Insanely dumb trigger lock bill i have to debate on- Help me point out all the holes


PDA

Yohan
April 4, 2003, 09:11 PM
(To get straight to the resolution- just scroll down)

Today during Debate class- basically, the entire team teamed up against me when I tried to say that trigger locks were just a hinderance and useless. My arguments were that gun safes were a much better solution, and that trigger locks would slow down response time in case of emergency. A person on the team belives that if someone were to break into her house, she would have enough time to fumble with the trigger lock key, unlock the trigger lock and load the gun to use it in time. I tried to say that gun safes were a better solution, to which she said "well, what about combination safes? how different are they?" I would have brought up the fact that there are different types of gun safes, such as the four button combos.

It's a pain in the butt to even bring up the issue, because my entire debating team, including the coaches would have everyone believing that guns were only for crazy red-necks. My coach seems to be hell-bent on insisting that the only argument against trigger locks would be arguing that the federal government has no right to require gun locks, rather than debating the uselessness of trigger locks. Here is the Resolution which we will be speaking with:
--------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------
Trigger Lock Bill

Be it enacted by this student congress here assembled that:
Section 1: All privately owned firearms, including handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns must be equipped with trigger locks.

Section 3: Locks must be standard equipment on guns purchased as of September 1, 2003.

Section 4:Individual owners of firearms will be responsible for having locks added to all firearms purchased prior to Sept. 1. 2003 by a gunsmith or other person certified to perform the procedure and issue verification by the Sept. 2003 date.

Section 5:Individuals will be required to show proof of trigger locked firearms, either in the form of receipts, verification tags, or actual unloaded weapons in order to purchase hunting licenses, verification tags, gun club memberships, firing range time, or participate in any other legal firearm-based activity.

Section 6: After the Sept. 1 date, owning or transporting a privately owned firearm without a trigger lock shall be subject to a fine of $2,000.00

Respectfully submitted,
Cedar Hill High School

:barf: Get this- my coach always says "Ok- now, remember- we're the "Experts" on the topics, so let's do our research and play the part"

Here my attempt to rip it apart.

1. It's missing a 2nd Section?
2. How would the government enforce the trigger lock policy? Raid the homes of all the lawful gun owners?
3. Would CCW holders be subject to having a trigger lock on their gun? :rolleyes:
4. What type of trigger would require a gun smith?
5. Does the government have the right to tell a private citizen what he must do with his private property in his own home?
6. Would the government reimburse funds for provind lost trigger lock keys since it would be enforcing them?
7. What about guns for display? What about guns in museums? Would they need trigger locks also?
8. A 2,000 dollar fine is simply ridiculous.
9. Hand guns, hunting rifles and shot guns? What about air rifles? What about tactical assault weapons? What about legally registered Class III weapons?
---------------
Statistics or news paper articles supporting your argument would be a god send. Anticipated response responses would be helpful also. I'm depending on all you high-roaders to make all these narrow minded anti-gun people that trigger locks are bad, so I'm looking forward to some intelligent inputs! Thanks! :-)

If you enjoyed reading about "Insanely dumb trigger lock bill i have to debate on- Help me point out all the holes" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Yohan
April 4, 2003, 09:23 PM
Here an e-mail I sent out to my debate coach:
===============================
All privately owned firearms? So, if people have a flintlock pistol for decoration, they would have to
put trigger locks on it? What happened to section 2?

Here is the big hole. Trigger locks are a lock you purchase for your gun. Why in the world would you
have to goto a certified person to have them installed? Are there certified door lock lockers?
Are they referring to an internal type of trigger locks? If so, does that mean that older gun
models will have to be changed internally to fit the new type of lock? This bill makes absolutely no sense.

How would the government enforce the issue? Will they have the cops raid the houses of known gun owners
and check to make sure that they have a trigger lock? How much money would that cost?

What happens if the individual loses the trigger lock? Will the government or the gun company be obligated to
pay for new trigger locks? If private citizen gun owners suffer damages to property or life due to a faulty trigger
lock, will they be able to sue? So, in order proof of locked firearms, you would either have to have a receipt- not
just even a specific type of receipt, but "some" form or receipt? Verification tags? or actual unloaded weapons?
So, this bill would allow gun owners to carry a "unloaded" gun to a store such as Wal-Mart that hands out hunting
licenses?

