Posted by Phil Lee (216.250.238.73) on November 19, 2000 at 11:32:
Mandatory trigger lock proposals are actually better termed "lock up your safety laws." When a citizen needs a gun for self-defense, he or she needs it immediately, and because trigger locks can cause a citizen to take more time in getting access to the gun, these proposals will actually lead to more deaths than they're trying to prevent in the first place.
A prime example illustrating the impact of having locked up your safety is the case in California where two children were murdered by an intruder using a pitchfork despite there being a firearm in the house. That firearm was locked up and could not be accessed in time (See "Memories and tears flow as family buries two children killed by intruder," Modesto Bee, August 31, 2000).
That said, we're not opposed to trigger locks per se, but that should be a market decision a consumer chooses, not something forced on us by the government.
Something to consider by the consumer when deciding whether to use a trigger lock is the speed of response to 911 calls. In the California pitchfork case, it took more than 20 minutes for the police to respond. The father of the murdered children wishes he had made a different choice and not complied with California law mandating triggerlock use.
"This case is far from over," said John Carpenter (the father) from the church pulpit. And he implied that the two children might be alive if gun laws were different. "From the White House to the outhouse, why are you taking away handguns?" He said there was a gun in the house that the older sisters knew how to use, "but I had to put it away in a supposedly safe place. The only thing I forgot to put a lock on was my pitchfork."
Of course, the media has paid no attention to this case because they do not wish to acknowledge that decent citizens could ever need firearms to protect their lives. But now you know. What will you do about it?