Philly.com appalled at light trigger pull - why no gun lock law?


PDA






MartinBrody
October 18, 2006, 07:27 PM
http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/15785320.htm

DON'T LOCK THE GLOCK
THAT'S WHAT FED AND STATE LAWMAKERS SAY

WE WERE SHOCKED to learn how little pressure it takes to squeeze the trigger of a Glock .45. The gun's firing mechanism is so light, even a 3-year-old can shoot it.

And accidentally kill himself.

Tylib Bailey-Henderson's death this week is tragic and frustrating because it could have been so easily avoided.

A simple, properly attached gun-trigger lock, and Tylib would still be alive -smiling, laughing, playing.

But gun advocates and their legislative buddies can't envision that happy image. It appears a child's safety is not their concern.

Legislators in Congress and in Harrisburg have so far refused to require that when a gun is sold or transferred to a buyer, it would also have a trigger lock with it.

Gun owners wouldn't be forced to use the trigger lock. They wouldn't face fines or jail. The idea is to give them immediate access to the lock with the hope that they'll decide to use it - especially with small children in the house.

At last month's Committee of the Whole hearings on gun violence in Harrisburg, a trigger-lock requirement was among the slew of gun and violence measure that faced debate and a nonbinding vote. Sponsored by Rep. Ronald Waters, D-Philadelphia, the bill that called for child-safety locks was defeated, 115-76.

In a gun-happy Pennsylvania, there's little chance that bill will ever see the light of day.

But what's occurring in Washington is cause for even more despair. The Child Safety Lock Act of 2005, which requires all licensed manufacturers, importers and dealers to provide a trigger lock with every gun they sell, is threatened with extinction even before it starts.

U.S. Rep. Marilyn Musgrave, R-Colo., has put forth an amendment that would prevent federal money from being used to enforce the law. That amendment must be reconciled by the Senate, sometime after the November elections.

Gun advocates argue that a trigger lock lessens their chance to quickly grab their gun and shoot an intruder. But we wonder:

Are these people more concerned about easy access to a loaded gun in their house than in protecting their children? Is playing a potential gunslinging hero more important being a parent?

If you enjoyed reading about "Philly.com appalled at light trigger pull - why no gun lock law?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
ArmedBear
October 18, 2006, 07:31 PM
Well, if you have a little kid, and they get a hold of a loaded gun, and fire it, you are one hell of an irresponsible SOB.

Requiring the sale of trigger locks won't change that.

(Now, had the gun been a 1911 cocked and locked, it wouldn't have happened, either. But that's another story.)

SoCalShooter
October 18, 2006, 07:33 PM
I agree with the fact that the gun should have been locked up and kept away from the kids, but the parents should have taught and orderd the children not to use the weapon (a lot of good that usually does) but blaming the weapon for having a light trigger is ignorant, it should have been stored more safely since there are kids in the house.

I hope they make the parents totally responsible for this one and not blame the weapon.

ArmedBear
October 18, 2006, 07:37 PM
Trigger locks are not for locking up loaded guns, anyway. They're for restricting access to stored, unloaded firearms.

Quick-access safes are for keeping loaded guns accessible to the right people, and inaccessible to the wrong ones (kids and intruders). They're as quick to get into as a drawer.

Like I said, the parent was an irresponsible SOB, too cheap to buy a quick-access safe when there was a 3-year-old around. Bastard.

jnojr
October 18, 2006, 07:39 PM
I didn't see a link to email the writer, but...

California has a lock law. I have to buy another frigging lock with each gun. I have to. They pile up in a drawer. Making me buy them doesn't, and can't, make me use them. But I don't have any three-year-olds.

There was nothing stopping the owner of that gun from buying a lock or a safe. S/he chose not to. That's on their head, not every gun owner.

ArmedBear
October 18, 2006, 07:43 PM
Of course, this op-ed has only one purpose:

The writer, a Democrat, has to find some way to blame a Republican for the death of a child, before an election.

It's stupid, and the writer probably knows it, but hey, 50% of college grads are quantitatively illiterate now -- that means they can't solve concrete problems involving cause and effect. So stupidity can win an election, even in an educated precinct.

Phil DeGraves
October 18, 2006, 07:44 PM
Someone who is irresponsible enough to leave a gun around for a three year old to get a hold of, would not put a trigger lock on the gun even if he had one. What is so hard to understand about that?

