Improved Guns, Inc. is marketing a device aimed at making guns “safer”.

Port St. Lucie, Florida April 13, 2011 — Improved Guns Inc., a not for profit company, is founded to promote the US Pat 7,036,258, which is aimed at eliminating accidental shooting. The passive device is a pin that must be broken before the gun can be shot. Any firearm can be adapted by drilling a small hole in which to insert the appropriate pin. These pins are made with incremental breaking thresholds having a range of 11.5-15.5 lbs. Improved Guns, Inc. can easily retrofit all guns at our cost, although donations are appreciated. Hopefully, new guns will soon include this device.

The Firearm Blog has some more pictures of the device, as installed on some handguns.

Now on the one hand, this sort of solution is better than things like the so-called “Safety Bullet“. This pin-device strives to make it harder for the trigger to be pressed, but not impossible, and the gun is ultimately still operable. So I’ll give the inventor some credit towards trying to find a solution that attempts to address an issue but doesn’t negate the usefulness of the tool.

But I still have problems with it.

What’s the most important shot? The first shot. You’ve now made your first shot exponentially difficult to make reasonably and accurately. Heavy triggers like that are not an aid for fast, accurate shooting. As well, you’ve now taken a gun that likely has one very consistent trigger press (e.g. the 1911 showcased in TFB’s pictures) and now you’ve given it 2 vastly different presses… so now you’ve made a good gun into a crappy gun with the equivalent of a DA/SA action. Bad bad bad. If your life is on the line and every second matters, why do this to yourself?

And let’s not forget, if this is all in the name of safety and preserving innocent life well… 1. best to ensure that first hit is a good hit on the intended target (e.g. the bad guy) as that betters your chances of preserving your innocent life, 2. if that first shot misses because of that trigger press, where did that bullet go? could it hit an innocent person? How does that make this a better solution?

The inventor, Lanny Lee says, “The only thing that makes this invention seem like a safety is that curious little children can’t shoot themselves or their buddies when they find the gun.” Mr. Lee added, “What the world needs least is another gun lock; what it needs are safer guns, and this device has surpassed all expectations in field trials.”

Oh yes they still can shoot themselves. Kids are amazingly strong, and with some kids if you give them a challenge they’re more apt to do ugly things to overcome that challenge. The wording presented throughout the website makes it as if children can’t shoot themselves with this device. So what happens when the first child does? Should make for an interesting lawsuit.

But the real question is: why are they finding the guns in the first place? If guns aren’t being stored properly well, how are you going to overcome that? Someone that’s going to be irresponsible with their storage and you expect them to be responsible by installing this device? Yes, we don’t need another gun lock, but we don’t need safer guns: we need safer people, we need responsible people. Guns are what they are and you can’t change that, so the impetus is on us to behave better. People should be storing their guns in a proper manner, as well as teaching their children proper handling and respect for firearms.

There is a rapidly growing problem of accidental shootings due to the growing purchase of automatic firearms. New owners are unlikely to store their guns safely, leading to guns falling into the wrong hands. The passive pin device prevents accidental discharge; in a stressful situation, the inexperienced will discharge the gun out of control if the trigger has too light pressure.”

Hrm… “automatic firearms”. You’d hope if the inventor “has handled and shot guns throughout his life” that he’d know that’s not the correct term. As well, yes, inexperienced shooters can yank/slap the trigger under stress, but the solution isn’t an administrative one (as was the whole reason for why DA/SA guns and Glock “New York II” triggers were invented), but one of education, instruction, and training. I also find a problem with his assumption that gun owners default to unsafe storage. But again, if they’re going to be irresponsible in storage, what makes you think they’d be so responsible to start using this device?

He gives us a clue!

“Despite owner’s demands, and overwhelming studies, Detroit refused to provide seat belts until the late 60’s, except as an expensive option. This continued to 1978 when the gov’t required them to be installed. One has only to look at the old 50’s cars to see how the industry spent vast amounts on useless things like padded dashboards. Only liability suits changed their attitude. Gun maker’s reception to this life saving device has ranged from contempt to cold indifference, while their attitude seems to convey they can stand in the rain and won’t get wet.”

I see. It sounds like he’s hoping to get his device adopted by use of governmental force. Hrm… I’m not really sure I like this. Assumption that people are irresponsible and must be cared for by someone who knows better. Wishes to use the power of government to force things upon us, which of course lead to a lot of revenue for him.

You know… you can argue the merits of the device all you want. But the mentality behind it? I think it stinks.

Updated: I just had Daughter and Youngest try the trigger press on a new, factory stock Smith & Wesson 640-3. I don’t have a trigger pull-weight gauge so I don’t know the exact amount, but I can tell you it’s heavy… probably in that 12-15 lbs. range. With one finger, neither could make the trigger budge even a millimeter. Using 2 fingers (both index fingers), no problem.

So you know… where there’s a will, there’s a way. This sort of device isn’t going to prevent irresponsible gun handling and storage, which is really the root problem. Let’s work to address the real root problem, not symptoms.