« Thought on Brady Campaign, etc. | Main | George Will on Voting Rts Act & why Demos can't win Congressional seats »
Brady opposes trigger locks?
Below I comment on Brady Campaign and prohibitionism: I just found a rather concrete example. According to USA Today, the National Shooting Sports Foundation is on a campaign to give away free trigger locks, and has already given out 28 million of them. And the response of anti-firearms groups (which are supposed to be concerned about gun accidents, and have promoting laws requiring trigger locks) is--
Brady:
"Howard, of the Brady Campaign, also objects to federal funding of the program. The campaign's second phase received $30 million from the Justice Department.
"It should be a program where the industry pays for it," he says. "It just speaks to the incredible level of friendship between the gun industry and the government."
Violence Policy Center:
""Even the best child safety lock program is only going to prevent a very few deaths among very young children," says Kristen Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, a Washington-based group that supports a national ban on handguns."
2 Comments
"As the pool of gun owners gets smaller and smaller, the size and, therefore, effectiveness of the opposition steadily decreases." Which is why gun owners should do their best to share their sport/hobby with their friends. Tomorrow I am going to sponsor a party of 20 college kids from UCSB at my gun club - cook them lunch, instruct the first time shooters (I guess it will be about half), and treat all of them to one free round of trap using my shotguns. Either that or I could give the money to my alumni association. Nah, its much more fund to meet the kids and teach them to shoot. ;>)
I makes perfect sense when you consider the fact that anti-gunners have NO interest in making people safer, only in advancing their agenda.
The "Gun Industry" handing out free gun locks might fulfill one of the anti-gunner's safety fantasies, but it doesn't advance their agenda. It might even cause a setback...if the "Gun industry" is handing out free gun locks, then legislation requiring gun locks to be distributed with new guns might be percieved to be uneccesary.
If they can't get the "mandatory gun lock" provision passed, then they will find it harder to get the next logical step in their "slippery slope" agenda passed: Mandatory USE of gun locks.
Also, it angers them that taxpayers are providing the money to provide the gun locks because then it is one less expense that the gun manufacturers have to pass on to their customers and, therefore, makes guns that much more affordable...a major sticking point to the anti-gunners. They don't want guns to be affordable, the more people they can disarm, the more people that aren't affected by further gun control measures. It is a demonstrable fact that Americans tend to only get upset when it's THEIR rights that are being infringed. If it's something they don't do anyway, they don't even notice. It's the whole "divide and conquer" strategy. Incrementally implement gun control that affects the smallest number of gun owners possible, thereby minimizing the amount of opposition to the measure. It's a classic tactic. As the pool of gun owners gets smaller and smaller, the size and, therefore, effectiveness of the opposition steadily decreases.