t. It’s just as ill advised as legislating morality. However, I don’t want to be victimized by someone else’s lack of sense. That’s why I’m OK with pilots and ship’s captains being tested for drugs and alcohol.
It’s common sense not to drink and fly or sail or drive, but it isn’t common sense to personally verify your pilot isn’t drunk before you board a plane.
November 16th, 2004 at 11:36 pm
Les wrote (in the earlier thread0
I’m with the people who way that before such a technology should be required for everyone, the police should have to use it, meaning that it has to be so good that the police will bet their lives on it.
Hey, I can agree with this 100%. That doesn’t mean it won’t eventually happen.
Too bad we don’t apply that same standard to our missile defense systems. Can’t wait to foot the bill for Bush’s defense contractor welfare project, Maginot II.
November 16th, 2004 at 11:38 pm
And just as soon as someone else is handling MY firearm, I’ll accept that line of logic. Meantime, I KNOW which end of the gun the bullet exits. It’s already illegal for someone else to shoot me.