ArmedBear
October 18, 2006, 07:46 PM
Furthermore, someone who would leave a loaded gun where a 3-year-old could play with it, will do the same thing with power tools, flammable liquids, poisons, kitchen knives, etc.

ProguninTN
October 18, 2006, 07:59 PM
More stupidity from the papers. :rolleyes: Blame the idiot who left his gun in reach of the child, not the gun. BTW, I don't need a stupid trigger lock. It's called a gunsafe.

carterbeauford
October 18, 2006, 08:06 PM
Anyone want to volunteer their toddler for an experiment with a 9MM snap cap and a Kel-Tec P11 with a 10lb trigger?

carterbeauford
October 18, 2006, 08:12 PM
Anyone want to volunteer their toddler for an experiment with a 9MM snap cap and a Kel-Tec P11 with a 10lb trigger?

Funny no one is calling for legislation dealing with all the failed parents in this county. It's pretty easy for a toddler to pick up a bottle of drano and drink it too. Blame the inanimate object.

Thefabulousfink
October 18, 2006, 08:31 PM
I gotta agree with Beauford,

Lets register parents and put locks on babies, that will keep them away from all sorts of dangerous items (not just guns).:neener:

cuervo
October 18, 2006, 09:09 PM
Are these people more concerned about easy access to a loaded gun in their house than in protecting their children?

No, they are concerned about easy access to a loaded gun in their house because they are interested in protecting their children.

statelineblues
October 18, 2006, 09:36 PM
jnojr--

This was an op-ed piece in the Philly Daily News, 10/18/2006. To respond the email is: Views@phillynews.com.

This paper is a lap-dog for the Brady bunch - the only people it goes to for gun related info is The Brady campaign or Handgun control, inc.

Spot77
October 18, 2006, 09:43 PM
The USSF gives away trigger locks to anybody that wants one.

Why force people to pay for something they don't want?

scurtis_34471
October 18, 2006, 10:32 PM
A three year-old cannot rack the slide on a semi-automatic pistol. Its perfectly safe to leave it loaded, as long as you aren't stupid enough to leave one in the pipe.

Lonestar
October 18, 2006, 10:40 PM
Ohh come on...My friend is a Philly cop and told me the story. Tylib Bailey-Henderson's Dad apparently thought it was smart to keep a loaded Glock hidden under a living room couch cushion with a toddler in the house. :cuss: The dad was a wannabe gangsta rapper

P.S my 3 year old could probably pull a 10lb trigger. When she gets a grip on something its hard to pry her finger off.

Beren
October 18, 2006, 11:03 PM
My quick email response:

We were shocked by the emotionally exploitive piece of agitprop
published online at Philly.com, entitled "Don't Lock That Glock."
While the underlying premise is accurate - responsible parents will
ensure children do not have unsupervised access to firearms - the path
taken by the editorial will turn off those who most need to hear it.

If you were "shocked" that a child could pull the trigger of a
firearm, it is clear that you are not well-informed on the topic.
Most handguns have a trigger pull between three and twelve pounds.
The default pull of a Glock handgun is five pounds. The weight of the
pull is not relevant.

What is relevant is that the parents bear full responsibility for
their child's death. A law is not needed for parents to know that
they should keep hazardous items away from their infants and children!
No law is necessary for a parent to know to keep the steak knives
away from their child. No law is necessary for a parent to know
Junior shouldn't gnaw on power cables. No law is necessary not to let
their little one bathe in kerosene next to candles.

Handguns didn't kill this child. The lack of a "lock up your Glock"
law didn't kill this child. Frankly, someone so irresponsible as to
leave a handgun in the reach of a child most likely wouldn't have
followed such a law in the first place.

Irresponsible parenting killed this child. Please, urge the passing
of a law which would ban irresponsible parenting in general. Such a
law would solve almost all of Philadelphia's ills.

I hope in the future your paper will consider editorials which address
the core concerns we can all agree on (such as "responsible parents
must ensure children do not have unsupervised access to firearms"),
without pushing political agendas.

Standing Wolf
October 18, 2006, 11:39 PM
Gun owners wouldn't be forced to use the trigger lock. They wouldn't face fines or jail. The idea is to give them immediate access to the lock with the hope that they'll decide to use it - especially with small children in the house.

