And lo on Tue, 19 Feb 2008 16:12:27 -0000, Jim Henderson  
<nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:

> On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 11:15:29 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> And lo on Mon, 18 Feb 2008 18:27:10 -0000, Jim Henderson
>> <nos### [at] nospamcom> did spake, saying:
>>
>>> On Mon, 18 Feb 2008 14:44:20 +0000, Phil Cook wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Parents purchase guns, parents don't lock them up properly.  Kid gets
>>>>> the gun.
>>>>
>>>> Except if the purpose of the gun is home defence doesn't locking it up
>>>> defeat part of the objective?
>>>
>>> Well, you would think so.  At least that's the argument that some
>>> people make. Child safety locks are another option as well.
>>
>> You mean like those child-proof containers you have to get your
>> neighbour's 11-year old to open for you :-P Seriously though shouldn't a
>> safety catch be enough?
>
> You'd think so, of course some also argue that taking the safety off
> takes time as well, and that time could be the difference between life
> and death.
>
> But no, the safety locks aren't quite like a safety cap on medication
> containers.

No of course, but having a safety lock and a child lock; hey why not just  
lock it away in a gun cabinet :-P

>>> And of course storing the gun unloaded is probably a wise move as well.
>>
>> Which again defeats the purpose of a home defence weapon. If it's not
>> accessible and easy to use what's the point in having one? You might as
>> well stick to keeping a baseball bat by the side of the bed.
>
> I've got a sharp pointy weapon within easy reach should it be needed.

I've an umbrella... which sounds kind of dumb until I demonstrate its  
four-foot reach and 3-inch blunted spike on the end :-)

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message