Talk:Trigger lock

POV

First off, it only lists why trigger locks aren't a good idea - a very one-sided view, and secondly, half the points come straight from the NRA website. Even then, some of them are logically a stretch and not really relevant to the issues.

This page definitely needs the inclusion of some points on the other side, and some more varied sourcing. Until then, it's not fit. 74.110.171.44 02:20, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That seems very presumptive, unless it can be shown that a good counterpoint exists at all. 71.178.239.55 21:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've never known a firearms owner to advocate their use. I am sure that there are some, however, or some who claim to be, who do. I think they are more likely to cause an accident than to prevent one, and so won't look for the other side. htom (talk) 19:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

I've put the POV tag back; this is like the opening paragraph of an advocate's speech demanding them, ignoring the problems that exist. htom (talk) 00:32, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any advocacy in the opening paragraph. It states what the device is designed to do and how it attempts to do so. It doesn't suggest it is safe or unsafe or effective or ineffective or anything like that. How could you describe the device without such a paragraph? If there are statistics from reliable sources about the dangers or efficacy of these devices then, great, those should be added. But the article looks like a very neutral stub to me right now. --Ds13 (talk) 01:22, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Short" list

I'm not sure how the California list qualifies as short--it's 23 pages... Nukeqler (talk) 01:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

I removed the word "short". -- Avenue (talk) 14:04, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed Merge

Propose merge to gun safety. There is already information there regarding trigger locks and the information contained in this article would not add much more bulk there. --Steelerdon (talk) 00:22, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

• Oppose They are very different topics. This is a thing, that is human actions. htom (talk) 02:41, 13 April 2010 (UTC)

• The safety article is not solely about human actions. There are sections which discuss safes (storage), various kinds of locks, safety features of firearms (loaded chamber indicators), safety with regard to noise, debris, gasses, etc. This article doesn't offer mountains of information and there is already a Locks section of that article. Is there really enough information here to justify a separate article rather than moving the information there and having "Trigger Lock" redirect to that article, if not specifically that section? (Steelerdon (talk) 20:33, 14 April 2010 (UTC))

I don't think that loaded chamber indicators are "safety devices"; I think they're death traps, leading people to believe and then behave as if a firearm is not loaded. When the safety fails -- and they can and do fail -- people can die as a result. Trigger locks are a particular, much advocated, non-solution to the problem of people trying to blame firearms for human acts. If the gun is unloaded, the trigger lock is not needed to prevent a "negligent discharge", if it is loaded, installing the trigger lock can cause and has caused such a discharge. I have heard people say that they are intended to increase firearms accidents. Having a separate article might lead more understanding of their danger. htom (talk) 00:54, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

It may well be the case that loaded chamber indicators an trigger locks are not effective at preventing ADs or NDs, but WP is meant to be a source of encyclopedic knowledge and references to sources rather than editorials on disputed topics. As such, they are both already included in the Gun Safety article.

The first paragraph, a general description of the lock's intended function is already covered in the Gun Safety article, as are jurisdictional differences (in greater detail, no less, for one of the two locales mentioned here.

The second paragraph of the article, which is the bulk of it, is largely unnecessary and and could be summed up by mentioning that use of the locks is controversial or their effectiveness disputed with the appropriate references to source material cited in that paragraph. (Steelerdon (talk) 17:56, 15 April 2010 (UTC))

I'm still opposed. This is one of those "hot button" topics that every once a while flares up, and I'd rather the argument about what this topic should say, be confined to this page, rather than spreading throughout the gun safety page. I understand the desire for conciseness -- and even agree that that can be a good thing -- but I don't think that it is appropriate for this particular page. Sorry. I do seem to be the only one opposed, though. You might mention this on the gun safety talk page, perhaps I'm excessively cautious. htom (talk) 21:15, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

No biggie. I seem to be the only one "for." That's what the discussion pages are for, so this type of stuff isn't decided by one person or a small minority. Like you said, no sense in dragging additional BS into the gun safety page; I'm fine with it staying where it is and letting it be found as people browse through, merge proposal removed or whatever. Cheers, (Steelerdon (talk) 03:41, 16 April 2010 (UTC))

I put a note on the gun safety talk page, maybe others will show up. Seems to have become a low-activity group of pages. This is probably a good thing. Stay safe! htom (talk) 16:43, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

- I agree with the merge. The section in 'Gun safety' would be totally redundant, also, the references to this and other kinds of gun locks are too short as to have a separate articles, and would be illogic to split off only one kind of lock unless there was really a lot to say about them but there is not. This article is only 16 lines long, even it's talk page is twice as big. I see no reason to have a separate article for so little information and make people jump into articles unnecessarily. Tauiris - C8CADB5D 14:28, 27 April 2010 (UTC)