The WaPo Editorializes On Gun Laws
WE DON’T expect common-sense gun laws from this Congress, but a couple of House-passed riders to the Justice Department’s 2007 budget are especially noxious — and ripe for Senate repair.
One bars enforcement of a law that requires trigger locks to be sold with all new handguns. The other restricts law enforcement officials’ access to gun-tracking information collected by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). The Senate Appropriations Committee, scheduled to consider the budget tomorrow, should keep both measures out.
I know of no handgun that I’ve bought in the last several years that did not come with trigger locks. But continuing:
Congress approved the trigger-lock mandate last October. Not only was it a good idea, but it was also part of a broader compromise on the Hill: The Senate added the measure to a bill that limited gunmakers’ legal liability. Yet Rep. Joe Wilson (R-S.C.) argued last month, “Responsible and law-abiding gun owners do not need the government to tell them to be safe.”
The problem is that there are plenty of irresponsible gun owners. Researchers at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported last year that 1.7 million American children live with unlocked, loaded guns in the house. In a study released in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine in May, 39 percent of children knew where their parents kept their guns, and 22 percent claimed that they handled them, even though their parents claimed they didn’t. Studies have indicated that programs such as the National Rifle Association’s Eddie Eagle program, which trains children not to play with their parents’ guns, don’t work.
You guys have a cite for that because I’d love to see it. I looked and couldn’t find any such study. I did find reference to the Journal of Emergency Nursing Online calling it effective and that the National Center for Health Statistics fatal firearms accidents in the Eddie Eagle age group have been reduced more than two thirds since the program’s inception. And that the program has been honored or endorsed by groups such as the National Safety Council, the National Sheriffs’ Association, the Department of Justice, and bipartisan support from 24 state governors. Finally, the mere fact that 24,000 schoolteachers and law enforcement officers have taught the program to 15 million children verifies the popularity of the program with those who deal with child safety issues every day.
Trigger locks won’t save all of the children who, without the law, will die of accidental gunshot wounds (as 151 did in 2003, according to the CDC). Not all gun owners will use them. But locks would make it a lot easier for gun owners to be safe, just as seat belts made it easier for drivers to protect themselves.
Mandating trigger locks is largely pointless. People who are not responsible will not use them even if they come with the gun. Period. More:
But the budget that passed the House last month goes beyond blocking public disclosure; the rider would keep gun-tracing information from local police unless it’s for a specific criminal case. Even then, they couldn’t share it with neighboring authorities — a provision that would seriously hamper tracking and interdiction of illegal guns. If D.C. police used ATF tracing data to find that a large number of guns used in homicides came from one shop in Maryland, District police couldn’t share that information with Maryland law enforcement agents.
And that’s to prevent bogus lawsuits. If there is a specific crime, tracing is still allowed. That is as it should be. Wholesale tracing serves no real purpose that I can determine.
The House also wants to render federal gun-tracing information inadmissible in civil court, hindering legal action against irresponsible gun distributors. New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg’s office, which is trying to sue some of these “rogue” gun sellers, claims that civil litigation is an essential tool to fight interstate gun trafficking. Given that in 2000 1.2 percent of gun dealers sold 57 percent of the guns used in crimes, the mayor has a point.
Scare quotes around rogue? That’s because the only person who has broken the law in Bloomberg’s investigations are the City of New York and its agents who illegally purchased weapons from otherwise lawful dealers. There’s been no evidence the dealers broke the law but plenty of evidence to state that NY’s investigators did.
July 13th, 2006 at 9:40 am
No, not “period.” Responsibility is not something that can be reduced to ones and zeros, where you either have it all or you have none. Setting aside the more complex question of who should use trigger locks, and when, common sense dictates that while some of us are responsible enough that we’ll go out and buy trigger locks on our own, and others are so irresponsible that we won’t use them even if they came with the gun, at least some of us fall in between. The most obvious example is the semi-responsible gun owner who has been meaning to lock up his guns, but just hasn’t gotten around to purchasing that trigger lock.