The heavy 2000 dollar fine is almost as ridicolous as this bill.

Does the government force us to lock our doors? Does the government force us to put alarms on our cars?
This resolution is ridiculous in that it gives the government control over private property. Not only that, but
the resolution is so vague and inaccurate, it's almost laughable.

Sincerely,
-Yohan
------------------

Pilgrim
April 4, 2003, 09:29 PM
Trigger locks laws, like mandatory helmet laws, seat belt laws, and bans on using cell phones while driving, are designed to defeat the laws of natural selection and ensure that stupid people survive to breed and pass on their genes to their young.

Try that approach.

Yohan
April 4, 2003, 09:32 PM
Their response:

"But mandatory helmet laws, seat belt laws, and bans on cell phones while driving have shown a decrease in fatalities. *them pulling out a card supporting their argument*"

JohnKSa
April 4, 2003, 09:56 PM
Call campus security and show them the rule and then point out that they are not exempt.

If an exemption is then made for law enforcement/security ask for the reasons. It should go pretty smoothly for you from there...

coonan357
April 4, 2003, 10:07 PM
Yohan , take a piece of plywood about 3inches square and drill a hole in it then place one of the trigger locks on it and give them a set of keys and get a stop watch , place the plywood firearm (square ) in a drawer with the keys on a average keychain apx 10 keys and then make them go and see how fast they can unlock said gun ... make sure the keys are laying on the desk not in there hand .its harder than what they think . also helps to put several keys for different locks on there ....

Betty
April 4, 2003, 10:22 PM
A person on the team belives that if someone were to break into her house, she would have enough time to fumble with the trigger lock key, unlock the trigger lock and load the gun to use it in time.

Back when I had a ditzy roomate, we went to a "Safety Fair." Anyhow, there was the lady there giving away free trigger locks - the kind that you have to screw and screw and screw and screw to unlock. She tried to demonstrate it to us, but couldn't get it to open. She kept fumbling to her embarassment until she finally stammered, "I can't get it to work, but all you have to do is keep turning this key until it pops off."

And my roomate happily scooped up the trigger lock, stating that her (whichever relative) would be happy to use it. :rolleyes:

Rovert
April 4, 2003, 10:46 PM
Yohan, based on your first post, it sounds to me as though the teacher has already predetermined the outcome of the debate.

Were it me, I'd challenge the instructor's academic honesty by raising the point that they are seemingly disinterested in intellectual discussion, because the terms of the debate are skewed toward a predetermined conclusion, as you are not allowed to use the facts and tools (read: TRUTH) at your disposal.

Inform them that if this is to be an academic exercise, that you're willing to engage them on fair and balanced terms, but that you'll have no part of their kangaroo court. Refuse to become a party to anything that is not fair, honest, or ethical Get in the habit of not cowing to pressure, and remember YOU'RE A CUSTOMER, not just a subservient mote to be preprogrammed with their view of the universe.

If the instructor resists, I would take it all the way to the top, starting with the Student Council, and marching straight to the President's office, if need be. If you receive what you believe to be a substandard grade, then you again have a case.

Bring your parents, and your family friends into the issue, also, since College level faculty and staff tend to look down their noses at "kids" who should be seen, and not heard.

