Skip to main content

View Diary: Stop Blaming Newtown Tragedy On Mental Illness (301 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    entlord, Silvia Nightshade

    A lock will yield to tampering eventually, period - it's just a question of whether it takes five minutes or five weeks or five months.  There is no 100% safe lock-down method that can absolutely, positively not be defeated.  Regarding the fingerprint locks -- he could have killed his mother with a knife in her sleep, then "borrowed" her finger to defeat the fingerprint lock on the gun safe, and then went and shot up the school, for example.

    Locks buy time and increase inconvenience.  If a lock is sufficiently inconvenient to a perpetrator they will either give up or seek another path to their goal.  

    Please note that I'm in favor of the lock-down strategy, my point here is just to note that contrary to what you imply here, no lock is utterly fool-proof and invincible, given a sufficiently determined and clever perpetrator.

    •  Locks Don't Need To Hold Up Indefinitely... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      ...just long enough for the would-be thief to attract unwanted attention.

      In this case, detecting an attempt to get into the gun safe (either red-handed or via traces of tampering) would have been grounds to get the perp locked up before he was able to actually do anything.

      On the Internet, nobody knows if you're a dog... but everybody knows if you're a jackass.

      by stevemb on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:41:05 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Perfect Enemy of Good (0+ / 0-)

      I said:

      Harm reduction is never perfect, but it's better than nothing.

      Gun locks will reduce harm. They're not 100% perfect, but they're good enough that they're worth doing.

      "When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro." - HST

      by DocGonzo on Thu Dec 20, 2012 at 04:40:19 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site