Another Gun-Grabber in Camo

TriggerFinger shows us www.huntersandshooters.com. Another interesting little hunter's site that has an odd smell to it.

I went to the web-site and straight to the "home-defense" section. I didn't find it unreasonable, but it still didn't strike me as providing any useful information. The whole article strikes me as the usual liberal naval gazing that doesn't provide anything helpful.

In deciding whether a firearm in the home is a risk or a benefit, four common sense factors must be considered:

1. Is a firearm in the home more likely to be used to protect its owner or is it more likely to be used against a member of the household?
2. How frequently are guns used for self-protection?
3. How effective are handguns when they are used for self-protection?
4. Overall, how safe are guns in the home?

There are certain factors that weigh heavily against keeping a gun in the home for self-protection. One of the most widely quoted statements about guns is that a firearm kept in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a family member than an intruder. This comes from the Journal of Medicine in 1986, following a six-year review of gunshot deaths in Seattle, Washington, conducted by Dr. Arthur Kellermann and others. The validity of this study in determining the value and risk of firearms for home protection has been questioned. The Kellermann study focused only on defensive gun uses where the criminal intruder was shot and killed. Instances in which intruders or assailants were wounded or frightened away were not included.

They name one of the worst studies and point there is controversy and then drop the discussion. That strikes me as odd. Why not also provide discussion of a study that shows the opposite result to provide a balance in the debate? Maybe because they don't want you to come up with the logic that supports gun ownership for defense? I can't speak to their reasoning, but I find it dishonest to fail to provide balance. (Oh, by the way I find the same issue with the NRA.)

Realistically speaking, in order to safely keep a firearm in the home for self-protection, one must create a situation in which the firearm is readily available when needed, yet inaccessible or inoperative to others.

Quick release trigger locks, chamber/cylinder locks or special locked cases that can be instantly opened by authorized individuals are options that should be considered.

The most important responsibility is ensuring that children do not and cannot gain access to a loaded gun.

I've tried a bunch of different trigger locks. I've never seen one that could be defined as "quick release." I'm also not on with the "most important responsibility" statement having to do with only the safety of children. I'm quite certain that your child seeing you lying in a pool of blood because you couldn't get the trigger lock off may nullify that responsibility.

It must come down to having the ability to reasonably protect yourself and your family and preventing the improper access to the firearm to the children. It can't be only protecting the children. If you're dead or incapacitated, then there is no one to protect them. Maybe the police if you get lucky and delay the attacker long enough, but you can't and shouldn't count on that.

Take a look. I'm sure you can make up your own mind.