Another Stupid Idea on Gun Control

Gun safety? (courtesy businessweek.com)

As I stated in my review, I really liked Paul Barrett’s book Glock: The Rise of America’s Gun. Well, the bits about assassination attempts, cocaine, strippers and related material. I was not so enamored with the major—and majorly misguided—gun control rant at the end of his tome. Just like NRA basher Adam Winkler (Gunfight: The Battle over the Right to Bear Arms in America), Barrett is a false flag flyer who kisses-up to liberal gun grabbers under the guise of being a “moderate” on guns. In today’s exemplar via businessweek.com—underneath a pic of a youngster firing a pretty heavily modified Ruger 10/22 without eye or ear protection—Barrett “modestly” proposes that Uncle Sam spend your tax dollars on gun safety. Specifically, nearasdammit $100m for free gun locks and a safety brochure. What could possible go wrong with that idea? In the fight to defend and extend Americans’ Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms it pays to know who your friends are. And aren’t.

comments

  1. avatar RKflorida says:

    I agree Robert. I quit reading about 3/4 of the way through. I don’t need another anti-gun lecture from this putz. Nice history of the company up to that point.

  2. avatar Tyler says:

    That’s not an AR, it’s a 10/22 with the ArchAngel 556 dress up kit installed, lol.

  3. avatar In Memphis says:

    Pretty sure my G23 and AR came with safety mannuals. Might have been Nazi propaganda or a coloring book, Im not sure

  4. avatar Daniel Silverman says:

    I am gonna need a drink before I dive into this one!

  5. avatar JM says:

    Umm, pretty sure that’s not an AR in the pic.

    1. avatar Jon R. says:

      Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s a Ruger 10/22 with a archangel stock on it.

      1. avatar UnapologeticallyAmerican says:

        Yes, the kit makes it a “high powered” “weapon of war” “assault rimfire rifle”

    2. avatar Spencer bell says:

      It’s an arch angel kit for the 10/22

    3. avatar William says:

      I think I must have missed the part where someone said it was. Went back, STILL didn’t see it.

      1. avatar Bill says:

        The text might have stated AR, but then amended before you read it. Don’t know, it doesn’t matter.

  6. avatar Jan says:

    Might be one of those 22s with an archangel stock.

    Lost track if how many locks I’ve thrown away cause I had to have one everytime I dros a firearm in ca.

    1. avatar Swarf says:

      Psst! They make fun targets.

  7. avatar tron says:

    I thought guns already came with a lock and safety brochure at the cost of the consumer?

  8. avatar Michael B. says:

    FL already requires that garbage and I have a bunch of those bicycle locks in a bin.

    Loaded guns are either on my person, within my reach, or locked up in secure storage.

    1. avatar Pulatso says:

      Same here. I wonder if I could get credit for them as “paraphanelia” at a gun buyback.

  9. avatar Clem says:

    Don’t be too hard on the kid. It appears he is shooting a .22 rimfire. Eye and ear protection is always a good thing, but it could be a lot worse.

    1. avatar Pulatso says:

      And with the hair over the ears, there could be plugs we’re not seeing.

  10. avatar Roadrunner says:

    $100 million would be well spent on Eddie Eagle, the Appleseed Project, civilian marksmanship, and concealed carry classes. And more likely to result in gun safety than locks, manuals or a stupid ad campaign.

    1. avatar In Memphis says:

      +1

      You can learn something sitting in a classroom even if you dont want to but no one is making you read the book or use the lock.

  11. avatar Gene says:

    I don’t know about elsewhere, but in VA you can get free gun locks from the Sheriff’s office.

  12. avatar John Doe says:

    I’d rather have the money spent on a quality gun safe and CCW classes become tax deductible.

    1. avatar Hazzard Bagg says:

      ^^^ This.

      A “common sense” idea that no one wants to discuss.

  13. avatar OkieRim says:

    Oklahoma, my sheriff has gun locks in baskets in the waiting room, they offer when you do business + when picking up your first SDA license.

  14. avatar Avid Reader says:

    Don’t forget-that’s not just BusinessWeek now, it’s BLOOMBERGBusinessWeek.

    Just sayin’.

  15. avatar Thomas Paine says:

    “Uncle Sam spend your tax dollars”
    my tax dollars are already spent. Borrowed money would be correct.
    F any more gov’t spending. You can’t afford it.

  16. avatar scottlac says:

    It won’t be long before it will be mandatory that the locks actually stay on the gun in storage and then one night, the act of removing the lock will be determined as “premeditation” when you murder that burglar in your house.

  17. avatar Randy Drescher says:

    Thats not a lock that can’t be cut off is it? A remnant from Roswell,lol. Or is that the ones with a hidden chip that dhs can just scan as they drive by. I trusted once, never again, Randy

  18. avatar askeptic says:

    Don’t be too hard on the gun-safety nazi’s;
    if they actually knew what current law requires, they wouldn’t be able to advocate what they do with a straight face.

