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

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

MartinBrody

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2006
Messages
334
Location
PA
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?
Click to expand...
 
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.)
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
SOB

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.
 
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.
 
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:
 
Are these people more concerned about easy access to a loaded gun in their house than in protecting their children?
Click to expand...

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

This was an op-ed piece in the Philly Daily News, 10/18/2006. To respond the email is: [email protected].

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.
 
The USSF gives away trigger locks to anybody that wants one.

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

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

Leftists are shameless liars.
 
Mittens

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
 
scurtis_34471 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top