What I wrote wasn’t that hard to understand. An adult would have been able to make the one connection that has eluded you. You have spent days refuting things that were never said and denying you said things you did. Next session see if you can get some Thorazine. I hear it helps.

As for the implied threat, we’re all tough behind a keyboard, aren’t we?

Dude – both you and hardbeliever really need to get out more if quoting The Hulk and linking to a fisking is your idea of an implied threat. If you need any more help finding your butt with both hands and a flashlight, just gimme a holler.

As for your name-calling I take that as an indication that immaturity may be a contributing factor in your inability to apply logic to the situation at hand. Of course, it is possible to be slow-witted and immature, but at least we have satisfied our curiosity about one of the possible afflictions barring you from comprehension of a simple premise.

As for the implied threat, we’re all tough behind a keyboard, aren’t we?

In other words, you’re a moron…

No shit, pal. …In contexts like this one, it’s a bit more erudite than “you arrogant dumbfuck,” ….

If you can’t, your [sic] just an idiot, …

1.The only one here who posted anything offensive using derogatory language was you.

2. Just because I had “a little fun with you” doesn’t imply that I wasn’t serious about what I wrote. I was very serious. And sometimes I find humor in a conversation. I didn’t troll, I simply responded to what you had written. Nothing more, nothing less. Reasonable people can disagree, if they’re reasonable, yes?

3. Making threats is very serious business. I trust you will graciously retract your threat and apologize to those you have threatened.

You’re very good at the nit-pick. That’s obvious. Your ability to follow the flow and overall reasoning of posts, your own included, is wanting. That’s obvious, too. Even after you’ve been shown the mat and been slapped around by virtually everyone here, you still insist on continuing until you can win. Amazing. I’m not sure what you’ve accomplished, but, no matter.

I’ve tired of having a little fun with you. And that’s all it was.

So, relax…

I never advocated laws mandating anything, ….

This entire discussion, which you started, is about mandating trigger locks.

The original post was about that. The discussion I started was about a flaw in Uncle’s logic, nothing more and nothing less. You’ll search in vain for any post, on this blog or anywhere else, where I advocating mandatory trigger locks.

Which no one advocated, …

You [I] wrote it: “Proper use of a trigger lock involves…” What else can I say?

Well, for starters you could say on what planet “proper use of a trigger lock involves…” translates into “I hereby advocate coming across a loaded, trigger-locked gun, attempting to remove the lock without first checking to see if it was loaded, and killing someone in the process.” If you can explain that, then I promise to take my ball and go home. If you can’t, your just an idiot, and unworthy of any further response. Have a nice day, “pal.”

Wait, wait, I forgot something…

Only a stupid, hyper-literal interpretation of Rule #1 would have you go on treating a gun as if it were loaded after you had personally unloaded it and retained it in your possession so that you can be certain no one else has gone back and loaded it since.

Try covering a group of responsible gun enthusiasts with the muzzle of any firearm and see how long you last in their presence. Brilliant.

…your ignorance of proper firearm handling protocols is stunning, ….

Although my original statement referred to the fatal conceit of your reasoning concerning determining outcomes, it now most surely applies to firearms handling in all its aspects.

You may now take your ball and go home.

I never advocated laws mandating anything, ….

This entire discussion, which you started, is about mandating trigger locks.

Which no one advocated, ….

You wrote it: “Proper use of a trigger lock involves…” What else can I say?

No one ever claimed you did, ….

Well, you did when you wrote:

Tell that to hardbeliever, who brilliantly concluded that I was ignorant for failing to take his and gattsuru’s hyperliteral interpretation of Rule 1 to its illogical conclusion.

See…?

No shit pal. Nobody calls their pals, “pal.”

It’s called sarcasm, pal.

Now take your ball and go home.

Xrlq, you get your pick. Which are you? Too slow-witted or too immature to be trusted with a firearm?

Neither, just sensible enough to apply a safety rule without checking my common sense at the door.

I don’t expect you will understand the above, either.

Indeed I do. What is shows is that you don’t know WTF this discussion is about. No one in this thread said anything that could remotely be construed as advocating that anyone put trigger locks on guns without checking first to ensure they were unloaded. A common sense application of Rule #1 dictates the opposite: start with the assumption that the gun is loaded, verify that it is not (or, if it was loaded after all, unload it), and then proceed to secure it – whether by trigger lock, or otherwise (personally, I prefer safes). Only a stupid, hyper-literal interpretation of Rule #1 would have you go on treating the gun as if it were loaded after you had personally unloaded it and retained it in your possession so that you can be certain no one else has gone back and loaded it since. Applying the rule that rigidly would preclude not only trigger locks, but also any other actions that require the gun to be unloaded, e.g., cleaning it, checking it as baggage on a flight, or even loading the damned thing when you actually want to shoot it.