Glock_PhD
April 4, 2003, 11:06 PM
First off you need to look for factual information. I don't know where you would find it but someone here does I am sure. See if there is anything out there proving or disproving the value of trigger locks. This is your best weapon. Trying to reason with people in a debate is not realy a good tactic, make a solid point and go from there. I would center most of my argument around the lack of value of trigger locks, and possibly the dangers of them. Although an actual demonstration would be great I am assuming in most structured debates this is not and option. From there I would move into the fact that this would violate basic property rights. It is pretty dificult (I am not saying impossible because we all know that is not true) to pass las telling people that they have to do something like this with proerty of their own, especilay retroactivley. This is analogous to assesing a fine to people for not locking their cars. Don't use thast argument though as someone who is quick will turn it around on you, but somehting along these lines would be good. Also it is biased towards people who can afford to pay for the trigger locks. I am realy poor right now and no way I could do that so now I must give up my rights to own a gun that was legaly purchased. Not legal! I think property rights is a stronger point here than 2nd ammendment. The end message is to come prepared. As far as your teacher having chosen the winning side already, well that is unfortunate. I have been in your very same spot before arguing points such as pro-life vs pro-choice and I often lost in the class but when the grades came through I found out the professor was a stand up guy and gave me deserved grade. In the end thats what this is all about. So as long as this is the outcome that is what matters. Now if he doesn't that is anopther discussion, but if you prepare properly you will be just fine.

Yohan
April 4, 2003, 11:08 PM
Coonan, I actually am interested in doing this. How exactly would I go about cutting the hole in the wood? I better goto sleep since I have the SAT test tommrow. Wish me luck! (those of you that don't hate me;-))

coonan357
April 4, 2003, 11:35 PM
use a hole saw or a flat boring bit , I would try to find someone who is taking woodshop or that is a carpenter to do it for you just drill the hole about 5/8 inches in diameter in he center of a piece of 1/2 inch plywood 3 by 3 inches square (round off the sides so no splinters Now this is the PC version of the Coonan 357 magnum automatic :D ) then get several different brands of locks ( make sure the keys are different as some brands have the same keys for all there locks don't use no cable style locks ) the best locks to date are the master lock ones but they cost apx 10 bucks ea . the cheapie brands are 4 bucks and when you put the keys on the ring mix them up with house keys and a couple of padlock keys thrown in to really make things interesting . too bad you aren't nearby as I would give you some of the locks I have ( i have one that you can't open with a key we had to pry it off the gun I'd give you that one to prove a point to them real quick about murphys laws ) :D

good luck on your sats and feel free to Pm me if you need anymore help .

Mad Man
April 5, 2003, 12:12 AM
1. If trigger locks were so great, the police would use them while on-duty, since about 10% of police officers who are killed with firearms are killed with their own gun (over the past 10-20 years, that percentage has been falling as training has gotten better. See the FBI's Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted (http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/ucr.htm).

2. What exactly is the problem that trigger locks are supposed to solve?

Keep in mind that there are 3 types of gun fatalities: accidents, suicides, and homicides.

A policy that is aimed at reducing one problem may (or may not) solve the other two, and may (or may not) make the other two worse.

The 2000 figures for firearms related deaths are:

accidents (aka "unintentional"): 776

suicides: 16,586

homicides: 10,801


You can run queries for types of deaths at the CDC web site (http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html). This link is a great source of raw data. Use it!!!!


ACCIDENTS

1. If the purpose of trigger locks is to prevent accidental deaths (and not just inconvenience/harass/discourage law-abiding gun owners), then similarly draconian laws should be applied to equally and more dangerous products, like cars, bicycles, household chemicals, etc.

Accidental deaths due to:

firearms - 776

drowning - 3,482

poisoning - 12,757

suffocation - 5,648

motor vehicle (all) - 41,994

motor vehicle (occupant only) - 18,649

bicycles ("pedal cyclist") - 740

bicycles ("pedal cyclist", excluding motor vehicle) - 168

Also see the chart at http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvacci.html


2. As the population and number of guns have increased, not only as the rate of accidental gun deaths fallen, but so has the absolute number.



SUICIDES

1. A trigger lock is not going to stop the owner of a gun from committing suicide with the gun, since the ower has the key.

2. While gun control may prevent suicide by gun, it does not affect the overall suicide rate, since other methods will be substituted. This is why some countries with strict gun control have higher suicide rates than the United States.

http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit/g10.gif (http://www.rkba.org/research/suter/med-lit.html)

Obviously, there is no correlation (much less causation) between guns and suicide.

3. About 1/2 of suicides in the United States are committed with a firearm. If guns are unavailable, most people would still be able to committ suicide (like they do in foreign countries with strict gun control).

