Quote:
Originally Posted by Jazuela
It's one tool to change how consumers use a product, that provides a pro-active approach to consumer safety.
Sort of like the seatbelt issue. Until it was a mandatory requirement for car manufacturers to build their cars with those seatbelts, most people didn't use them, even if their cars came with them. That was before USING them was made mandatory too. But once all the cars were manufactured with them, the use of them went up significantly. Only at that point, after seeing their use go up and un-belted deaths go down, did the states start mandating the use of these things that were required.
The same concept with trigger locks at the point of sale. If the thing comes locked, then that one singular minor inconvenience will set the psychological message to the buyer to correlate "buy gun" with "lock gun."
It's a simple, potentially effective, relatively inexpensive (considering that they have to come with some kind of lock or storage anyway) tool to "change the culture."
Is there some reason why anyone would be AGAINST the idea? Or any of the other ideas I suggested? Or is it another one of those "I don't understand, therefore I'm against it" things?
|
I'm not against it at all. Certainly wouldn't hurt to have a lock installed. That being said, it wouldn't entice me to use a lock any differently than I do now. Maybe for new gun owners it might make a difference. Certainly won't have any impact on mass murders though.
Don't get me wrong. I'm all for gun safety. I actually support a requirement that would require people to have some type of gun safety class before being allowed to purchase a firearm. It actually makes me a little nervous knowing there are so many people out there who have bought a gun for self protection who have never fire it or any gun before. I know the 2nd Amendment would probably prevent that from ever happening though.