  19. avatar Wyatt says:

    I’ve thrown away a small pile of gun locks already. Do they want gun locks to be the next AOL CD’s (or floppies for you ofwg’s)?

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      Never use “floppy” and “OGWG” in the same sentence.

  20. avatar Aharon says:

    A mother in Connecticut was morally and yet not legally responsible by law to adequately secure her guns from her crazed angry son. He was able to easily steal her unsecured guns and murder her, and then go on to murder 27 children and adults. Because of that mass shooting gun rights are under a massive attack on the state and federal level.

    I’m aware of the argument that safes don’t guarantee security and that eventually all safes can be defeated. It says something that (to my knowledge) none of the stolen guns used in mass shootings were taken from secure safes.

    1. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      When you start making my house payment you can tell me how to store my firearms in my house. Until then, go away, far far away.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        I am far away yet close too. I’m on my laptop in my home on this site we can all access stating my view. I will continue to do so as I see fit.

        1. avatar Ralph says:

          Aharon, neighbors reported that Mrs. Lanza did have a gun safe. Well, they said “safe,” but I doubt that they’d know the diff between a safe and a security cabinet. How the little demented pr!ck she gave birth to got into her storage, I don’t know.

    2. avatar guzzimike says:

      We don’t know yet if he compromised her gun safe/cabinet, what type of securie storage she actually had, found the keys or combo, etc. If I remember correctly she was out of town for a few days before the tragedy & left the kid on his own… that’s plenty of time for someone to figure out how to get into something. Until the complete police report is publicly released I am holding off on judging the mom.

      1. avatar Aharon says:

        There was a report in the Connecticut media (if not others too) that the firearms were not secured.

      2. avatar Rokurota says:

        If they were secured the media would use that as an argument to ban all guns, because safes and locks don’t work.

  21. avatar Nelson says:

    Govt = just another statist corporatist cult you never knew you were part of.

  22. avatar JB says:

    PA State Law requires all FFL’s to provide a lock with a handgun if not incorporated into the design. I have several of these “gun locks” and can say with some certainty that they are a joke. Give me any halfway-decent cable cutter from any hardware store in America and I can be through it in under 5 seconds.

    The only lock I have that this cannot be said of is the one that came with my 22/45 – it’s a traditional pad lock type, but that also means it can’t be used with your typical semi-auto pistol.

    For those making comments about gun safes – there is a BIG difference between a safe and a lock. The lock will only stop the laziest/dumbest criminal out there. A good safe should stop all except the most clever.

  23. avatar JMS says:

    OMG the last thing I need is another freaking free gun lock to add to the pile of them in my office. The best use I’ve found for one is to use it as a loop to hold all of the others on it hahaha

  24. avatar joe says:

    With pictures of a 22LR dressed as AR-15 clone it’s no surprise few are takining serioulsly the pro-gun folks. Or it is? Or shoudn’t be? Or we are set up from the very inside?
    Don’t you think it’s time for a more serious and rational representaiton?
    By the way……..what’s wrong with Barrett?

  25. avatar Elliotte says:

    The only money the govt should be spending on gun safety is to change the laws to allow gun-attached hearing safety devices (aka silencers) to be available for purchase like ammo or any other gun part. Likewise, they should spend more money on purchasing said hearing safety devices for all military units or designing new weapons that integrate these hearing safety devices into the firearm to save the hearing of our military members.

  26. avatar DaveL says:

    If you wanted to spend public money to enhance gun safety, I still would go with making basic marksmanship part of public school phys-ed. Teach gun safety as part of it. It would have the added benefit of alleviating, if not necessarily removing, both the mystique of the forbidden and the pants-wetting hysteria that seems to plague people raised with no exposure to firearms.

  27. avatar Stuki Moi says:

    There are few things bandied about that are inherently sillier than the drivel spouted by self proclaimed “moderates” on gun control. The whole idea of the second, validated empirically in numerous places and theoretically by anyone with even the remotest sense of realism about not only humans, but rather all beings who are the survivors in any system of evolution amidst limited resources; is that civilians should check whomever may fancy themselves their “rulers” any given time.

    Given that, the only positions I can see differentiating “moderates” from “extremist whackjobs” on gun control, is their stance on civilian WMDs. Those things can argued to be sufficiently different from anything experienced by the founders, so that one can make the argument that “if nukes had been around, Jefferson wouldn’t want just any Billy the Kid to be able to pick one up at the local general store.” But also, that you cannot really control and enslave an otherwise properly armed populace with WMDs. You can exterminate them, but not really enslave them.

    Hence, the following taxonomy:

    Moderate: all things OK for civilians, sans WMDs.
    Right wing nutjob: Civilins should be able to buy and “carry” WMDs
    Left wing whackjob: ban even some non WMDs.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email