4. Police officers commit suicide at twice the rate of the general population (http://www.fbi.gov/publications/leb/1996/oct966.txt). If the purpose of trigger locks is to reduce suicides, they need them more than the general population. Of course, since the cop (like the private gun owner) will have the key to the trigger lock...


HOMICIDES

1. How is a trigger lock supposed to prevent a homicide? The owner of the gun will have the key to the lock.

Or is there a 5-day waiting period built into the lock, from the time the key is turned to the time the lock opens? ;)


NEGATIVE EFFECTS OF TRIGGER LOCKS

1. I can't find it, but somebody had a real good "rant against trigger locks." The web page had a .gif animation showing how a trigger-lock can cause an accident.

2. There was a video going around the internet about 4 - 5 years ago showing a revolver with a trigger lock being fired. If anybody knows where the animation and the video can be found, please post it.

3. Hampers self defense: this is why the cops don't have trigger locks on their duty guns while carrying them. Make sure to have a good case that guns help civilians defend themselves (Rightly or wrongly, John Lott has run into some credibility problems lately. So read up on Gary Kleck's work (http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcdguse.html)).


THE "PRO-CHOICE" ARGUMENT AGAINST TRIGGER LOCKS

"While some people may believe that tirgger locks are a good idea, and want one for themselves, they should not force their beliefs upon other people. The choice of whether or not to get a trigger lock should be left to the individual gun owner."


Hopefully, this is enough to start with. I could go on about this, but it's late. Feel free to ask any questions about the above if you need something clarified.

sm
April 5, 2003, 12:14 AM
Fire Extinguisher and trigger locks.

With permisson , by far was , the best example :

Small kitchen size FE, trigger lock. This couple were forewarned they would not know the when or where of encounter.

Proved two pts. 1)sure enough - they did not have when needed. They swore they would do better next time. 2) Albeit better prepared, panic, fumbling...too much time elasped.

NOTE:
This was a social experiment I and a few others did. Our position was personal responsibility. Citing examples such as teaching a child not to touch a hot stove. Child learns personal responsibility. Parents don't padlock themselves inside the kitchen to cook, do they? We did not actually use FIRE. Instead we used a pre- arranged signal/symbol. A small dinner bell and/ purple Silly Putty[tm]. My partener was roomate with member of the test team. She could not get the lock off to extinguish a small fire in her bathroom one morning while running late and getting ready for class. She stepped out of the shower to hear the bell and to see the 'putty' next to the trash can. Neitherof them from test team had an extinguisher, when in the midst of an lecture we sounded the bell and tossed "putty " at the door of clasroom. Instructor was supportive, and btw is a CCW. The FE were not that expensive, I provided the locks for free, making a point was as they say -priceless

280PLUS
April 5, 2003, 07:20 AM
ask him/her do they think the criminal element will be putting trigger locks on THEIR guns.

in that case only the criminals won't have to fumble with their gun when they need it.

in your safe or on your person, i dont see the need to lock the trigger.

i do have the spring loaded type combo safe in the bedroom for my home defense gun. even then, i can foul up the combo if i'm in a rush. still better than the kids getting ahold of it though.

but in your car to be left while you go into wally world for the ammo, a trigger lock may slow down a thief long enough so the police can apprehend them while the gun is still inoperable.

i like to think that if you call the cops about your stolen car, they might respond a little more fervently if you mention the firearms in the trunk. of course that is a dream of mine and not based on fact.

when it comes to firearms good and bad walk a very fine line.

that being the mental stability of the possessor. all the laws and locks in the world are not going to prevent a determined criminal from plying his/her trade. they only tie the hands of the law abiders and make it easier for the crooks in this world.

m

Elmer Snerd
April 5, 2003, 10:05 AM
https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=295

https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcInfoBase.asp?CatID=259

http://www.nraila.org/factsheets.asp?FormMode=Detail&ID=47

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_rrtrigger.html

http://www.cato.org/dailys/06-01-99a.html

280PLUS
April 5, 2003, 10:07 AM
"i used to be disgusted, now i'm just amused"

i'm with elmer...

