[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

"provided with" secure storage OR safety device is not the same thing as "having all firearms come with trigger locks installed and locked, upon initial sale."
It's not the same thing. I was being very specific with my words.

Not just any gun storage, not "provided with" - which doesn't require that the gun is LOCKED when it's sold, only that the option for the gun owner to lock it is provided.

Opt in vs. opt out. It sounds like a small distinction but it's significant.

What's the big push to have the lock installed upon initial sale? All you do is open the case, insert key in lock and remove the lock. You could do that before you even leave the store or when you get to your car.

[billethkid]

There needs to be a more open minded approach to the issue/problem.

Need we be reminded the lawful gun owners in the magnitude exceeding 98% are being tarred with the brush intended for the less than one percent wacko/deranged/what ever bent on doing harm.

Until such time intelligent solutions come forth addressing the real issue....there will be nothing done as demonstrated by the so called lack of action over the years and to date.
There is no doubt our law makers have struggled with this problem through many administrations.

Like it or not....call it what one will or not....there has to be recognition calling for change that is aimed at the one percent while ignoring the 98% just is not going to progress.

The above means nothing to anti-gunners, the uninformed and their agenda.

[anothersteve]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

What's the big push to have the lock installed upon initial sale? All you do is open the case, insert key in lock and remove the lock. You could do that before you even leave the store or when you get to your car.

Wondering the same thing myself.
Steve

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

What's the big push to have the lock installed upon initial sale? All you do is open the case, insert key in lock and remove the lock...

Originally Posted by anothersteve

Wondering the same thing myself...

As was I.

[tophcfa]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

Trigger locks are not part of the gun culture, in general. Most people with firearms don't have them, don't use them, and some don't even know what they are. Similarly to drivers of cars and trucks: The vast majority of drivers buckle up - not because it's the law, but because the law and the existence of these belts have changed the culture of drivers.

So change the culture of gun owners, by having all firearms come with trigger locks installed and locked, upon initial sale. Some folks won't use them. But eventually, more people will, than won't, because this one change will have changed the culture such that their use is just an automatic thing people do. Like stopping at red lights - those didn't always exist, afterall. But the culture was changed. Even a typical law-breaking person who drives too fast, is very likely to stop at a red light as opposed to ignoring it.

There's no barrier preventing anyone from running a red light. But they stop anyway. Because the culture has changed.

That's what I mean about changing the culture of gun owners.

Trigger locks have their place in safety, like storing a firearm that is in your home and not in a safe, so that a child can not stumble across the firearm and accidentally discharge it (if the owner is stupid enough to leave it loaded). Or if a firearm owner is traveling so that if they go into a store someone can not steal the firearm from the car and easily use it. However, in my home state of Massachusetts, they have gone overboard with the requirements. My pistol needs to be stored in a safe or with a trigger lock, unloaded. The ammunition needs to be stored in a separate, locked area. So if a thief breaks into my home, I need to tell him/her, excuse me, please wait her while I unlock my pistol, then go to a separate area and unlock my ammunition. Then please wait patiently while I load my firearm. I don't think someone who has no regard of the law, and has already broken into my home, will abide. I am better off owning a knife, baseball bat, or Ax to protect my family. Oh well, so goes it in the state of Massachusetts.

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

It wasn't a "big push." It was a suggestion, that y'all have spent two pages on this forum questioning. Seems to me that the push is to reject suggestions.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by tophcfa

Trigger locks have their place in safety, like storing a firearm that is in your home and not in a safe, so that a child can not stumble across the firearm and accidentally discharge it (if the owner is stupid enough to leave it loaded). Or if a firearm owner is traveling so that if they go into a store someone can not steal the firearm from the car and easily use it. However, in my home state of Massachusetts, they have gone overboard with the requirements. My pistol needs to be stored in a safe or with a trigger lock, unloaded. The ammunition needs to be stored in a separate, locked area. So if a thief breaks into my home, I need to tell him/her, excuse me, please wait her while I unlock my pistol, then go to a separate area and unlock my ammunition. Then please wait patiently while I load my firearm. I don't think someone who has no regard of the law, and has already broken into my home, will abide. I am better off owning a knife, baseball bat, or Ax to protect my family. Oh well, so goes it in the state of Massachusetts.

Massachusetts Gun Control Laws - FindLaw

From what you wrote it sounds like common sense has gone out to window as far as home protection is involved in Massachusetts.

Safe Storage | Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence

My rifle is never loaded at home nor on the road but I always treat it like it is. But I would have a hard time getting to the ammunition I have so much junk around.

[Kenswing]

Originally Posted by Jazuela

It wasn't a "big push." It was a suggestion, that y'all have spent two pages on this forum questioning. Seems to me that the push is to reject suggestions.

Just trying to understand why you think such a measure would help.. You're the one who made the point that the lock should be installed at the time of sale. Just trying to understand the benefit..