Due to my generous nature, I will allow you to choose which malady you suffer, if you have trouble with that, guess which one I will assign you.

Oh, and if you had even begun to understand the proposition you would never have engaged in the idiocy of “hyperliteral interpretation”. That you did, reveals your lack of comprehension. Perhaps some arrogance was revealed, as well, since you chose to translate my statement to your mistaken philosophy of what you think I should have meant, rather than examine the possibility that I meant what I said, exactly, and there was another way of looking at it that had nothing to do with “hyperliteral interpretation”, but would have been entirely logical and truthful in any situation where another person had impetus to question the condition of your firearm.

I don’t expect you will understand the above, either. Please, never carry a gun.

2. The ignorance I referred to is the fatal conceit you exhibit where you think that it’s possible to design and control the outcomes of unknown, random events concerning firearm safety by legislating the inclusion of a mechanical “safety” device. See #1 above if you’re still confused.

In other words, you’re a moron with poor reading comprehension skills. I never advocated laws mandating anything, pal.

That “proper use of a trigger lock involves determining that the gun is unloaded, then locking the trigger,” is of little consequence to the person who comes across a loaded, trigger-locked gun and kills someone removing the lock.

Which no one advocated, pal.

4. I never referenced Rule 1, hyperliterally, or otherwise.

No one ever claimed you did, pal. I said you concluded I was ignorant because I refused to apply a hyperliteral version of Rule 1. Mostly, I attributed the statement to gattsuru, but to the extent you drew such moronic conclusions from my rejection of his statement, his dumb idea became yours, as well.

5. I’m not your pal.

No shit, pal. Nobody calls their pals “pal.” In contexts like this one, it’s considered a bit more erudite than “you arrogant dumbfuck,” but I could always change my habit if you prefer.

1. Nimrod45’s post came up as I was typing mine, and sums everything nicely. In either case, training and education are the answer, not government-mandated trigger locks.

2. The ignorance I referred to is the fatal conceit you exhibit where you think that it’s possible to design and control the outcomes of unknown, random events concerning firearm safety by legislating the inclusion of a mechanical “safety” device. See #1 above if you’re still confused.

3. Responsible firearms owners anticipate the worst and act accordingly when securing their arms. That “proper use of a trigger lock involves determining that the gun is unloaded, then locking the trigger,” is of little consequence to the person who comes across a loaded, trigger-locked gun and kills someone removing the lock. Trigger locks are inherently dangerous for obvious reasons. They are an invitation for disaster.

4. I never referenced Rule 1, hyperliterally, or otherwise.

5. I’m not your pal.

The only one being hyper-literal around here is Xrlq.

Nope, that would be gattsuru, who got us off on this tangent in the first place by arguing that trigger locks should never be used because “all guns are loaded” (and we all know trigger locks should not be used on guns that really are loaded).

Ridicule and derision are not what I would call effective teaching techniques. A simple correction instead of indulging in picking fly specks out of pepper would have sufficed.

Tell that to hardbeliever, who brilliantly concluded that I was ignorant for failing to take his and gattsuru’s hyperliteral interpretation of Rule 1 to its illogical conclusion.

Ridicule and derision are not what I would call effective teaching techniques. A simple correction instead of indulging in picking fly specks out of pepper would have sufficed.

A hyper-literal interpretation of rule 1 is absolutely needed.

People who do not take rule 1 hyper-literally will eventually destroy something or someone with an N.D.

Nonsense. To falsely claim that “all guns are loaded,” rather than sensibly arguing that all guns should be treated as though they were loaded, adds nothing of value to the debate. All it brings is stupid discussions like this one.

No one really believes in the hyper-literal interpretation, anyway. If you really believed all guns were loaded, you’d never have reason to load one.

Trigger locks won’t save all of the children who, without the law, will die of accidental gunshot wounds (as 151 did in 2003, according to the CDC).

Looks to me like they’re up to their old tricks; redefining “child” to include late teenagers.

Anybody know what “CDC” stats they’re quoting, just to see how old they had to go to get to that number?

People who do not take rule 1 hyper-literally will eventually destroy something or someone with an N.D.

The damned things are worse than useless.

For someone so opinionated on this topic, your ignorance of proper firearm handling protocols is stunning, and embarrasses you.

Sorry, pal, but my supposed ignorance does not embarass me in the least. Your tendency to jump to conclusions ought to embarass you, but judging by the cock-sure tone of your post, I suspect it doesn’t. Just for grits and shins, though, perhaps you’d care to elaborate as to what, precisely, you think I am ignorant about. This should be good.

