Clark favors gun safety locks

[Renew Deal]

DURHAM , Oct. 29 – Wrapping up a two day trip through New Hampshire on Wednesday, retired General Wesley Clark said he favored safety locks on firearms as a general principle though he said he needed to review the situation more before he would make any specific suggestions on how, if elected president, he plans to mandate such an action.

Clark said guns were always in his house while growing up in Arkansas , but he never touched them because his father warned they were always loaded. And even during a 35 year career in the military he said he always stored guns in an “arms room” away from his son.

“My son was never exposed to guns back then because I didn’t believe it was necessary and I don’t believe it now,” Clark said.

Clark gave these remarks in answer to a question at the Every Child Matters presidential candidate forums at the University of New Hampshire . At the same forum he also said he was “concerned” about the federal No Child Left Behind education act because the standards were to “narrow” on the items tested and the penalties “too tough” for public schools. He also reiterated his health care plan mandating all children receive health insurance, a plan he announced Tuesday on the same university campus.

<snip>

http://www.politicsnh.com/archives/pindell/2003/september/10_29guns.shtml

[Frangible]

1. Makes sense to me...

But 99% of guns come with trigger locks anyway now.

What if the gun needs to be used in self defense... you couldn't have a lock on it in this case (a quick open safe is better)

Also it takes about 10 seconds to hacksaw / drill off a trigger lock. I have no doubts that properly used they will keep guns out of the hands of small children, but a teenager could easily remove one with some garage tools.

I think gun owners do have a responsibility to store their weapons safely... ESPECIALLY with children in the household... but I worry about things like this being carried out to an extreme.

[Muddleoftheroad]

3. Sure lock them up completely

So they are no use for self defense at all. THAT makes sense.

[Frangible]

6. Don't people have a right to self defense? (nt)

[Muddleoftheroad]

8. They do

I think mandated locks are ridiculous. How I choose to defend MY home is MY business.

[Frangible]

9. Ah ok

Misunderstood the sarcasm, sorry.

[Superfly]

10. I bought a Remington shotgun

with a built-in lock. It was a joke and a waste of engineering. All it took was specially shaped piece of metal (like a screwdriver, hairpin, etc.) and the weapon could be unlocked and kept that way.

You should never, ever, ever rely on mechanical features for gun safety.

You should ALWAYS rely on these rules

1) Treat every gun as if it were loaded.
2) Never aim the weapon at anything you don't want to kill.

[Brian Sweat]

7. Well, considering that it is illegal to leave a weapon where a child

can get at it in all 50 states, it makes a lot of sense.

[DoNotRefill]

16. He doesn't WANT people to be able to defend themselves...

That's why he paraphrased Himmler's gun control quote. "Join the Army, we have them" indeed!!!

[SahaleArm]

32. I doubt that considering...

he owns firearms.

[DoNotRefill]

37. He was in the military, dontcha know...

"some animals are more equal than others."--George Orwell

[SahaleArm]

60. I'm invoking Godwins law.

For bringing in Himmler: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwins_Law :)

Clark's quote was related to a specific weapon not all arms, but you already knew this.

[DoNotRefill]

63. Would you care to give a model number of that specific weapon?

How about a serial number?

I'm sure if Clark came out on National Television and said "Ein Volk, Ein Reich, ein Fuhrer!", you'd invoke Godwin's law, too. In the present case, I'm not making a general comparison, I'm being quite specific. Clark paraphrased Himmler on this one issue.

Oh, and in case you didn't realize it, when Himmler made his statement, the state of the art military rifle was a bolt action rifle and an 8-shot semi-auto pistol. Those were the "assault weapons" at the time.

[bluestateguy]

2. Well, few people are "against" safety locks

But making them mandatory seems a little excessive to me. Gun makers that make guns that discharge too easily without locks should be subject to liability.

[Superfly]

4. "Discharge too easily"?

I have my rifle set at 2.7 pounds of trigger pull, so that it "discharges easily". It helps in accuracy.

[Frangible]

5. How so?

In a "I dropped the gun, it went off and killed someone, it was an accident", or "I pointed the gun at his head, racked the slide, and pulled the trigger and he died. I was just joking, it was an accident" kind of way?

I think those are very different things... but often lumped together.

