Opinion

The home security system Fredrick Kunkle really needed

Though intended to make guns safer, the locks fail the test no matter how one views guns. For those who believe guns can play an important role in self-defense, the locks mean delay and lack of emergency access. By the time the author retrieved the key and his glasses and found adequate lighting to defeat the lock, a “real” bad guy could have easily beaten the author to death with any convenient blunt object.

From the perspective of gun-control advocates, trigger locks save lives. But that’s if and only if they cannot be defeated by unauthorized users. I am an experienced revolversmith. I can defeat the system without a key in under 10 minutes, if I’m working carefully. A less careful criminal in a hurry would need only $5 or a small screwdriver and three minutes to accomplish the same feat. Keys are available online at the low rate of two for $9.99, no proof of permit required. And the lock is simple enough that a smart, motivated 10-year-old could find the gun and a parent’s key ring, and unlock the firearm. Fortunately, Smith & Wesson does ship every revolver with a separate cable and padlock. Parents who use these additional security measures will find that their firearm is safer and less accessible to children than if they merely relied on the internal locking system.

It is long past time for Smith & Wesson to stop installing that abomination internal locking system in their otherwise fine revolvers.

J.P. Knox, Columbus, Ohio

I’m dumbfounded that The Post devoted an entire page to an essay by a writer who could have killed a man who blundered into his home. Decisions as fateful as keeping a gun in the home for protection should be based on more than anecdotes.

Although most gun-owning households believe firearms confer protection, the opposite is true. Keeping a gun in the home increases a family’s risk of harm.

Years ago, a team I led found that for every time a gun in the home was used to injure or kill in self-defense, there were four accidental shootings, seven criminal assaults or homicides and 11 attempted or completed suicides — a lopsided ratio of 22 to 1. Many studies have found that the odds that a homicide or suicide will occur in a home are substantially higher if one or more guns are kept there. Though Fredrick Kunkle kept his gun unloaded, firearms kept for protection are often stored loaded and readily available, a practice that can put them within tragic reach of curious children, an angry spouse or a depressed teen. If stolen or smuggled out the door to school, the weapon may harm innocent people. Ignoring these facts, the firearms industry and its political allies have amplified fear of crime and exaggerated the protective value of guns to push sales to record heights. They don’t need a free full-page ad in The Post.

Arthur Kellermann, Richmond

I would like to point out to Fredrick Kunkle the peace of mind that comes with purchasing a reputable home security system. While he left the front door unlocked by accident, not arming the home alarm system would have meant neglecting two tasks, lapses highly unlikely in a person who was sufficiently concerned with personal safety to purchase a revolver.

With the house alarm triggered, the police would be on their way immediately. The screaming of the alarm siren might have scared off the intruder. Mr. Kunkle could have stayed locked in his bedroom upstairs until the police officers arrived and spared himself the worry about loading a pistol. Most important, Mr. Kunkle’s inner debate regarding the legality and the morality of taking another person’s life would have been unnecessary.

Song Yu, Glen Head, N.Y.

Fredrick Kunkle described a terrifying event: An intruder rummaged through his Adams Morgan home around 2:35 a.m. and belligerently refused to leave after Mr. Kunkle shouted multiple orders. Police arrested the intruder nearby, and Mr. Kunkle identified him but declined to press charges since “he had no criminal record or any connection to other calls in the neighborhood that night about possible break-ins.”

Mr. Kunkle focused his opinion on gun ownership and his decision not to shoot. But what about his decision not to press charges? What if the police had decided to arrest this person, and a prosecutor had pursued charges? Would Mr. Kunkle have declined to voluntarily testify to the facts or defied a subpoena to testify truthfully to a grand jury or in a trial?

The police acceded to Kunkle’s wishes, telling him that if the intruder were to be “caught prowling inside another house …he would not be able to pretend that the intrusion was another mistake.” According to this logic, another family must suffer the same experience that left Kunkle so shaken, or perhaps worse, before this man would be held accountable.

Police and prosecutors decide the appropriate charges. Judges decide the appropriate punishment, after consideration of an offender’s background and circumstances, including drug or alcohol abuse. Mr. Kunkle decided not to shoot the intruder in his home, but his decision not to press charges short-circuited the criminal justice system and potentially puts others at risk.

Joseph A. Capone, Oakton

Unlike Fredrick Kunkle, I’m glad I don’t have a gun, and am glad I never needed one. What I do have is the best security system in Arlington.

When I purchased my new townhouse 43 years ago, I learned that most break-ins and burglaries occur within the first year of occupancy. I took a white index card and taped it at eye level to my front and rear doors. With a Sharpie in hand, I neatly wrote, “Workmen: Before doing the required work, please check with me to make sure my snakes are secured in their cages.”

My only prayer was that anyone attempting to break in could read. Friends and neighbors asked the same four questions:

How many snakes do you have? Two. What kind are they? A boa and a python. How big are they? Three feet and five feet. I would then ask, “Would you like to see them?” Everyone emphatically replied, “No!” The only three people who took me up on my invitation were the Arlington County police officer who performed the security check offered by the Police Department, the locksmith who installed my deadbolts and the 10-year-old-daughter of one of my neighbors.

Had I been Mr. Kunkle, instead of yelling, “What the hell are you doing?” I would have yelled, “Don’t step on the snakes!"

Elliott B. Jaffa, Arlington

The author sent a message to the reader that owning a gun is a positive thing, which is far from the truth. Having a stranger enter one’s home is a terrifying prospect, no doubt, but owning a gun is not the ultimate answer to this problem. Guns are too easily accessible to the public in the United States, and without strict gun law reforms, there will never be an end to excessive gun violence and the tragic loss of life that accompanies it.

In the United States between Jan. 1 and Feb. 15 alone, almost 5,000 people died due to gun violence in the United States. In 2023, more than 40,000 people were killed by gun violence. These disturbing statistics represent a tragic choice. The rate of deaths in the United States from gun violence in 2021 was 340 times higher than in Britain, which is due to the extremely strict gun-control measures in Britain. The Australian government initiated a mandatory gun buyback strategy in 1996 that cut Australia’s gun-related deaths in half. Reducing the number of gun-related deaths by making guns harder to access is an obtainable goal for the United States and has been proved to work in other parts of the world. It’s time for the individual rights of Americans to be reassessed for the greater good of our country.

Fredrick Kunkle might have felt as if he was glad to have a gun in that moment. But if fewer civilians had access to guns, many lives could be saved.

Andrea Carol-Libman, Fullerton, Calif.