Joe Dees wrote:
> As the Prez said, we punish reckless drivers, but we still install child seats and seat belts. We punish airplane hijackers, but we still have metal detectors and luggage inspection at airports. It is said that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why should firearms be the only thing where prevention is forbidden?
> As for teaching children to be responsible, sure, do it, but this should not absolve parents of THEIR responsibilities incurred concommitant to firearm purchase, such as child-proofing their weapons with trigger locks (the keys to which they should keep on their person, not on a casually-left-on-the-endtable key chain) or by locking them in a drawer, or by locking up the ammo or ammo clips. Do not forget that children are not allowed to enter into contracts because it is assumed that before they reach an age of accountability that they are NOT RESPONSIBLE; the requirement of responsibility thus falls to their caregivers. Give the kids a safety class, sure, but require every adult purchaser who may have kids come into his/her home (and that is virtually eveyone) to take a gun safety class (including gun storage safety), and to abide by certain safety standards designed to prevent the deaths of children, rather than just waiting passively for them to die and then punishing the culpable over their dead
While I understand your sentiment, and I applaud your turnaround on
training children in the use of firearms, the simple fact is that
'childproofing' locks and safes also proof the guns against being used
in self defense, when seconds count. Properly trained children don't
need locks to keep them away from guns. I also agree that parents should
be made as responsible and liable for the actions of their children
almost as if they had done the deed themselves. If the technology comes
along to allow a gun owner to program the gun to be used by any and all
family members they wish, for a cost marginally above current
manufacturing costs, I will embrace the smart technologies for all new
The whole point of the trigger lock laws are to cause the self defense
statistics of gun owners to drop to a level consistent with non-gun
owners, so the gun grabbers can then say "See, it doesn't protect you
any more than non-gun owners are protected, so you don't need them...
bye bye." HCI got a major black eye when John Lott's book came out,
which is why they've gone to so much trouble trying to discredit him,
which hasn't worked out.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:09:22 MDT