[bluestateguy]

11. Ahem

Someone who carelessly leaves an unlocked gun near a child who shoots himself should be subject to negligence charges.

[Frangible]

12. I agree

But still not quite sure what you meant by "discharge too easily without gun locks". Do you mean mechanical reliability, trigger pull, inclusion of a crossbolt "safety" etc?

[Bread and Circus]

13. Would gun safety locks reduce the risk of small children...

shooting each other with their fathers' guns?

If so, I am for them too.

[Superfly]

14. As long as it's for the children!

:puke:

[Bread and Circus]

17. As a physician, I believe in doing what is appropriate...

to save lives...don't you?

[Superfly]

19. Aw, fuck it.

Not worth the time.

[DoNotRefill]

21. So...if that's the case...

let's say that there's a thousand people in the country that have an undetectable disease treatable with a certain drug, and in order to get it to those thousand people, EVERYBODY must take the drug. The downside is that the side-effects of the drug will kill around 70,000 of the people who take it nation-wide. Would you order everybody to take it?

Same basic situation with guns. The LOWEST annual number of defensive gun uses(DGUs) I've ever seen a credible study come up with is 70,000. I've seen figures as high as 2.5 million DGUs annually. There are normally fewer than 1,000 annual accidental gun deaths in the US (2001 had around 800). Even if you stick with the lowest number of DGUs, legitimate DGUs FAR exceed accidental deaths. so how many of those at least 70,000 DGUers a year are you willing to let die to save that <1000 accidental gun victims?

Ever hear of the concept of "First, do no harm"?

[Bread and Circus]

23. This is a stooge post...

because you obviously have no understanding of
medical ethics or public health policy.

It is neither illustrative or worth my time.

Secondly, I asked "if" -- I didn't make a declaritive
statement. I only said that if it were proven to save
children's lives, then I would be for it. According to
your figures, that may not be the case then fine, whatever,
you are entitled to your figures.

[DoNotRefill]

26. So tell us...

how many kids are you willing to kill to try and "save" some?

Oh, and BTW, I've got a doctorate in a field much closer to the legislative process (and understanding the ramifications of it) than you do. Oh, and regarding medical ethics: I grew up in a medical family, spending around 20 years in the close company of M.D.s.

So the J.D. says to the M.D. "Do try not to assume so much..."

[Bread and Circus]

29. How many kids are you willing to kill?

Because I was just trying to see if we could
make firearms safer, especially for children.

Personally, I think we can. If there is a will, there
is a way.

Swimming pools kill more kids than guns each year
so we need to work on making them safer too.

I am not anti-gun. I am really surprised how hot
and bothered gun folks get when any restriction is
placed on them at all. I never quite understand the
hysteria. It's like the pro-gunners and the
anti-gunners are alway locked in battle, never wanting
to give an inch.

I wish cooler heads would prevail so we could get some
rational things done regarding these issues.

[DoNotRefill]

36. Sorry...

abrogating civil rights in a dubious attempt to "save the children" isn't "rational" in my book.

"Swimming pools kill more kids than guns each year
so we need to work on making them safer too."

Here's a solution for that problem: fill them all in with dirt. Oh, wait, that would defeat the purpose of having a swimming pool, just as having mandatory trigger locks would defeat the primary purpose of having a gun for self-defense.

[Bread and Circus]

48. I don't want to infringe on your rights....

I really don't.

But do you think that is what Clark or anyone is
suggesting?

[DoNotRefill]

51. Sure do. Do you need Clark Quotes?

Or how about a word-by-word comparison between a statement made by Clark and one attributed to Heinrich Himmler on gun control? The wording is almost identical, and the sentiment IS identical.

[Muddleoftheroad]

15. By that definition

Let's all drive 5 mph because a lot fewer children will die.

[Bread and Circus]

20. I think your analogy has a point...

but if you want to carry things to extremes
why don't we all carry guns and if someone
messes with you, just fuck 'em up. And while
we are at it: let's take seat belts out of cars,
life jackets out of boats, eliminate drunk
driving laws, reuse scalpels/needles on multiple
patients, and give our kids plastic bags to play with.