July 13th, 2006 at 9:44 am
People who are not responsible still won’t get them, which was the point. Those who are responsible will take adequate steps, whether they have trigger locks or not.
I have a stack of trigger locks that I never use. But I have a gun safe.
July 13th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
If they come with the gun, then ipso facto, everyone will get them. Some may be too irresponsible to use them even though they have them, but others who were too irresponsible to take the initiative in getting them will nevertheless NOT be too irresponsible to use them when they’re on hand.
I like to think that if my car didn’t come with seatbelts, I’d get them installed anyway. I also recognize that some people are too stupid to wear seatbelts even though they do come with the car. But I’d have to be on crack to argue that 100% of the people who are responsible enough to wear seatbelts today would also be responsible enough to go out of their way to get the damned things installed in their cars if they were not standard issue to begin with.
July 13th, 2006 at 12:29 pm
Trigger locks are an invitation to an unitentional discharge; they are a problem looking for a solution. I use cable locks or the gunsafe.
July 13th, 2006 at 3:07 pm
htom has it right. Trigger locks are always dangerous and should never be used. You NEVER touch the trigger of a gun unless you are firing it. Bore locks, gunsafes, locking gun cabinets are much better options. In fact I haven’t seen an actual trigger lock in years. Most new guns I see come with a bore lock.
July 13th, 2006 at 3:43 pm
I’m not arguing the merits of trigger locks, just pointing out the fallacy of assuming that no one will use them. That said, I disagree with Ron W.’s argument that trigger locks are always dangerous and should never be used. If the gun isn’t loaded, and you’re not going to need it in an emergency, where’s the danger is locking up the trigger? It may not be the best way to secure the gun, but it’s not necessarily a horrible way, either.
July 13th, 2006 at 3:54 pm
I don’t think anyone said that. I said the irresponsible will not.
July 13th, 2006 at 4:58 pm
XRLQ :
First, guns are always loaded. Assuming otherwise has been the eulogy of many a fool.
Secondly, how much ‘safer’ is an unloaded and ‘triggerlocked’ gun compared to a gun that’s simply unlocked? And, do remember, each and every one of those trigger locks are remarkably easy to pick (I used them as practice a coupla times), and often don’t have to be disabled to load the gun. In fact, some guns will fire despite having the trigger lock on.
If you want a gun to be ‘safe’, the only assured ways are to A) completely prevent access, or B) prevent any ammo from being loaded. Trigger locks do nothing to either of the above.
July 13th, 2006 at 6:14 pm
SU:
“No one” among those deemed insufficiently responsible to go out and purchase trigger locks on their own if they weren’t sold with the guns. Which is silly, unless you think being a little bit responsible is as fallacious as being a little bit pregnant.
gattsuru:
Wrong. Loaded guns are always loaded. Unloaded ones never are.
Assuming a loaded gun is unloaded can indeed be deadly. So too can assuming an unloaded gun is loaded, and then attempting to use it for self-defense. No one is advocating that anyone assume anything. Proper use of a trigger lock involves determining that the gun is unloaded, then locking the trigger.
Much. My toddler probably hasn’t quite reached the point where he could load an unlocked gun, but it won’t be too long before he can. Picking a lock is a whole ‘nother ball of wax. By the time he can do that, maybe he can figure out the combination to my safe, too. No solution is 100% failsafe.
Assuming that an unloaded gun is loaded
July 13th, 2006 at 7:45 pm
A number of posters have been dancing around the edges of a very important concept, XrLQ’s nit-picking notwithstanding:
Safety is a state of mind.
Responsible people understand this and apply it. That is why we treat any firearm as if it were loaded, until we satisfy ourselves one way or the other.
That is also why we handle guns with the muzzle pointing in the safest possible direction, and why we keep our fingers off the trigger until we are ready to shoot.
