Quote:
Originally Posted by Dozer523
Thank you for taking the time to find videos of trigger locks that don't work. Still, I'm not convinced it is impossible to prevent a weapon from firing. What if we tried to or wanted to develop a locking device that is hard to defeat? We were able to get people to and from the moon using slide rules.
TSBITF. We have a thread on locks and safes. for years QPs have purchased, used, evaluated and critiqued a variety of locks and safes. I trust a QPs opinion more then Better HouseKeeping and Consumer Digest.
The point was that common trigger locks, the second video was a masterlock (very common) are easily defeated. So now you want to mandate that people seek out some unknown lock which can't be defeated. Remember in this scenario the guns are already stolen therefore the criminal has unlimited time to work on defeating the lock.
Even if he can't beat the lock are we going to make it out of such a metal that can not be drilled or cut given enough work?
How expensive would this be? So essentially you would be forcing me to buy this protection along with the gun. Also those are the types of trigger locks that come with some guns. Should the manufacturer be liable for the criminal as well if they defeat the lock?
If you have such an unbeatable lock I would be glad to T&E and see if I can get it off. I am not by no means an expert but I'm willing to bet I could.
The most often cited reason for having a gun is home defense.....
Exactly, I don't trust the locks on the doors or the windows because I know that if someone is determined to get in they will, just like a lock on a gun.
The point of mentioning the bank is that banks are aware that even with all the security they put in place they are still at risk to be robbed. 100% security doesn't exist. Thanks about the info on the safe though I always thought you just needed a stethoscope
And no one is asking you to...
I have no problem being liable for how I use MY gun. I have a problem with your assertion that my firearms being on my private property is not enough and that I should be liable for the criminal actions of someone else who committed crimes to get them from me..
Being in my locked home is a reasonable precaution. Burying them in a safe with a 20 pound unbeatable lock on them is not reasonable for the average person.
Before you post you ought to ...
Not really addressed you just said you aren't talking about those things.
My assertion is that you are trying to mandate a liability on a stolen tool. The knives or my chainsaw or lawnmower are just other tools I own, they can cause death or injury. Yet most would not expect someone to be held liable for a knife stolen from their home and then used to commit a crime. Why should the gun be any different?
Lanza's mother's guns were not secured.....
|
That's a lot of maybes. Also, I would call guns put away in a closet in a large locked up home in a good neighborhood reasonably secured. Not everyone knows someone is going to be a mass murderer. It's easy to point fingers after the fact, but if all the so called family friends really thought this boy was a killer then why aren't they liable for their negligence.
Remember it was your premise that gun owners should be held liable for the criminal actions of a third party even if the guns were stolen from your home. The courts disagree with you.
I agree with what others have said that this is just a stepping stone to making gun ownership essentially unaffordable for the common man.
Do you honestly think the founding fathers would have agreed with this conversation? That if someone broke into your home and stole your shotgun and then shot someone with it you were liable?