:nuke:

----

Look, there has to be some balance here. I love
to shoot guns, I am an excellent shot, and I even
love to shoot bow more. However, guns are dangerous
tools -- they can be made more safe if we are willing
to try. What we need is to protect gun ownership rights
but make them as safe as possible, especially for children
that may not recognize the danger of them.

I live in a small gun-loving community, but I have a patient
that lost a child because he was shot by a sibling while they
were playing with guns. Why wouldn't we want to do everything
to keep them safe?

[DoNotRefill]

27. Heh...

"However, guns are dangerous
tools -- they can be made more safe if we are willing
to try."

Yup, and you can make chainsaws safer by legislating that the chains be removed. Of course, that pretty much makes them useless as tools, doesn't it?

What about the children and other people who die because the guns are made "safer"? And "safer" for WHO? The kids, or the criminals??? Why do you think cops don't have trigger locks on THEIR guns? Could it be because it WOULD ENDANGER THEIR LIVES if they did?

[Bread and Circus]

33. They do make chainsaws safer by putting kickback..

guards on them and people can still saw firewood.

Consider yourself owned. I wouldn't want you as my lawyer.

[DoNotRefill]

35. Does a kickback guard interfere with the operation of the saw?

of course not. A trigger lock clearly interferes with the operation of a gun, that's the whole PURPOSE of it.

Please feel free to pick the sycophantic lawyer of your choice. I wouldn't have you for a client. That's the beauty of being me...I can (and regularly do) refuse to represent people with cranial-rectal inversions.

[Bread and Circus]

38. Yeah, but trigger locks don't make the gun useless....

as you infer.

Step 1: take trigger lock off.
Step 2: point gun at bad man.
Step 3: pull trigger and hope your flinch doesn't throw your aim
off.
Step 4: double tap the bad man as needed to defend you and
yours.
Step 5: Call police.
Step 6: Turn gun over to police if they request it
or put trigger lock back on and put gun away
in safe place.

It doesn't seem too complicated to me and if it is
too complicated for a gun owner to follow those steps,
I doubt they would be able to use the gun correctly in
a self defense situation anyway.

A statistic that you forget to mention is that the biggest risk
factor for getting killed by a gun is having one in the
house. Another one you forget to mention is that more
people are killed by family members with guns than "bad men"
breaking in to steal the family jewels.

[DoNotRefill]

40. Ah. an oblique reference to Kellerman.

"A statistic that you forget to mention is that the biggest risk
factor for getting killed by a gun is having one in the
house."

you forgot to mention that the primary "driving force" behind that statistic is.....drumroll.....wait for it.....SUICIDE. Oops. How exactly is a trigger lock supposed to prevent suicides? You're familiar with the principle of substitution, right?

"Another one you forget to mention is that more
people are killed by family members with guns than "bad men"
breaking in to steal the family jewels."

Ah. Doesn't your statistic also include "acquaintances" in addition to "family members"? Check the footnote, and you'll find it does. Doesn't that also include cases where battered women shoot their abusers? What's next? The "17 children die from guns every day" statistic? Before you trot that one out, please remember that includes all "children" 25 and younger, and is almost exclusively made up of "children" killed in the course of drug trafficking operations.

"It doesn't seem too complicated to me and if it is
too complicated for a gun owner to follow those steps,
I doubt they would be able to use the gun correctly in
a self defense situation anyway."

Self-defense situations generally last a matter of a few seconds at most. Remember Glendenning's news conference about trigger locks? The one where he wrestled with it on-camera for something like three minutes, before finally having to summons a police officer to remove it? How long did he have to prepare for that appearance, where there was no danger, in the middle of the day, in a brightly lit room, and where he knew EXACTLY what he had to do?

Want to test your theory? It's easily done, and all you need is a keyed padlock and one person to play the "bad guy". Put the locked padlock on your bedside table, with the key right next to it. Lay down in the bed, with the door closed and the lights off. Have your "bad guy" open the door and walk towards you at a regular pace. As soon as the door opens, try to find the key and unlock the padlock. If the "bad guy" gets to you before it's unlocked, you just died. Keep in mind that such a scenario doesn't include panic factors, being asleep when it happens, the fact that trigger locks are more difficult to open than padlocks, time to load the gun, et cetera.

Thanks for playing. NEXT!!!!!

