L.A. trigger-lock law defeats idea of self-defense

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Feb 4, 2015.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://www.ocregister.com/articles/gun-649071-lock-trigger.html

    typical of CA "lawmakers", clowns who have no clue about what they are doing
     
  2. citizenzen macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2010
    #2
    Trigger locks? How insane can people be?

    Why even have triggers?

    Why should I even have to pull something for it to go off?

    That's CLEARLY a violation of my 2A RIGHTS! :mad:
     
  3. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #3
    Alarm systems, cameras, fences/gates, dogs, and etc, should be someone's first line alert that something is wrong.

    If anyone feels that they need to fire their weapon in a split second at any given moment within their home, then they will probably be already dead men or women in that situation. It takes nothing more than 10 sec to unlock my lockbox(bag in my case), insert mag, and I'm ready.

    Anyone who has the "sleep with the gun under you pillow" mentality, is extremely paranoid. Unless they know someone is out to get them, which is a not the usual.

    I personally think this law will not put anyone in danger. But it will save kids from shooting themselves or family members.
     
  4. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #4
    yeah, there are no home invasions at all :rolleyes:

    http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/25/us/gallery/california-home-invasion/

    http://www.statesmanjournal.com/sto...e-arrested-california-home-invasion/21079819/

    http://fox40.com/2014/10/24/suspect-shot-during-home-invasion/
     
  5. .Andy macrumors 68030

    .Andy

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2004
    Location:
    The Mergui Archipelago
    #5
    Despite your links to anecdotes, on the whole the research we haves points to an increased risk of death to those who own guns or are in the home with a gun. This evidence has been presented to you repeatedly. This is why all major medical bodies are for restrictions to firearms. Some such as the American Paediatric Society go so far as to recommend not having guns in the homes of children at all as the safest measure.

    It's not trigger locks that defeat the purpose of self-defense. It's the fact that owning a gun alone appears to defeat the purpose of self-defence.
     
  6. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #6
    He didn't say there were no home invasions, rather he said that "Alarm systems, cameras, fences/gates, dogs, and etc, should be someone's first line alert that something is wrong."

    In other words, a hearty door or a fierce dog can give people some warning and give them time to unlock their gun, insert a magazine or check the chambers, and assess their situation.

    It seems that unless you can draw and fire from your bed, you would argue that you've been rendered indefensible.

    Also note, in the last link, it was the robber and not the homeowner who was armed and the homeowner confronted the invader and fought him for the weapon. In the first case, the woman was able to call police—though you just linked to a photo series BTW. In the second case, the invaders kicked down a door in the garage, indicating that the couple inside had warning but couldn't defend themselves.

    In any of these cases, a gun lock would not have harmed their ability to defend themselves, but would decrease the number of accidental shootings.
     
  7. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #7
    gun lock would render the gun worthless for defense. not everyone is able to fight robbers hand to hand for the gun.
     
  8. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #9
    yes. already have a dog, quick lock boxes limit you to hand guns.
     
  9. hulugu, Feb 4, 2015
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2015

    hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #10
    Go back to your links.

    1. Woman home alone has no gun. Affect of gun lock: zero.
    2. Couple at home has no gun. Affect of gun lock: zero.
    3. Homeowner confronts robber. Fights armed robber for possession of the gun. Affect of gun lock: zero.

    In each case, the addition of a gun lock would not have change the outcome. So, the question is, did you just pull up the first links you found by a search of "home invasion" which is sloppy, sloppy work? Or, did you think that this proved something because so far it proves that guns aren't as prevalent as we think and that a gun lock would not change the ability to defend oneself in the home in the event of a home invasion.

    You've failed to prove your point beyond that yes, in the United States there were at least three home invasions in Calif.

    A quick-lock box could hold a handgun, and a trigger lock could be installed on the home shotgun or AR-15. Or, all three could be installed in a gun safe with a keypad or biometric lock.

    I found several solutions with a single Google search.
     
  10. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #11
    But not a trigger lock. Is there even anything documented, where a trigger lock has cause someone to be defenseless?
     