Mechanical safety devices should be relied on only to guard against the remotest of accidental occurrences, like a branch getting snagged in your trigger guard and causing your gun to discharge.
No safe handling technique or safety device is 100% foolproof – we can only hope to try and minimize the damage from unintended discharges. But relying on safety devices, instead of education and training is just a recipie for disaster.
July 13th, 2006 at 7:51 pm
Xrlq:
For someone so opinionated on this topic, your ignorance of proper firearm handling protocols is stunning, and embarrasses you. You really must get some education and training.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:05 pm
XRLQ :
I’m sorry, when I said ‘pick’, I guess you thought I was referring to the use of a lockpick set made of spring steel. That does work, but…
So does a hammer.
I fail to see why you defend state-mandated and taxpayer-funded pieces of junk. Those obsessed enough to ‘secure’ their gun can purchase a cable lock for less than a twentieth of the price of their handgun or rifle, and those will actually do somethin useful.
Do us all a favor, and grab a trigger lock next time you head to Wally World, they’re less than ten dollars a pop, then apply one to a fire extinguisher. See how hard it is to break, and how hard it would be to get off in an emergency.
July 13th, 2006 at 10:20 pm
When asked “Is that gun loaded?” The only proper response is “Yep”. When asked “Isn’t that dangerous?” The only proper response is “Sure as Hell is!”
If you can’t grasp the next logical assumption, then you are too slow-witted or too immature to be trusted with a gun.
July 14th, 2006 at 8:51 am
Hardbeliever:
Sorry, pal, but my supposed ignorance does not embarass me in the least. Your tendency to jump to conclusions ought to embarass you, but judging by the cock-sure tone of your post, I suspect it doesn’t. Just for grits and shins, though, perhaps you’d care to elaborate as to what, precisely, you think I am ignorant about. This should be good.
Straightarrow:
If the gun is in fact loaded, that is correct. Otherwise, that’s a rather stupid answer, based on a hyper-literal interpretation of Rule 1. A more sensible application of the same rule would be to answer “Probably not, but we can’t be 100% sure of that so until the action is open and we can see it’s not loaded, let’s treat it as though it is.”
July 14th, 2006 at 10:50 am
Actually, criminals have an easy way to disable/remove any trigger lock … just cut off the trigger guard.
The damned things are worse than useless.
July 14th, 2006 at 10:52 am
A hyper-literal interpretation of rule 1 is absolutely needed.
People who do not take rule 1 hyper-literally will eventually destroy something or someone with an N.D.
July 14th, 2006 at 11:13 am
I was taught that EVERY gun is loaded until PERSONALLY checked by the person handling it. As my children and grandchildren were growing up they were taught the same.
July 14th, 2006 at 11:47 am
Looks to me like they’re up to their old tricks; redefining “child” to include late teenagers.
Anybody know what “CDC” stats they’re quoting, just to see how old they had to go to get to that number?
July 14th, 2006 at 1:40 pm
Nonsense. To falsely claim that “all guns are loaded,” rather than sensibly arguing that all guns should be treated as though they were loaded, adds nothing of value to the debate. All it brings is stupid discussions like this one.
No one really believes in the hyper-literal interpretation, anyway. If you really believed all guns were loaded, you’d never have reason to load one.
July 14th, 2006 at 2:14 pm
The only one being hyper-literal around here is Xrlq. While it is important to be as precise as possible when making our arguments, the difference between “all guns are loaded” and “all guns should be treated as if they were loaded” is, for all practical intents and purposes, nil. Except, of course to the ultra-pedantic among us.
Ridicule and derision are not what I would call effective teaching techniques. A simple correction instead of indulging in picking fly specks out of pepper would have sufficed.
July 14th, 2006 at 3:03 pm
Nope, that would be gattsuru, who got us off on this tangent in the first place by arguing that trigger locks should never be used because “all guns are loaded” (and we all know trigger locks should not be used on guns that really are loaded).
