bs gun control/safety groups

[Yo Mama]

There seems to be a bunch of them now, groups purporting to challenge the NRA. I won't list them all, you know them well, these groups have loud mouths in the media, and get a lot of attention.

BUT, outside of the generously given media attention, how does one contact these groups? I thought about it because of the following article that discussed a group for "gun safety" blocking money to go to free gun locks:

http://www.guns.com/2015/09/17/group-protests-dojs-2-4-million-grant-for-pro-gun-safety-project/

Lesson? Gun safety groups want nothing to do with reducing fatalities, they only want more. This helps their cause of course.

SO back to my original task, how to contact these folks. I've called every number for each one of these groups, left messages, can't get a sole. (must be nice to get paid to check your voice messages, seriously these folks are not working). Seems like they are fronts, empty businesses that are funneled money. Seriously, homework for anyone interested, try to reach one of these groups.

Oh, there is a tab on everyone's website for media contact, that they like, just not peons like us. Funny.....the NRA answers every time I call.

 

[Plan2Live]

I would like to see fewer children hurt or killed by accessing unsecured firearms. I want legal gun owners to do a better job of voluntarily securing their firearms. I Personally don't like trigger locks.

If I had the public platform I would challenge Bloomberg to spend some of his millions putting his money where his mouth is and buy a bunch of pistol lock boxes like the GunVault product and offer those for sale at a reduced cost. I would like to see the NRA do the same thing. Give folks an affordable solution and see if that makes a difference.

Flame on.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I would like to see fewer children hurt or killed by accessing unsecured firearms. I want legal gun owners to do a better job of voluntarily securing their firearms. I Personally don't like trigger locks.

If I had the public platform I would challenge Bloomberg to spend some of his millions putting his money where his mouth is and buy a bunch of pistol lock boxes like the GunVault product and offer those for sale at a reduced cost. I would like to see the NRA do the same thing. Give folks an affordable solution and see if that makes a difference.

Flame on.

Great plan Plan2Live. (pun intended).

That is something that would probably never occur to the NRA or Bloomberg because they would both believe it compromises their positions. What a shame.

 

[The Alaskan]

This is akin to why I resigned my life membership in the NRA. (One of many reasons anyway.)

Back, in the 90's, Florida was passing a trigger lock law for guns in the home, and the NRA fought it. Same idea as your "gun safety" group fighting funding for something like Project Child Safe.

I would like to see gun owners lock their guns voluntarily-especially with homes that have children, but it ain't going to happen. Not voluntarily anyway.

Every gun, new or used, should come with a trigger lock or cable lock. Done. It would add a measly 10 bucks to the cost of the gun. If one came with the gun, the cheap jack wagons who won't pay $10 for a lock might not have any more excuses.

 

[oneounceload]

I have a draw full of gun locks that have NEVER been used (and never will be)and yes I kept a loaded gun by the bed all the time; the kids knew where it was, and they were taught to leave it alone.

 

[Nom de Forum]

I have a draw full of gun locks that have NEVER been used (and never will be)and yes I kept a loaded gun by the bed all the time; the kids knew where it was, and they were taught to leave it alone.

While I am sure you have exceptional kids, many kids are very poor in doing what they are taught when it comes to safety. It really is not as much a situation of poor training, willful failure to comply, or lack of fear of being disciplined. Science has proved that people are in their mid-twenties do not have fully developed areas of impulse control and rational judgement in their brains.

 

[Midwest]

If the groups are so concerned about guns and safety then they should also support taking silencers/suppressors off the NFA list in order to promote hearing safety.
(That is of course if they really are concerned about safety....)
.

 

[happygeek]

They couldn't care less about safety, it's just that their PR advisers told them that "gun safety" sounds better than "gun control".

http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2013/01/political-language
http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/748675/gun-violencemessaging-guide-pdf-1.pdf

BUT, outside of the generously given media attention, how does one contact these groups?

They couldn't care less what you say, but if you want to waste your time:

http://www.vpc.org/
http://csgv.org/
http://www.bradycampaign.org/

(Bloomberg changes the name of his astro turfs and creates new ones so fast you'd have to Google those yourself.)

 

[Bang!]

Every new gun I have bought in the last five years has come with a trigger lock. Probably more than five years. Seems that's no longer an issue.

A law that say's the trigger lock has to be in place was blocked by the NRA? I'll count that as a win for the good guys. Glad to see the money I've been giving them all these years is being put to good use.

 

[barnbwt]

"Back, in the 90's, Florida was passing a trigger lock law for guns in the home, and the NRA fought it. Same idea as your "gun safety" group fighting funding for something like Project Child Safe."

Not quite the same; one is an educational program by an advocacy group, and one is a law. A law being on the books won't make people treat firearms responsibly, since any foolproof scheme will invent a better fool.

But education, surprisingly, doesn't itself produce better fools.

TCB

 

[Yo Mama]

This is akin to why I resigned my life membership in the NRA. (One of many reasons anyway.)

Back, in the 90's, Florida was passing a trigger lock law for guns in the home, and the NRA fought it. Same idea as your "gun safety" group fighting funding for something like Project Child Safe.

I would like to see gun owners lock their guns voluntarily-especially with homes that have children, but it ain't going to happen. Not voluntarily anyway.

Every gun, new or used, should come with a trigger lock or cable lock. Done. It would add a measly 10 bucks to the cost of the gun. If one came with the gun, the cheap jack wagons who won't pay $10 for a lock might not have any more excuses.

Destroying your argument, gun laws "mandating" anything are garbage. Helping folks keep their kids safe, and offering them a free gun lock is completely different.

And I doubt you resigned a Lifetime membership with the NRA (probably never a member), but it's cool to hate on the NRA on the internet now adays eh?