Straightarrow:

When asked “Is that gun loaded?” The only proper response is “Yep”.

If the gun is in fact loaded, that is correct. Otherwise, that’s a rather stupid answer, based on a hyper-literal interpretation of Rule 1. A more sensible application of the same rule would be to answer “Probably not, but we can’t be 100% sure of that so until the action is open and we can see it’s not loaded, let’s treat it as though it is.”

If you can’t grasp the next logical assumption, then you are too slow-witted or too immature to be trusted with a gun.

I’m sorry, when I said ‘pick’, I guess you thought I was referring to the use of a lockpick set made of spring steel. That does work, but…

So does a hammer.

I fail to see why you defend state-mandated and taxpayer-funded pieces of junk. Those obsessed enough to ’secure’ their gun can purchase a cable lock for less than a twentieth of the price of their handgun or rifle, and those will actually do somethin useful.

Do us all a favor, and grab a trigger lock next time you head to Wally World, they’re less than ten dollars a pop, then apply one to a fire extinguisher. See how hard it is to break, and how hard it would be to get off in an emergency.

Safety is a state of mind.

Responsible people understand this and apply it. That is why we treat any firearm as if it were loaded, until we satisfy ourselves one way or the other.

That is also why we handle guns with the muzzle pointing in the safest possible direction, and why we keep our fingers off the trigger until we are ready to shoot.

Mechanical safety devices should be relied on only to guard against the remotest of accidental occurrences, like a branch getting snagged in your trigger guard and causing your gun to discharge.

No safe handling technique or safety device is 100% foolproof – we can only hope to try and minimize the damage from unintended discharges. But relying on safety devices, instead of education and training is just a recipie for disaster.

I don’t think anyone said that. I said the irresponsible will not.

“No one” among those deemed insufficiently responsible to go out and purchase trigger locks on their own if they weren’t sold with the guns. Which is silly, unless you think being a little bit responsible is as fallacious as being a little bit pregnant.

gattsuru:

First, guns are always loaded.

Wrong. Loaded guns are always loaded. Unloaded ones never are.

Assuming otherwise has been the eulogy of many a fool.

Assuming a loaded gun is unloaded can indeed be deadly. So too can assuming an unloaded gun is loaded, and then attempting to use it for self-defense. No one is advocating that anyone assume anything. Proper use of a trigger lock involves determining that the gun is unloaded, then locking the trigger.

Secondly, how much ’safer’ is an unloaded and ‘triggerlocked’ gun compared to a gun that’s simply unlocked?

Much. My toddler probably hasn’t quite reached the point where he could load an unlocked gun, but it won’t be too long before he can. Picking a lock is a whole ‘nother ball of wax. By the time he can do that, maybe he can figure out the combination to my safe, too. No solution is 100% failsafe.

Assuming that an unloaded gun is loaded

First, guns are always loaded. Assuming otherwise has been the eulogy of many a fool.

Secondly, how much ’safer’ is an unloaded and ‘triggerlocked’ gun compared to a gun that’s simply unlocked? And, do remember, each and every one of those trigger locks are remarkably easy to pick (I used them as practice a coupla times), and often don’t have to be disabled to load the gun. In fact, some guns will fire despite having the trigger lock on.

If you want a gun to be ’safe’, the only assured ways are to A) completely prevent access, or B) prevent any ammo from being loaded. Trigger locks do nothing to either of the above.

fallacy of assuming that no one will use them

I don’t think anyone said that. I said the irresponsible will not.

I like to think that if my car didn’t come with seatbelts, I’d get them installed anyway. I also recognize that some people are too stupid to wear seatbelts even though they do come with the car. But I’d have to be on crack to argue that 100% of the people who are responsible enough to wear seatbelts today would also be responsible enough to go out of their way to get the damned things installed in their cars if they were not standard issue to begin with.

I have a stack of trigger locks that I never use. But I have a gun safe.

Mandating trigger locks is largely pointless. People who are not responsible will not use them even if they come with the gun. Period.

No, not “period.” Responsibility is not something that can be reduced to ones and zeros, where you either have it all or you have none. Setting aside the more complex question of who should use trigger locks, and when, common sense dictates that while some of us are responsible enough that we’ll go out and buy trigger locks on our own, and others are so irresponsible that we won’t use them even if they came with the gun, at least some of us fall in between. The most obvious example is the semi-responsible gun owner who has been meaning to lock up his guns, but just hasn’t gotten around to purchasing that trigger lock.