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[DoNotRefill]

44. When you can't refute an argument, ridicule the person making it....

nice debate style, Doctor.... ;-)

And yes, I keep a loaded handgun in my bedroom. So far, it hasn't killed anybody. And that doesn't make me "Rambo".

[Bread and Circus]

46. Good for you, I am glad you haven't killed anyone.

And you have no argument, just false hyperbole.

If you want to keep a loaded gun by your head
at your bedside, go for it.

It doens't mean that gun safety locks shouldn't be
discussed and researched. That's all I am asking for.
So far, there isn't enough research or discussion, just
polarized yelling on the issue.

By the way, I am sure General Clark knows more about guns,
self defense, and gun safety than you.

[DoNotRefill]

49. How so?

Generals become Generals due to logistical talent and the ability to play politics. "Amateurs discuss tactics, professionals discuss logistics".

I haven't heard much about Clark's intimate knowledge of guns, self defense, and gun safety. I DO know my qualifications in those areas, the Firearms Instructor creds I earned in my youth, the real world experiences I had in the military, the time I spent as a cop, the time I spent in law school researching this kind of thing, et cetera, and he'd have to have a HELL of a CV in the arms industry to beat mine. From what I've seen, he was too busy getting his "ticket punched" to develop any in-depth knowledge.

"It doens't mean that gun safety locks shouldn't be
discussed and researched. "

Please feel free to conduct and post any research you feel like. If you post it here, I'll examine it and point out any flaws that might be contained in it. I'm pretty good at that, due to time spent on LR in an editorial capacity.

[Bread and Circus]

55. For all of your "credentials" you present a piss poor argument...

I am not buying it.

Seems like NRA talking points more than anything.

[DoNotRefill]

58. better a piss-poor argument than no argument at all...

:loveya:

[ArkDem]

64. You go,

dude!

[Muddleoftheroad]

39. In my home

I do have a gun. It's my right to do so. It's there for self defense.

There are all sorts of dangerous tools in my home. I have household cleaners that can poison. I have knives that can stab. Hell, I have a bunch of real tools that even scare me and I use them. (Electric saws and chainsaws and hedgetrimmers.) Are we going to lock all of them up too? What about cars? What about alcohol that complicates all of these things? What about legal drugs I might have in the home. I have friends on all sorts of mood altering drugs and those sit in their medicine cabinets. Should we put locks on medicine cabinets too?

With freedom comes responsibility.

[Bread and Circus]

42. A lot of things you mention...

do have reasonable safety measures to prevent
accidental harm.

Histrionics doesn't prove a point.

[Muddleoftheroad]

54. Only some and not required by law in my home

I am not required to keep poison locked up. I am not required to keep my numerous deadly tools locked up. Etc.

[Bread and Circus]

56. Isn't it reasonable...

to keep poisonous chemicals out of reach of
children, to wear your seat belt, to put a helmet
on when you ride a motorcycle, to be able to call
poison control, have a safety shield on a circle saw,
a kickback guard on a chain saw, to wear a welding mask,
have OSHA laws, have the EPA, not dive head first
into a shallow pool, keep a sterile field when doing
surgery, wear a parachute when jumping out of an airplane?

Why are guns exempt to considerations for safety?

Clark didn't say he wanted a mandatory law on trigger
locks in all 50 states. He stated safety locks are something
he is for on general principle but would have to look into
it further in terms of policy considerations.

Frankly, I didn't know DU'ers were so damn pro-gun so
as to vehemently defend against any consideration of
gun safety measures.

Maybe trigger locks aren't the answer.

But if not, then what? Should we all accept the fact
that there is no way to make guns safer and that children
accidentally shooting each other is just "collateral damage"?

[Muddleoftheroad]

57. Guns are safe

They do exactly what they are intended to do. Sure, there are a few poorly made guns like Saturday Night specials, but mostly the gun industry produces fine equipment that does precisely what it is intended to do -- shoot things.

For many of us in America, cops are not close by -- either by geography or demographics. If you are wealthy, you can hire security or have an alarm company and extra police in your neighborhood. If you are not, a gun is a fairly affordable piece of security equipment.