 

[Yo Mama]

I have a draw full of gun locks that have NEVER been used (and never will be)and yes I kept a loaded gun by the bed all the time; the kids knew where it was, and they were taught to leave it alone.

Yes that works for many folks. Until it doesn't.

And I don't see how this has anything to do with my original post, focus was on "gun safety" groups not having the intent to have any gun safety, and blocking dollars to go to providing free gun locks. Government wastes plenty of money, might as well go to a good cause for once in a while.

 

[oneounceload]

It goes to the post about them being made mandatory to use on guns in the home

 

[danez71]

Not to derail the thread but my experience with 2 trigger locks is that both guns could be fired with them correctly installed.

Cable locks work though.

 

[USAF_Vet]

This is akin to why I resigned my life membership in the NRA. (One of many reasons anyway.)

Back, in the 90's, Florida was passing a trigger lock law for guns in the home, and the NRA fought it. Same idea as your "gun safety" group fighting funding for something like Project Child Safe.

I would like to see gun owners lock their guns voluntarily-especially with homes that have children, but it ain't going to happen. Not voluntarily anyway.

Every gun, new or used, should come with a trigger lock or cable lock. Done. It would add a measly 10 bucks to the cost of the gun. If one came with the gun, the cheap jack wagons who won't pay $10 for a lock might not have any more excuses.

- In Michigan, if you buy a gun from an FFL, new or used, you get a trigger lock by state law (I've got a box full of them). All it's done is drive the cost of the guns up to cover the FFL's cost of the gun lock that they must provide by law.


- If you want to lock them up, great. I choose to educate my kids about guns and remove the taboo and curiosity. I have multiple guns loaded and unlocked in my house. Funny that they never move unless I move them. Even the pistol in my sock drawer that has one in the chamber and the safety off hasn't experienced a ND. Requirements by law to secure guns places the financial burden upon the gun owner, not the state dictating they be locked.

 

[Tirod]

Mandatory gun locks at the point of sale or with purchase aren't safety. All the children who shoot themselves or their siblings aren't using guns with locks on them.

It's the ADULTS who are the problem, and the ADULTS who need to act responsibly about it.

We can agonize over the children shot dead with guns - and it's tragic - but the reality is that more drown in swimming pools unattended by their mother who is on site. Therefore if the gun lock solution is a good one, then all swimming pools should come with a mandatory fence around them and a locked gate. MORE CHILDREN WOULD BE SAVED THAN GUN LOCKS.

How much is that wading pool going to cost then? Does it price it beyond the reach of the consumer - a single mom with two toddlers? In many cases, yes, and that can be and has been proven in court to be stripping someone of their right to live their life the way they see fit.

We can conjure up all sorts of rationalizations about what the solutions are, but making something mandatory doesn't work and creates other issues.

Have you looked into auto pollution controls? Same logic - force the car owners to pay exorbitant funds for a mandatory purchase just to keep them from destroying the environment - largely caused by other sources. How about buying a car with a smaller engine and acting like a responsible adult?

You can't legislate common sense and make people pay extra for measures to force them to act safely. We try - but every generation still fails to learn their lessons and new solutions keep bubbling to the top to make it happen.

So, we force gun locks on gun owners, when pool safety negligence kills more kids than guns. We force pollution controls on cars, when mowing the grass, raising cattle, and factories produce more pollutants. We force disarming inner city neighborhoods, when in fact all it does is increase violence against the innocent.

We don't need gun locks, we need to accept responsibility and quit blaming others for our failure.

If quitting the NRA was such a good move, why not quit the USA and try some better method of self governance? Oh, wait, it's the best we have and there is no better option. Apparently the point was to thumb a nose at somebody trying to do something about it while sitting back and complaining.

Do those foresworn dues to the NRA now go to buying gunlocks and passing them out for free at the local gun show? Ah - didn't think so. All talk and posturing, no real commitment.

How typically American. Rather than set an example, it's better to complain about an issue while ignoring the greater danger, and then get government to force a solution on others.

Now is the problem a bit clearer?

 

[Deanimator]

When I attended NRA instructor training, the instructor showed us just how worthless and indeed DANGEROUS trigger locks are.

A cable lock through the open action or a padlock around the top strap of a swingout cylinder revolver are FAR safer than any crappy trigger lock.

 

[danez71]

When I attended NRA instructor training, the instructor showed us just how worthless and indeed DANGEROUS trigger locks are.

A cable lock through the open action or a padlock around the top strap of a swingout cylinder revolver are FAR safer than any crappy trigger lock.

And that's what I was saying a few posts ago.

Not to derail the thread but my experience with 2 trigger locks is that both guns could be fired with them correctly installed.

Cable locks work though.

I'm not trying to '1 up you'.

I'm repeating it because trigger locks are the worst thing for the intended purpose and don't want people to be fooled.

All I had to do was jiggle it a bit and the gun would fire.

 

[MedWheeler]

To clarify what came of the Florida law:

The law that went into effect makes it a misdemeanor to leave a loaded firearm within reach of a minor, resulting in a minor (person under sixteen years of age) gaining possession of the firearm and either handling in in a threatening, dangerous or reckless manner, or displaying or possessing it in a public place.

The law also excepts any firearm carried on the person of its owner, or so close to the person as to be as readily available. It also excepts any firearm gained by a minor during a criminal act (such as burglary to the residence.)

So, user oneounceload (post 5) would be in compliance of the law at this point, were he in Florida with that setup.

All firearms, new or used, I've bought from dealers have come with trigger locks or cables. The cables are fine for revolvers, but I don't use either them or the trigger locks (the latter of which I don't trust, anyway.)