:D

Mad Man
April 5, 2003, 10:26 AM
And you can always use this story about the harm caused by unsafe storage:

http://www.thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=38732

Mad Man
April 5, 2003, 10:40 AM
And here (http://www.saf.org/JFPP14ch6.htm) is a well written article from the other side, from the Second Amendment Foundation's Journal of Firearms and Public Policy (http://www.saf.org/journal.html) (volume 14).

When possible, they do print articles by the anti-s.


Lock, Stock and Barrel: Civil Liability for Allowing Unauthorized Access to Firearms

Andrew J. McClurg

.
.
.

I’ve been involved in the firearms policy debate for a long time. Frankly, it can get depressing. Opinions on both sides are so firmly and emotionally held that there is little room for middle ground. I learned this during my very first presentation on the issue 10 years ago. I addressed a group of high school students at the Arkansas State Capitol. I was young and naive in those days. I thought I could mold their young minds. I believed that if I argued with enough passion and logic, I could convince them that gun control was a necessary solution to gun violence.

And it seemed to be working. Their attention was rapt. You could hear a pin drop. They’re with me, I thought. I’m winning them over. When I finished, the first person to raise her hand was a demure-looking 15–year–old girl. She said, “Professor, what’s the most important thing in the world to you?” I said, “My daughter, why?” She said, “Mine’s a pearl-handled revolver that my grandmother gave me, and if you ever tried to take it away, I’d shoot you right between the eyes.”

Gun control and gun rights people can’t seem to agree about anything. Nothing. Not one single thing, except...There is one principal regarding guns on which there is universal agreement: firearms must be safely stored to keep them out of the hands of unauthorized users.

.
.
.

The safe storage of a firearm will require a monetary expenditure by the owner. The price of commercially available safe storage devices can range from as low as three dollars for a cheap trigger lock[74] to more than a thousand dollars for a large capacity gun safe capable of holding several guns. I’ll be candid. Three-dollar trigger locks are not the answer. They might prevent some accidental shootings by children and adolescent suicides, but a trigger lock is not an effective preventative measure against theft.

.
.
.

spacemanspiff
April 5, 2003, 02:24 PM
maybe baseball bats should have locks on them too? and knives!

i didnt fully read each word in this thread, so maybe its already been mentioned. what about handguns that have a locking mechanism built into the frame? my Steyr pistols have this and i tried fumbling with it when i first bought the guns, but couldnt get them to function properly. supposedly it disables the trigger/firing pin/ and wont allow the gun to be disassembled. it could still be disassembled. and the 'key' was just a prong. a determined enough person could 'unlock' it in just a couple of minutes.

TheOtherOne
April 5, 2003, 02:51 PM
the first person to raise her hand was a demure-looking 15–year–old girl. She said, “Professor, what’s the most important thing in the world to you?” I said, “My daughter, why?” She said, “Mine’s a pearl-handled revolver that my grandmother gave me, and if you ever tried to take it away, I’d shoot you right between the eyes.”I guess that's not a nice thing to say, but it definitely made me laugh. :D

4v50 Gary
April 5, 2003, 03:14 PM
Is the intent of the legislature firearms safety? Can't the same goal be achieved by owning a safe and using it? Proof of one safe is easier to administer than having one trigger lock per gun, isn't it? Is a citizen suppose to walk into a precinct and show ten gun receipts and match them up with a bill of sale showing ten trigger locks? Wouldn't it be easier and faster to show proof of one safe (a photo with a grinning owner). Cops should be spending their time patrolling to deter crime and not enforcing administrative laws.

Let's say the intent of the legislature is to deny unauthorized persons access to said gun. Does not a safe accomplish the same purpose, and deter theft too? A trigger lock gun may be removed off the premises and the lock leisurely removed. Guns stored in safes require time and time is a burglar's enemy.

Fines. A $2k fine? Well, fines are suppose to be administrative punishment for failure to comply. This law is suppose to be a statutory law that doesn't require "mens rea" to violate. Like parking by a hydrant. Either you did or didn't and it's not the intent (mens rea) of the actor but the act itself that is discouraged. The $2k fine is quite hefty and is severe enough to warrant a lawyer. This means more public defender time and more expenses to the taxpayers. Is the august body of students going to appropriate the funding required by the public defender and if they do, do they (a) increase taxes; (b) reduce school spending like after hour sports and band to get the funding; (c) close the animal shelter and euthanize all the critters now:uhoh:?