There is no one answer to gun deaths. A variety of things would help:

* Encouraging education -- That is something we and the NRA could agree on. Teach people how to use a gun properly. How many idiots shoot someone each year because they don't remove ALL the bullets from a gun. They take out a clip and leave a round in the chamber.
* Prosecuting gun crime -- Using a gun in a crime -- assault, rape, murder, etc. should be prosecuted to the fullest. Forget the bogus little drug possession charges, let's lock up anyone who uses a gun to commit a crime. THEY are a threat.
* Improving opportunity -- A lot of gun crime is related to poverty. Improve things for the poor, improve hope and education and you will cut crime.
* End the dumbass war on drugs and make it a war on addiction. TREAT the addicts, don't make them criminals.

[DoNotRefill]

18. Heh...

that depends...you're a doctor, right? Pill and splint man, right? Ever see a "child safety" cap that was truly effective in keeping pills out of the hands of kids? Hell, when I was a kid my mom used to have ME open her pill bottles since she couldn't with her arthritic hands. I've yet to meet a "child proof" pill container that couldn't be opened by a 4 year old with a rock.

If mandatory trigger locks are such a great thing, then why not the idea out first on the police force and military? Make THEM use them for a few years, and see what happens. Think that might cut down on their utility for self-defense?

[Bread and Circus]

22. Nothing is child-proof...

but we as humans are pretty good and engineering things.
Where there is a will there is a way.

Man, my best friend is an NRA lifer and even he is supportive
of measures that make guns safer for children.

And for everyone's information...kids horse around with
guns and point them at each other...its just a fact of
life. Keeping the ammo separate from the guns is one of
the best ways of preventing accidents but I think with
my children I would like to be a belt and suspenders kind
of a guy.

When a child gets shot in the chest and dies, they are dead
forever. They never get to go to prom, fall in love, have
kids of their own. WTF kind of country is this if we don't
try to protect them.

[DoNotRefill]

24. There was a case in California years ago...

where the guns were locked up in accordance with the child access laws. The family had several kids, one of whom knew how to use the guns. They were attacked by a crazy with a pitchfork in their home. The girl who knew how to use the gun ran to get it to defend her siblings, but it had a lock on it in accordance to State law, so it was a club, not a gun. She then ran to the neighbors to call the police (IIRC, the crazy had cut the phone lines at her house). The cops got there as quickly as they could. Result: 2 dead kids who took a long time to die because the responsible child couldn't use the gun. If the kid had been able to get the gun, the odds are pretty good that the crazy would have died, not the 2 children.

EVERY law has unintended consequences. That law KILLED THOSE KIDS as surely as if the legislators were the ones with the pitchfork.

How many kids are YOU willing to kill to try and save some other kids?

[SahaleArm]

30. Heck I don't agree with many gun laws but...

this seems like a weak argument. Because the guns were locked up the children couldn't protect themselves? What were the parents doing leaving their kids at home without supervision? The same problem would occur if the gun was locked in a safe.

[Bread and Circus]

31. Your academic hyperbole proves nothing...

You are just using an argumentative device
to try to sidestep any responsibility for
figuring out how to actually make guns safer.

Is it trigger locks?
Is it having everyone carry one like the Wild West?
Should we have roving armed bands like Mogadishu?

My point is, and think Clark's point is, that we need
to treat guns with great respect as dangerous tools and try
to do everything we can to make them safe as possible
while respecting gun ownership rights.

I am not actually arguing for the locks at this point.
I am just saying if they were proven to save lives, then
I would support them. You could argue that there may
be times that safety features may inhibit self-defense
maneuvers. That is obvious. However, there has to be
a way that you can maximize the self defense qualities
of a gun and the safety features.

I can't believe that on Democratic Underground there is
such a resistance to being at least open minded to such
a notion.

[DoNotRefill]

34. "I am just saying if they were proven to save lives...

then I would support them."

There's evidence to the contrary. We're talking real-world cases, not academic speculation. There's some academic suggestions that this might not be true, but it's academic, not based upon actual cases, and comes from sources of dubious credibility due to underlying biases.