Tell that to hardbeliever, who brilliantly concluded that I was ignorant for failing to take his and gattsuru’s hyperliteral interpretation of Rule 1 to its illogical conclusion.
July 14th, 2006 at 8:15 pm
Xrlq:
1. Nimrod45’s post came up as I was typing mine, and sums everything nicely. In either case, training and education are the answer, not government-mandated trigger locks.
2. The ignorance I referred to is the fatal conceit you exhibit where you think that it’s possible to design and control the outcomes of unknown, random events concerning firearm safety by legislating the inclusion of a mechanical “safety” device. See #1 above if you’re still confused.
3. Responsible firearms owners anticipate the worst and act accordingly when securing their arms. That “proper use of a trigger lock involves determining that the gun is unloaded, then locking the trigger,” is of little consequence to the person who comes across a loaded, trigger-locked gun and kills someone removing the lock. Trigger locks are inherently dangerous for obvious reasons. They are an invitation for disaster.
4. I never referenced Rule 1, hyperliterally, or otherwise.
5. I’m not your pal.
July 14th, 2006 at 8:59 pm
hardbeliever:
In other words, you’re a moron with poor reading comprehension skills. I never advocated laws mandating anything, pal.
Which no one advocated, pal.
No one ever claimed you did, pal. I said you concluded I was ignorant because I refused to apply a hyperliteral version of Rule 1. Mostly, I attributed the statement to gattsuru, but to the extent you drew such moronic conclusions from my rejection of his statement, his dumb idea became yours, as well.
No shit, pal. Nobody calls their pals “pal.” In contexts like this one, it’s considered a bit more erudite than “you arrogant dumbfuck,” but I could always change my habit if you prefer.
July 15th, 2006 at 1:11 am
Xrlq, you get your pick. Which are you? Too slow-witted or too immature to be trusted with a firearm? I warned there was a logic there that persons with either of those deficiencies would not comprehend.
Due to my generous nature, I will allow you to choose which malady you suffer, if you have trouble with that, guess which one I will assign you.
Oh, and if you had even begun to understand the proposition you would never have engaged in the idiocy of “hyperliteral interpretation”. That you did, reveals your lack of comprehension. Perhaps some arrogance was revealed, as well, since you chose to translate my statement to your mistaken philosophy of what you think I should have meant, rather than examine the possibility that I meant what I said, exactly, and there was another way of looking at it that had nothing to do with “hyperliteral interpretation”, but would have been entirely logical and truthful in any situation where another person had impetus to question the condition of your firearm.
I don’t expect you will understand the above, either. Please, never carry a gun.
July 15th, 2006 at 9:35 am
Neither, just sensible enough to apply a safety rule without checking my common sense at the door.
Indeed I do. What is shows is that you don’t know WTF this discussion is about. No one in this thread said anything that could remotely be construed as advocating that anyone put trigger locks on guns without checking first to ensure they were unloaded. A common sense application of Rule #1 dictates the opposite: start with the assumption that the gun is loaded, verify that it is not (or, if it was loaded after all, unload it), and then proceed to secure it – whether by trigger lock, or otherwise (personally, I prefer safes). Only a stupid, hyper-literal interpretation of Rule #1 would have you go on treating the gun as if it were loaded after you had personally unloaded it and retained it in your possession so that you can be certain no one else has gone back and loaded it since. Applying the rule that rigidly would preclude not only trigger locks, but also any other actions that require the gun to be unloaded, e.g., cleaning it, checking it as baggage on a flight, or even loading the damned thing when you actually want to shoot it.
July 15th, 2006 at 2:46 pm
Xrlq:
This entire discussion, which you started, is about mandating trigger locks.
You wrote it: “Proper use of a trigger lock involves…” What else can I say?
Well, you did when you wrote:
See…?
It’s called sarcasm, pal.
Now take your ball and go home.