I especially like the proof of unloaded firearm to buy a hunting license, join a gun club. They're encouraging us to carry guns around in our daily business. Ask that august body of wise persons whether that is also their intent.:neener:

I could go on, but I think I'm boring.

Don Gwinn
April 5, 2003, 06:56 PM
1. As much as possible, force them to justify the bill rather than poking holes in it. Force them to defend their assumption that the trigger locks will save lives. How do they know that? How many lives, vs. how many lost?

2. How many lives will be lost by preventing defensive gun uses vs. how many will be saved (presumably by preventing accidental shootings?) Crunch those numbers. Accidental firearm deaths are in the low thousands while DGUs are in the millions annually.

3. Wait for them to bring up children, then pounce on the number of accidental gun deaths for children annually. If they try to use the "ten children per day" bit, you can tear that apart. Even if they don't, you can point out all the things children accidentally kill themselves with at far greater rates, like bicycles and swimming pools. Don't let anyone say "but guns have no other use" unchallenged. Swimming pools are not necessities, either.

4. Trigger locks are dangerous. They require that you place an object inside the trigger guard. That alone defies common sense, but if you think a bit further, it also requires that you unload the gun. So if you manage to lock a clamp on the trigger every time you move the gun without shooting anyone, you still have the problem of getting the gun unlocked and then loading it if you ever really need it.

5. Trigger locks are not difficult to defeat. Many can be popped off with a screwdriver; just about any give way to drills or files.

6. Illinois recently enacted a law just like this one--and we have seen absolutely no difference in fatalities. None. Zip. Force "them" to demonstrate why it will be different where you live.

7. There's nothing wrong with your coach's idea. Arguing that the federal government has no right to force people to take safety measures is a pretty potent argument, at least with me.

Yohan
April 8, 2003, 12:43 AM
Thank you for all the help! :cool: I ran down to the local PD to get myself a free "gun lock"... First of all, it wouldn't even fit on the small chamber of the Walther PPK/S so I got my first argument, plus- I felt like the metal locks would damage the chamber. So, I'm going to take the lock (not the gun) to Debate tommorow and prove my point :cool:

Bostonterrier97
April 8, 2003, 01:54 AM
Sometimes the BEST arguement is a demonstration. .. Buy a Gun Lock, get a block of wood and drill it so that the trigger lock will fit on it. Lock it.

Then put the key to the lock on a key ring with other keys. put the key ring in a purse filled with other cr_p.

Get a Stop Watch.

Get a small night stand with a draw, and a lamp.

Next take all of this stuff to the room where you are having your debate.

Set up everything in the room, have the Trigger Lock Nutcase sit in a chair or lie down.

Instruct the room full of people that you are going to make a noise like a burgler breaking into a house.

Tell them that they are going to pretend to be asleep, and that they can safely assume that they will come awake after about 5 seconds of noise..
The Trigger Lock Fanatic will have to "wake up" find the switch to the lamp and turn it on, fumble around for her keys in the purse,
open the drawer, fumble for the right key..and try to open the trigger lock..

All of these actions very quickly.


Turn off the lights in the room.. and make a noise...as soon as you make the noise, start the stop watch.


After this demonstration...next bring in a portable handgun safe: the Gunvault.

Which can be opened by a touch combination.

repeat the experiment.

Next...demonstrate to the room of trigger lock nutcases...just how secure a trigger lock is against a teenager armed with a hammer and a screw driver...by smashing open the trigger lock.
(it might help for you to practice this a couple of times before demonstrating it..)



Showing a skeptic is far more effective than using a logical argument.

Kaylee
April 8, 2003, 02:40 AM
The problem with defending your position based on statistics and demonstrations -- as wonderful as they are -- is that it cedes to them the most important point of all -- that they actually have the power to put forth this abortion of a policy into law in the (pretend) United States in the first place.

