Ed Ten dead in Sante Fe, Texas, school shooting.

[lobosrul5]

Your video says that the lock would have to be installed incorrectly for the Glock to fire.

The trigger lock post actually goes behind the trigger, not in front of it.

If the bar/post cannot be placed behind the trigger, then the lock does not fit the gun/should not be used on the gun.

For the type that fit inside the trigger guard, like the one in the video, they also have to be installed correctly or they won't work.

Even if installed wrong and loose, such that the trigger could be pulled, the operation would be slow. You would not be firing the gun rapidly.

You can also buy quite a few guns now with a built in keylock in the firing mechanism. You can also buy many pistols that will not fire if the magazine is removed.

Plus, the overall point is that there are low-cost locks that you can buy that work. There are low cost options to secure your firearms from your kids. There are safer choices out there.

Unless you know where the little "button" (is that the right word?) is inside the magazine well like on a Browning Hi-Power.

 

[Bob001]

Your video says that the lock would have to be installed incorrectly for the Glock to fire.

The trigger lock post actually goes behind the trigger, not in front of it.

If the bar/post cannot be placed behind the trigger, then the lock does not fit the gun/should not be used on the gun.
......

That's not what Masterlock says. From the instructions:

INSERT front lock unit (section with key hole) with ratchet post positioned through trigger guard, behind trigger if possible.

https://www.masterlock.com/personal-use/product/90DSPT [link to pdf]

They're not telling you not to use it with the post in front of the trigger.

Sure, any lock is probably better than no lock. And firearms shouldn't be stored loaded. The writer's point is that a cheap trigger lock does not eliminate the inherent hazards of guns or the necessity to store them safely.

 

[fuelair]

It would've made zero difference. Try to think about this logically. Laws don't work. It's against the law to bring a firearm into a gun-free zone; this kid brought two guns. It's against the law to kill; this kid killed ten people. It's against the law for a minor to buy an AR-15, but the other laws didn't stop him. Therefore, we must logically conclude that he didn't want an AR-15. If the father did have an AR-15, the kid would've left it behind.

In all fairness, laws do not stop any crime, they just allow punishment for those who break them. And a trial is additionally required if they are caught though not if killed during the commission of the crime.

 

[fuelair]

I didn't say I was "getting hung up". I suggested that you weren't making sense.

And those are not at all the same!!!!

 

[Bob001]

In all fairness, laws do not stop any crime, they just allow punishment for those who break them. And a trial is additionally required if they are caught though not if killed during the commission of the crime.

Sure, the prospect of punishment discourages rational would-be criminals. We all become more careful drivers when we see a state trooper in our rear-view. Laws don't have much effect on someone who is crazy or suicidal. But laws can reduce the availability of firearms to someone who might abuse them. There are legitimate questions to be raised about what kinds of firearms should be available for civilian possession and use, and how they should be bought, sold, transported and stored. 80 percent of Americans don't own any guns, and three percent of Americans hold half of all guns in civilian hands. If there were fewer guns in the society as a whole, fewer would be accessible to the crazies.

 

[jimbob]

He will have great difficulty getting the guns that are already there. ... you are not making sense.

There would be restrictions on transfer. (I already said that, and noted other ways to reduce the number of guns, none of which would have a significant effect on gun owners.)

The actual guns you are afraid of will still exist in the same numbers besides ones that get so old they cannot be repaired. And trust me with proper care that will be a long time.

As gun rights advocates so often note, the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding. If it's illegal to sell their gun, they won't sell their gun. If you've had an AR-15 for years, I'm not all that worried about you. If you are going out to buy a new one just after you got fired, I'm much more nervous.

Seems you just want someone to do something so you can point to it and be proud, not a real solution.

There is no real solution, but I do want to provide a partial solution. If it had been illegal to sell a gun to Nick Cruz, I believe all, or at least most, of those 17 dead people at MSD High School would be alive today.

Seems you want to put the kibosh on anything that might do a small bit of good, so you can point to your principled stance on gun rights, or something.

We'll see as the elections roll around whether attitudes in America really have changed. I don't know the answer to that.

I actually think the effect would be quicker than people suppose.

Currently US criminals tend to use one gun for one crime - that way it's harder to trace. This means that whilst legal guns might last decades, any that become illegal have a far shorter half-life.

Rand report with links to PDF here
https://www.rand.org/pubs/technical_reports/TR512.html

Quoting from full report

Using our new tool, we conducted initial analyses of illegal gun markets serving criminals in the target area. Results showed that many crime guns were first purchased at local—that is, in-county—licensed dealers, rather than from out of state. That is, contrary to the conventional
wisdom in the Southern California law-enforcement community that crime guns were being trafficked across state borders from places with less stringent regulations, such as Arizona and Nevada, we found that a majority of the guns used in crimes were purchased in Los Angeles County. Furthermore, we found that, when the firearm possessor was not the original purchaser, the geographic distance between the two was quite small. In more than one-third of all such instances in the 77th Street study area, the original legal purchaser resided within 4.5 miles of 77th Street. Based on its investigative experience, the interagency working group suggested that the local nature of the market was driven by prohibited possessors who were having local friends or family members conduct straw purchases for them.

Pierce, Braga, Hyatt, and Koper (2004) noted that, based on inmate surveys, as many as half of all crime guns may be diverted to offenders through theft (James D. Wright and Rossi, 1994). Conversely, this suggests that at least half of crime guns make their way to offenders through one of a series of nontheft primary- or secondary-market transactions. The available
data make it difficult to compare the relative importance of illegal diversions from the primary and secondary markets. Analyses of firearm-trace data indicate that new firearms are more likely to be used as crime guns than are older firearms (see, e.g., Kennedy, Piehl, and Braga, 1996b; Cook and Braga, 2001). A third of James D. Wright and Peter H. Rossi’s (1994) male prison inmates reported that their most recently acquired handgun was new rather than used, and 21 percent purchased their most recently acquired handgun from a retail outlet. The acquisitions from licensed dealers could have occurred in a variety of ways: buys from corrupt FFLs; theft from FFLs (3 percent of Wright and Rossi’s respondents had stolen their most recent gun from a gun store); buys from FFLs through fraudulent means, including straw purchases, the use of fake identification, or the provision of false information about buyer eligibility; or legal buys from FFLs (a respondent may have had a clean record at the time of the most recent purchase). Thus, existing research indicates that illegal diversions from both the primary and secondary markets are important sources of guns for prohibited users. See Pierce, Braga, Koper, et al. (2003) for a more extensive examination of the source of crime guns.

It looks like a typical Pareto:

In 2000, ATF conducted focused compliance inspections of dealers who had been uncooperative in response to trace requests and of FFLs who had 10 or more crime guns (regardless of time to crime) traced to them in 1999 (ATF, 2000a). The inspections disclosed violations in about 75 percent of the 1,012 dealers inspected. Nearly half (47 percent) of the dealers had at least one inventory discrepancy. While the majority of the discrepancies were resolved during the inspection process, 202 FFLs could not account for some 13,271 missing guns. Sixteen FFLs each had more than 200 missing guns. More than 57 percent had at least one violation relating to a failure to properly execute transaction paperwork, and 54 percent failed to maintain
a complete and accurate record book. The focused compliance inspections identified sales to more than 400 potential firearm traffickers and nearly 300 potentially prohibited persons, resulting in 691 referrals sent to ATF agents for further investigation (ATF, 2000a).