My mind is open. If you have FACTS to suggest that I'm wrong, please present them, and I'll evaluate it. However, it seems like I've done a LOT more research and reading (on BOTH sides) into this than you have, so if you want to change my mind, you're going to have to come up with something better than "hey, it might do some good for the children" as a line of argument. Tell you what...you come up with some numbers not generated by an anti-gun group (there's a bias issue there, obviously), and I'll stick with numbers generated by the DoJ under Clinton and NOT the NRA, and we'll see where we come out. Want to play? ;-)

[Bread and Circus]

43. It sounds like you have your mind made up...

and that's fine.

Common sense isn't a bad thing to re-visit once in
a while though.

[DoNotRefill]

45. I offered to evaluate your argument.

Do you actually HAVE an argument other than "Do it for the children"???

[Bread and Circus]

47. Yes, and I think you know what it is...

[DoNotRefill]

50. feel free to "spell it out"....

I'm many things, but not a mind reader.

[FrenchieCat]

25. Amen! (n/t)

[FrenchieCat]

28. That amen was for Family Doctor's post..... (n/t)

[phrenzy]

52. All-Or-Nothing Gun Nuts

Ok - I am totally pro-gun and have changed my stance largely as a result of seeing 'Bowling for Columbine' - I think that the best thing to do - if you have guns in the house is to carefully teach your kids about the gun - the same way you would teach them about a axe, chainsaw or butcher knife.

If you take the glamor and mystery away from these guns, my guess is that you would have a lot less kids looking at them as some kind of forbidden 'toys'

At the SAME TIME - If I understand this correctly - and a person has the option of 'engaging' a gun-lock - say when away for work - and unlocking it when the adult is home - what the hell is the problem?

I understand the point that you need to be 'quick on the draw' - but if you left the gun unlocked would this really prevent that?

Anyway, in general I find gun nuts have a hard time knowing where to draw the line with weapon regulation (or even acknowledging that there IS a line)

[Fescue4u]

53. The line

the problem is that for every additional regulation you accept, the antis move the line further inward. Its been going since NFA of 1934

Accept gun locks as required and next it will be gun safes and the year after safes with certain locks and the year after off site storage etc etc. Look to britain for examples on this.

In reality, responsible people already do the right thing and no amount of laws will make irresponsible people responsible.

[DoNotRefill]

66. There's a BIG difference....

between offering people an option, and MANDATING trigger locks on all gun when they're not in use, and PUNISHING people who do not choose to use them.

If people want to use trigger locks, fine, more power to them. I keep most of my guns locked in a gun safe. MANDATING that the guns be kept locked up is an entirely different matter, an idea that I'm categorically opposed to.

There was a case in Maryland not long ago. A woman owned a shotgun which she kept locked with a "cable lock", which is a long metal cable coated with plastic that is threaded through the action and barrel of the gun and then locked with a padlock. The gun had the cable lock correctly installed, and she stored it in her closet. One of her teenaged children got the gun out of the closet and was playing with it with the cable lock intact and fully functional. Somebody saw the child doing this through the window, and called the police. The woman was arrested and SUCESSFULLY prosecuted under Maryland's Child Access Prevention law, despite the fact that she had rendered the firearm unuseable.

God Forbid that a child has an accident with a firearm. When such things happen, though, what greater purpose is served by criminally prosecuting the parents and putting them in jail? If there's some kind of "bad mind" issue, OK, but a strict liability offense? And what about the cases where the law is abused due to prosecutorial indifference or malfeasance?

[Man_in_the_Moon]

59. Mandatory child safety locks is nothing more than useless....

"feel good" legislation.

Those that are responsible enough to use them, are also responsible enough not to leave loaded firearms around where young children cant get a hold of them.

Those that are irresponsible with firearms already will not suddenly become more responsible because you pass some law about it.

[NickB79]

61. Clark states he was always around loaded guns as a child

Yet he never used them for criminal purposes or shot anyone (outside of his military career). He doesn't credit child safety locks or any new laws of the time, but the PARENTING of his father. A piece of plastic and pot metal wrapped around a trigger is a piss-poor substitute for a good parent teaching their child proper respect for the potential harm of improper firearms use.

[ArkDem]

65. Actually, he says he never TOUCHED them.

I grew up in Arkansas and I find it hard to believe that a man who grew up with guns in the house, never touching them, went on to a career in the Army. That guy will say anything.

[CWebster]

62. Attempt to pander for the womens vote

and still wonders why it is not forthcoming.

lol.