"Give them"? No. "Force them" would be more honest.

Leftists are shameless liars.

JackW
October 19, 2006, 12:11 AM
I have a better idea.
Just keep the mittens on the little one's hands, they won't be able to get a little finger on the trigger then....viola! problem solved.

Makes as much sense as anything else

DirtyBrad
October 19, 2006, 02:10 AM
A three year-old cannot rack the slide on a semi-automatic pistol. Its perfectly safe to leave it loaded, as long as you aren't stupid enough to leave one in the pipe.


My kid can't reach the pedals, which is why I have no problem leaving him alone in the driver seat with the engine running.

Deanimator
October 19, 2006, 10:00 AM
Trigger locks are a dangerous sham.

They don't prevent a round from being chambered and the gun from being cocked.

Virtually every one on the market allows the trigger to be pulled and the weapon fired.

MikeB
October 19, 2006, 10:55 AM
The stupidity of the anti's is truly facinating. The law they are clamoring for is already on the books in PA. You have to sell a lock with every firearm.

Legislators in Congress and in Harrisburg have so far refused to require that when a gun is sold or transferred to a buyer, it would also have a trigger lock with it.

This law has been on the books for years in PA.

6142. Locking device for firearms.
(a) Offense defined.--It shall be unlawful for any licensee to sell, deliver or transfer any firearm as defined in section 6102 (relating to definitions), other than an antique firearm as defined in section 6118 (relating to antique firearms), to any other person, other than another licensee, unless the transferee is provided with or purchases a locking device for that firearm or the design of the firearm incorporates a locking device.

m0ntels
October 19, 2006, 11:29 AM
I've heard of the PA "can't buy it without getting a lock" law, but out of all the guns I've ever bought, the only one that came with a lock was my Mossberg. I know that the Sheriff's Office has a box of free lock...saw it when I applied for my permit. Does that let the shops get away with not handing out locks, or have all my dealers been breaking the law all this time?

Randy

MechAg94
October 19, 2006, 11:29 AM
I think scurtis was right above. The first step is to keep rounds out of the chamber on guns that are lying around, even if you are the only one in the house. That is just asking for an accident for whatever reason. When you are carrying and/or in full control of the weapon, that is a little different. Keeping guns out of easy reach and in a relatively safe condition shouldn't be hard. If you have older kids you cannot trust, that an entirely different problem.

Anyway, that was my Dad's rule growing up. Most of his guns had loaded mags. None had a cartridge in the chamber. I know when I was little, I couldn't rack the slide on even a Ruger Mk II.

Lemon328i
October 19, 2006, 11:32 AM
I just have to write that Beren's post was spot on.

In nearly every case of accidental discharge by a minor, it was due to irresponsibilty of the parent or some other adult. If I have a gun out of my safe, it is holstered on my hip. If my kids (don't have any yet) are old enough to figure out how to open up the safe, they are old enough to learn how to handle firearms safely and to respect them.

callgood
October 19, 2006, 11:37 AM
I just have to write that Beren's post was spot on.

In nearly every case of accidental discharge by a minor, it was due to irresponsibilty of the parent or some other adult. If I have a gun out of my safe, it is holstered on my hip. If my kids (don't have any yet) are old enough to figure out how to open up the safe, they are old enough to learn how to handle firearms safely and to respect them.

Pass a law and execute irresponsible adults who allow kids access that results in a fatality.

Has anyone ever heard a lib suggest this?

ApexinM3
October 19, 2006, 11:57 AM
My letter to the editor for Philly.com:

With regards to the loss of a childs life with a light trigger:
"WE WERE SHOCKED to learn how little pressure it takes to squeeze the trigger of a Glock .45. The gun's firing mechanism is so light, even a 3-year-old can shoot it."

Although tragic, I cannot fathom blaming the weapon. It is akin to blaming the fork for making one overweight. See the similarity? The blame should in fact be placed on the parents who left the weapon unsecured.

In fact, there are laws in place to prevent exactly these kinds of incidents.

I feel terrible about the loss, but the parents should in fact be held accountable for their actions. There is no sense in vilifying the weapon. It is, unfortunately, the parents fault in leaving the weapon out in the first place, much like leaving out a kitchen knife.

jenniferjane
October 19, 2006, 12:03 PM
All of the gun control laws in the world won't stop negligent parenting.