  11. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #12
    does there need to be?
    quick search , don't need to see a gun in the article to point out home invasions happen.
    curios. how is this to be enforced?
     
  12. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #14
    Holy crap, yes. "I've got a bad feeling about this" is the go-to line in the Star Wars movies, it does not belong in serious discussion.
     
  13. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #15
    Well there is evidence that points to better domestic safety, but no evidence that points to trigger locks hindering self defense in the home.

    So YES, some examples are warranted.
     
  14. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #16
    All you might find would be anecdotes if anything.
     
  15. vrDrew macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2010
    Location:
    Midlife, Midwest
    #17
    Without going into the absolute Constitutionality of this sort of thing, I feel the need to ask the following question:

    Does someone living in Los Angeles, CA, in 2015, really feel it necessary to have a loaded firearm instantly to hand in order to feel secure?

    Are there really that many threats; attackers; burglars; murderers; rapist; etc. out there?

    I don't want to live my life on a hair trigger. I literally do not want to go through my daily existence in a situation where I felt that, if I couldn't draw and return fire in a second or two, that my life was in peril.

    That, to me, sounds worse than the existence of most front-line infantry soldiers. Even the longest patrol on point comes to an end after a few hours. After which the soldier can rest in his bunker or dugout while his comrades stand watch.

    If that is really your day to day existence - move. Go someplace else. Because no matter how many guns you have, someday someone is going to sneak up on you and kill you when you are asleep.
     
  16. LIVEFRMNYC macrumors 603

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2009
    #18
    And that's exactly my point. If an intruder is not in your bedroom, you have a 99.9% chance of unlocking a trigger lock or lock box before that intruder makes it in your room. If the intruder is already in your bedroom before you notice, there is a 99.9% chance that you are screwed even if you have a loaded and ready gun within hand reach.
     
  17. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #19
    Yeah. Everyone can afford to just move:rolleyes:
     
  18. samiwas macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2006
    Location:
    Atlanta, GA
    #20
    How is it "worthless"? Taking a few seconds longer to activate is not "worthless". You don't buy yourself any credibility for such inane statements.

    Ummm, yes... You are claiming that a trigger lock makes a gun "worthless" for self defense. When someone asks for examples, you ask why there should have to be any examples? So, what? We just take jkcerda's word for it as an authority on everything, because he's so well known for making sense?

    Saying "home invasions happen" has literally zero bearing on your claim that a trigger lock "defeats" the purpose of self defense, especially when none of the subjects in your links had a gun. You have yet to back up your claim with any data or evidence of any sort.

    And this is a pattern.

    And can someone tell me where in the constitution, or anywhere else for that matter, that it's explained that self defense is a right and that trigger locks violate that right?

    ----------

    So, then, are you suggesting that your life is actually filled with that much violence that you are frightened at all times?
     
  19. burgundyyears macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #21
    Trigger locks are dangerous and stupid devices. Many are easily defeated anyway and second (and more importantly), their use requires a basic violation of gun safety rules (that is, they require you to place an object or breach the plane of the trigger guard area when you are not on target.) Requiring safe storage (i.e. keeping firearms away from unauthorized users) is one thing (the exact details of which will differ vastly from home to home), mandating a trigger lock is something else entirely.
     
  20. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    How about if your gun gets away from you and shoots someone, you are liable? For trigger locks how hard is it to pop one off?
    Or mandate smart guns?
     
  21. burgundyyears macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2010
    #23
    Define "gets away from you." You mean stolen or you left it laying out at McDonald's?

    Really easy.

    An even worse idea than the trigger locks. Really, mandating trigger locks and smart guns are ideas for people who just want gun owners inconvenienced for the sake of harassing them.
     
  22. aerok macrumors 65816

    aerok

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2011
    #24
    Nope, I just want to less accidental deaths.
     
  23. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #25
    You leave you gun in a place where someone like your kid can find it and pick it up loaded. Or when not at home, not locked in a safe. These are dangerous life threatening devices, yes?


    That's a pro-gun perspective, versus a neutral perspective. What is harrassing about smart guns?
     

Share This Page