July 15th, 2006 at 3:20 pm
Xrlq:
Wait, wait, I forgot something…
Try covering a group of responsible gun enthusiasts with the muzzle of any firearm and see how long you last in their presence. Brilliant.
Although my original statement referred to the fatal conceit of your reasoning concerning determining outcomes, it now most surely applies to firearms handling in all its aspects.
You may now take your ball and go home.
July 15th, 2006 at 4:45 pm
hardbeliever:
The original post was about that. The discussion I started was about a flaw in Uncle’s logic, nothing more and nothing less. You’ll search in vain for any post, on this blog or anywhere else, where I advocating mandatory trigger locks.
Well, for starters you could say on what planet “proper use of a trigger lock involves…” translates into “I hereby advocate coming across a loaded, trigger-locked gun, attempting to remove the lock without first checking to see if it was loaded, and killing someone in the process.” If you can explain that, then I promise to take my ball and go home. If you can’t, your just an idiot, and unworthy of any further response. Have a nice day, “pal.”
July 15th, 2006 at 9:53 pm
Xrlq:
You’re very good at the nit-pick. That’s obvious. Your ability to follow the flow and overall reasoning of posts, your own included, is wanting. That’s obvious, too. Even after you’ve been shown the mat and been slapped around by virtually everyone here, you still insist on continuing until you can win. Amazing. I’m not sure what you’ve accomplished, but, no matter.
I’ve tired of having a little fun with you. And that’s all it was.
So, relax…
July 16th, 2006 at 5:16 pm
A word to the wise, and also to trolls like Hard-On and Gay Arrow: don’t make me angry. You wouldn’t like me when I’m angry.
July 16th, 2006 at 10:47 pm
Xrlq:
1.The only one here who posted anything offensive using derogatory language was you.
2. Just because I had “a little fun with you” doesn’t imply that I wasn’t serious about what I wrote. I was very serious. And sometimes I find humor in a conversation. I didn’t troll, I simply responded to what you had written. Nothing more, nothing less. Reasonable people can disagree, if they’re reasonable, yes?
3. Making threats is very serious business. I trust you will graciously retract your threat and apologize to those you have threatened.
July 16th, 2006 at 11:05 pm
Reasonable people can indeed disagree, but you’ve been anything but reasonable from the get-go. As to any supposed “threats” I have made none and have nothing to retract. Did you even follow the friggin’ link, or are you an even bigger moron than I thought you were?
July 17th, 2006 at 12:49 pm
xrlq, no you didn’t understand what I said. I told you I suspected you wouldn’t, you didn’t. You again insisted on translating to your limited view. I would explain it to you, but all the information you need to comprehend my comment was provided and you were not able to do “some thought required”. I will tell you that the premise you used to respond to my comment was not the premise my comment was based upon.
As for your name-calling I take that as an indication that immaturity may be a contributing factor in your inability to apply logic to the situation at hand. Of course, it is possible to be slow-witted and immature, but at least we have satisfied our curiosity about one of the possible afflictions barring you from comprehension of a simple premise.
As for the implied threat, we’re all tough behind a keyboard, aren’t we?
July 17th, 2006 at 1:30 pm
Dude – both you and hardbeliever really need to get out more if quoting The Hulk and linking to a fisking is your idea of an implied threat. If you need any more help finding your butt with both hands and a flashlight, just gimme a holler.
July 17th, 2006 at 11:59 pm
You crawdadding s.o.b. Now you say you didn’t say and/or imply it? Well, suit yourself. You’re probably right, you shouldn’t be out with the grown-ups and you didn’t mean it, even though you didn’t say it, you didn’t mean it. Are you sure? Can you be sure? I know you misinterpreted practically everything you read here. Are you sure you read your stuff correctly?
What I wrote wasn’t that hard to understand. An adult would have been able to make the one connection that has eluded you. You have spent days refuting things that were never said and denying you said things you did. Next session see if you can get some Thorazine. I hear it helps.