The USA was founded as a free country, remember?
So therefore, I'd start the fight putting the battleline as far into their territory as possible.

YOU don't need to prove anything.

THEY need to prove --

1. It's compatible with the Constitution
(re 2nd, 4th,9th, 10th Amendments)
POP QUIZ -- how many of these BabyCongressCritters KNOW what those amendments say? No fair looking in the back of the book!

2. It's meaningful legislation other than handwringing grandstanding.

IF they can *prove* 1 and 2 (impossible, but let's pretend).. THEN bring out all of MadMan's wonderful statistics and the block of wood.

You might also add that gun owners as a group are already pretty riled at harrassment and scapegoting by society at large, and that any legislation that involves "inspections" and accounting for every weapon they own and whether it has a lock or not is NOT going to sit well.

And I'm not talking votes here either.
The kindest thing to do for BabyGrabbers is to let 'em know early on there's consequences for actions.

-K

CatsDieNow
April 8, 2003, 08:26 AM
Suggest that your classmates get boots for their cars (or whatever those orange tire locking clamps are called down here, I'm new to this Texas thing).

If everyone was required to have one, then it would help prevent all kinds of nastiness. Major reductions in drunk driving, car theft, drive-by shootings and such. A minor inconvienence like this is necessary for the good of society because car deaths are a much greater risk (see chart above) than firearms. Unforutunatly, when your sick or hurt child needs to get get to the hospital it becomes a major problem. If they use emotional appeals, then hit them right back with one.

Oh, and that little bill your classmates made doesn't appear to actually required the owner to use the trigger lock, just have one. It also doesn't specify when the lock must be in place.

Good luck. ;)

anchored
April 8, 2003, 09:50 AM
Be it enacted by this student congress here assembled that: Section 1: All privately owned firearms, including handguns, hunting rifles, and shotguns must be equipped with trigger locks.

Define "trigger lock", capitalize the term and use it consistently throughout the bill instead of shortening it to "locks."
"all" privately owned firearms necessarilyincludes handguns, hunting rifles and shotguns, so listen them is redundant. Define "firearm" or adopt an already enacted definition. instead.

Section 3: Locks must be standard equipment on guns purchased as of September 1, 2003.

Where's §2? What kind of locks must be standard equipment on guns? What's a "gun?" Did you mean "firearms?" Purchased by whom? Who is responsible - buyer, seller, manufacturer?

Section 4:Individual owners of firearms will be responsible for having locks added to all firearms purchased prior to Sept. 1. 2003 by a gunsmith or other person certified to perform the procedure and issue verification by the Sept. 2003 date.

What kind of locks? What is certification procedure and to whom is verification issued? Are corporate or coolective owners of firearms exempt? Split infinitive - as it reads, only firearms purchased by a gunsmith are affected.

Section 5:Individuals will be required to show proof of trigger locked firearms, either in the form of receipts, verification tags, or actual unloaded weapons in order to purchase hunting licenses, verification tags, gun club memberships, firing range time, or participate in any other legal firearm-based activity.

Illegal restraint of trade - you unless you regulate sale of gun reanges and firing range time by owning them, you can't require compliance. What about bow-hunting licenses? What's the purpose of the verification tag if you can use receipt or actual firearm? Can I produce an unloaded blowgun or peashooter, since "weapon" covers both these items, or must it be a "firearm?" What if a group is buying the membership? What is a "legal firearm-based activity?"

Section 6: After the Sept. 1 date, owning or transporting a privately owned firearm without a trigger lock shall be subject to a fine of $2,000.00
You can't impose a fine without classifying the crime. Why refer to the date in three different ways throughout the bill? Who must pay the fine? Are institutionally-owned firearms exempt?

Finally, why is there no requirement that the firearm locks actually be used? Under this act, installed but unlocked complies, but fails to accomplish the intended effect. Also, this act's restriction to privately-owned firearms implies the locks are unsafe, since police and other groups who depend on them are exempt? Why? would they be less reliable when needed then? This bill, as written, is unconstitutionally vague.

If you enjoyed reading about "Insanely dumb trigger lock bill i have to debate on- Help me point out all the holes" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!