[OrangeBlossomBaby]

Originally Posted by Kenswing

Just trying to understand why you think such a measure would help.. You're the one who made the point that the lock should be installed at the time of sale. Just trying to understand the benefit..

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?

[Kenswing]

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.

[billethkid]

But what does all the so called safety like trigger locks, safes, etc have to do with solving the mass shooting issue?

All the devices/suggestions/etc/etc/etc do absolutely nothing to solve the problem.....the 1% problem. What good does it do if the already law abiding safe gun owner uses all these means and devices to avoid accidental shootings are used by the 98+%.

The one percent would/could care less and will go on their rampage of killing.

This thread is a shining example of why law makers at all levels of government seem to have done little or nothing. Way too much effort being spent debating aspects of gun control that have nothing to do with how to keep us safe from the next mass shooter!!!!

Surely all the brain power available could do an analysis of all public and mass shootings. Reaching some conclusion after looking at all the who, the why, the when, the where, how often, time of day, the weather, how many others knew or saw the signs but did nothing.
What is it that we do not do merely because we are more concerned about offending some one or some group or some organization than nailing down the issue.

WHAT EVER IT TAKES!!!!
Has not happened to date. And it is unlikely to not happen any time soon.

As far as weighing down the 98+% of law abiding gun owners with more controls/restrictions/etc to control the 1%....be happy in the quest as that is all that will be accomplished....the quest that is!!

[Polar Bear]

Originally Posted by billethkid

But what does all the so called safety like trigger locks, safes, etc have to do with solving the mass shooting issue?...

Considering the topic of the thread, that’s a very fair question. And the answer is obvious to most...nothing.

[Taltarzac725]

Originally Posted by Polar Bear

Considering the topic of the thread, that’s a very fair question. And the answer is obvious to most...nothing.

Actually a gun trigger lock might stop some teenager who takes their parents' weapons with the idea of using these in a school or some other kind of shooting.

Horrible attacks my man using a knife in Southern CA. He was targeting Hispanics. Sounds mentally ill from descriptions of what happened.

4 Killed, 2 Wounded in Series of O.C. Attacks; Suspect Arrested | KTLA

[ColdNoMore]

The truth of the matter is, that the NRA and gun-nuts will do everything possible (including the NRA spending itself into bankruptcy) to stop any meaningful changes in the laws until this tragedy, like all of those previously...slowly goes away.

Which is what they're counting on.

If by chance some traction is gained on changes, there will be screeching about how "the government is trying to take away all of your guns," which as history has proved...will simply spur gun/ammunition sales.

And then grateful gun/ammo manufacturers will donate to the coffers of the NRA to keep their financial heads above water and nothing will happen or change...once again.

The ONLY way meaningful progress can ever be made in this country, is to somehow convince those who feel 'manly/macho' when they have their guns, that it takes more guts/integrity/honor...to stand up to the insanity of the ingrained gun culture in this country...that so many worship.

[anothersteve]

Originally Posted by ColdNoMore

The truth of the matter is, that the NRA and gun-nuts will do everything possible (including the NRA spending itself into bankruptcy) to stop any meaningful changes in the laws until this tragedy, like all of those previously...slowly goes away.

Which is what they're counting on.

If by chance some traction is gained on changes, there will be screeching about how "the government is trying to take away all of your guns," which as history has proved...will simply spur gun/ammunition sales.

And then grateful gun/ammo manufacturers will donate to the coffers of the NRA to keep their financial heads above water and nothing will happen or change...once again.

The ONLY way meaningful progress can ever be made in this country, is to somehow convince those who feel 'manly/macho' when they have their guns, that it takes more guts/integrity/honor...to stand up to the insanity of the ingrained gun culture in this country...that so many worship.

What Both Sides Don't Get About American Gun Culture - POLITICO Magazine

"The view of guns as neutral tools, a view shared by conservative defenders of gun rights as well as liberal advocates of gun regulation, misses a crucial fact about guns and gun ownership. It wrongly assumes that the distribution of guns and their presence in their owners' lives are totally independent facts that don't shape the opportunities and choices of the people who use them.

But increasingly, research into the culture and political views of gun owners is painting a very different portrait. Gun owners' politics don't generally fall into lockstep with the NRA—but guns themselves are woven into people's lives in ways that go far beyond a tool. This suggests that the path to gun law reform won’t be as simple as liberals might hope or conservatives might fear."

"One of the most authoritative and interesting surveys of the attitudes of gun owners was conducted by the Pew Research Center in 2017. That survey shows the vast majority of Americans who own guns are not members of the NRA and that most favor some form of gun control. However, most refrain from pushing for greater regulation of guns because they neither trust the government nor believe that it will protect them. They often resent the disdain for their way of life of the kind expressed by President Barack Obama when he suggested they “cling to guns or religion” as a way of expressing “antipathy to people who aren't like them … as a way to explain their frustrations." They see themselves as on their own in a dangerous world."

The demographics of gun ownership in the U.S. | Pew Research Center

Steve