Lemon328i
October 19, 2006, 12:21 PM
Pass a law and execute irresponsible adults who allow kids access that results in a fatality.

Has anyone ever heard a lib suggest this?

Here in Maryland there are laws on the books that make it illegal to leave a firearm where a minor can access it, not use a trigger lock, etc. I don't think the liberal DA's here have EVER prosecuted the parent of a minor killed under such circumstances....saying it would be too callous, blah, blah. Of course, I doubt any of the conservative DA's would do it either. It would be a public relations nightmare. So in the end, such laws are just lines on paper or binary code with no applicability to reality.

Anti-gunners would rather blame the object than try to logically fix the problem.

LAR-15
October 19, 2006, 02:07 PM
It's all Gaston Glock and Marilyn Musgrave's fault. :fire:

gezzer
October 19, 2006, 07:31 PM
Federal law NOW requires all FFL to supply a trigger lock with all handguns to non-FFL holders. If I remember my geography Philly is in PA and PA is in the USA. Morons already have the law, showing the law doesn’t work.

Next trigger locks do not go on loaded weapons. And whoever leave any loaded firearm where a kid an get at it is asking for trouble

Axman
October 20, 2006, 01:24 AM
have a better idea.
Just keep the mittens on the little one's hands, they won't be able to get a little finger on the trigger then....viola! problem solved.

Makes as much sense as anything else

Mittens have thumbs separate from the rest of the hand a tot could easily slip a thumb in. Maybe handcuffs, really smal handcuffs! ;)

CypherNinja
October 20, 2006, 03:58 AM
Hog tie 'em, gag 'em, and plop them in front of the TV. Problem solved. :D


It totally works, too, but most people forget the first two steps for some reason. :confused:

Glockman17366
October 20, 2006, 05:28 AM
I e-mailed the reporter of this article:

Dear Sir,

There was a correction that ran on 10-18-06, I was committed to accurately correcting errors that were pointed out to me. Thank you for reading. I always welcome comments and criticisms of any kind. Thank you

Respectfully,
Christine Olley


-----Original Message-----
From: xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Wed 10/18/2006 8:08 PM
To: Olley, Christine
Subject: Article concerning Glock .45

I'm not sure where you got your information. Brady is about useless.
The Glock handgun requires about 7 lbs to pull the trigger. Pease correct
your article and publish on the front page.
Glocks are fine handguns. I own two and frequently carry one for self
defense. One reason I carry the Glock s because of it's very safe trigger.
That makes it less likely to go of during the stress of a self defense
situation.
As a reporter, you are required to write truthfully and accurately.
Otherwise, you leave yourself and your newspaper liable for lawsuit. I do
expect you will correct your errors in the article and have the correction
published on the front page.
I strongly suggest you confirm your story and data using a less biased
source then the Brady campaign in the future.

Thank you,
L.M Jackson

mike101
October 20, 2006, 05:40 AM
Not long ago, when another child accidentally shot himself in Philadelphia, I suggested some sort of substantial penalty for the owner of the gun, but nothing specific. There was a lot of feedback saying that it would be incompassionate, which I can understand. Losing a child is the worst thing in the world, and even more so when it's your fault.

I don't see what else we can do, though, besides start making examples of these people. There seem to be laws on the books in many places, attempting to make people responsible for what happens with there guns. I'm not sure exactly what the penalties are, but it seems like nothing is being enforced. It's a lot like what often happens when someone commits a crime with a gun. They are not given maximum penalties, because of politicains and judges who were elected by the antis. Then, when something like this happens, the antis lose their minds, blame the guns, and try to take guns away from the other 80 million of us, when a lot of this is largely their fault in the first place. :banghead:

Sindawe
October 20, 2006, 06:11 AM
Hog tie 'em, gag 'em, and plop them in front of the TV. Problem solved.Nope, only one real way to keep the little darlings safe. Zap'em with lots of hard radiation to sterilize 'em, then encase 'em in lucite so they are easy to store on your display shelves.

Oh wait, kids like to breath.

Never mind.

The best way to keep kids safe from accident injury via firearms is to gun proof the kid. Some folks, such as one branch of my family, apparently believed to the contrary. My cousin paid the price for their folly.

My niece and nephew will not.

If you enjoyed reading about "Philly.com appalled at light trigger pull - why no gun lock law?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!