Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop Blaming Newtown Tragedy On Mental Illness (301 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  the question was if my father locked his car (0+ / 0-)

    I answered the question

    •  So? (0+ / 0-)

      The point of my question was whether your father's advice is a good argument against gun locks. It is not. You just admitted that his advice was operational in a time when locks weren't necessary. Now they are. My point.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:41:24 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it remains good advice since you cannot rely on (0+ / 0-)

        locks; any lock can ultimately be defeated given time and sufficient will.  For an example, we had double locks on a rental unit and had the door barred on the inside with an old fashioned bar across the door.  the thieves took the entire door frame loose from the studs and set the whole unit, with the door still locked and barred, to one side and entered the building.

        Now exactly how was I supposed to lock the building to frustrate those guys?

        •  Relative Locks (0+ / 0-)

          When your house is locked but the neighbors are not, thieves will probably rob theirs instead of yours.

          The point that no lock is 100% secure means only that you cannot rely on locks alone and expect perfect security. But as I explained (several times now) locks are not expected to be the "silver bullet" (pun intended) for protecting us from gun violence. It is simply a measure that obviously targets the critical moment in the Newtown shootings: when Lanza took his mother's guns. If they were locked, it might have stopped him, or slowed him enough to possibly let him calm down. Meanwhile if magazines are locked it can slow down a shooter's reloading enough that even unarmed people could stop them (as happened in Tuscon).

          Gun locks are cheap and mostly effective. They even protect the gun fetishist from someone messing with their stuff. It should be completely noncontroversial. Yet even you, who seem very much in favor of violence reduction by restricting guns and access to them, are debating it.

          Like I said, America is not serious about reducing gun violence. Americans are more interested in tiny disagreements about abstractions than in protecting the next couple dozen children from murder.

          "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

          by DocGonzo on Sat Dec 22, 2012 at 05:03:23 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  report says today that the guns were locked in (0+ / 0-)

            a cabinet and kept secured so Lanza evidently either frustrated the locks or knew where the keys were

            •  Locks Etc (0+ / 0-)

              1. Until I see the details, I don't know what about her locks were insufficient. Probably a $350 fingerprint lock would have been more effective.

              2. Maybe no lock would have stopped Adam Lanza. Maybe he held a knife to her throat and forced her to unlock the guns. But we're not now focused on solely the specific path Lanza took to murder. More and better locks will reduce violence, in other cases where they are more effective.

              As I said: "But as I explained (several times now) locks are not expected to be the "silver bullet" (pun intended) for protecting us from gun violence." They are part of a solution, as are other parts that wouldn't have stopped Lanza specifically, but would stop others.

              Just as locks today are not much more effective than in your father's day, nor are they at all 100% effective, but most of us lock our doors because they are usually much better than nothing.

              "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

              by DocGonzo on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 01:16:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  depending on the cabinet, an ax or torch (0+ / 0-)

                or zawzaw can defeat almost any lock

                •  So What? (0+ / 0-)

                  I don't understand why you're arguing that no lock is 100% perfect. I never said they were. I've agreed every time you've said it. I have pointed out every time that it doesn't matter; that we're not looking for 100%.

                  It's perfectly obvious that the lack of 100% perfect locks is not a good argument against using locks at all. I'm not going to repeat myself anymore. Bye.

                  "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

                  by DocGonzo on Wed Dec 26, 2012 at 04:01:44 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

  • Recommended (131)
  • Community (62)
  • Elections (39)
  • 2016 (37)
  • Environment (36)
  • Bernie Sanders (35)
  • Culture (30)
  • Hillary Clinton (30)
  • Media (29)
  • Republicans (29)
  • Climate Change (27)
  • Spam (23)
  • Education (23)
  • Congress (23)
  • Civil Rights (22)
  • Trans-Pacific Partnership (21)
  • Labor (21)
  • Barack Obama (21)
  • Texas (20)
  • Law (20)
  • Click here for the mobile view of the site