Est. May 2008

22 May, 2013

Smart Guns And Stupid People

One of our local op-ed writers scribed out this piece, in which he maintains that smart-guns are a great idea.

How do smart-guns work?
Smart guns fire by recognizing a ring on the owner's finger. The ring has a black square with encrypted codes that identify the owner.
Okay, so in order to fire the weapon, you have to be wearing a ring…which, being a ring, can be taken off.

Remember that; it’ll come up in a bit.
                 
In order for my clips to be understandable, here’s our cast of characters:

Joe Bartozzi, VP of Mossberg & Sons.

Philadelphia, PA mayor Michael Nutter

Minneapolis mayor RT Rybak.

Okay, here we go.
Smart gun technology also could address an issue many don't like to talk about: suicide.

Earlier this month, Connecticut Gov. Dannel Malloy said 19,000 people commit suicide every year because there's a gun in their home.

If there wasn't a gun in that house and they didn't commit suicide at the time they contemplated it, their chances of committing suicide at any time drops by 90%, according to Malloy.
Let’s dispense with the obvious right away: of course, if there was no gun in the house the person wouldn’t have shot him/herself with it, you idiot.

Not so obvious is how so-called ‘smart guns’ could have stopped suicide.  If the suicide is the person who owns the gun, all they have to do is put on the ring, put the gun to their head, and pull the trigger.; if it’s another member of the household, all they need to do is have access to the ring and, well, follow the steps outlined above.

Oh, and then there’s this point:
One also could argue that if the guns used at Sandy Hook had smart gun technology, things may have turned out differently.
Really?  How?  If the shooter (who, by the way, failed a background check) had no problems killing his own mother and stealing her guns, do you think he wouldn’t have known that those guns were ‘safe-guns’ and hunted up the ring that went with them?  It’s not like he was in that much of a rush that he wouldn’t have.

Now we come to what I consider to be one of the true motives behind this ‘smart-gun’ technology, at least as seen by the ProgLibDem gun-restriction crowd:
"You say the public doesn't want this. I would argue that the public didn't want seat belts in cars either at one time, but that turned out being a good thing," Rybak told Bartozzi.

Nutter and Rybak cited a number of cases in which children were killed accidentally because they were able to get their hands on guns that parents thought they had hidden away. That alone should be reason enough to push for smart guns to be a part of the complicated gun debate.
VP Bartozzi caught the implication right off the bat:
Since Sandy Hook, Bartozzi said the media often has portrayed gun owners as "beer-bellied," "Elmer Fudd types who are irresponsible.

An overwhelming majority of gun owners are responsible, but you can't have a civil discussion when one side is portrayed in such a negative way, Bartozzi said.
As the song says, Whoop, there it is: one of the pushes for ‘smart-guns’ – and all other gun-control measures – is the conception certain ProgLibDems have that other people are irresponsible dolts who need nanny-state laws to keep them from hurting themselves; the seat-belt law, like car-seat laws and helmets-for-bicyclists laws and all the rest are the same thing.

You want kids not to play with guns? Then you as parents ought to teach your kids not to touch guns – at least until they’re old enough, mentally mature enough, and have had training in the proper handling and use of them. There are tons of 8-, 9-, 10-year olds who’re old hands at firearms because they’ve been taught what they are, what they’re used for, and what they can do in the hands of reckless people; there are also 20-, 30-, 40-year-olds who I wouldn’t trust to pick up a squirt-gun.

Once again, what are we looking at here? A general refusal to hold people accountable for their own actions and for people to show a little personal responsibility. Rather than keep people like our most recent homicidal maniacs from getting their hands on guns, and rather than teaching our children proper respect for firearms, and rather than trying to assist people who are contemplating suicide, let’s just make a law that affects everybody.

Because, you know, it’s for the children…or it’s only fair that everybody suffers…or…something.
And then our intrepid writer pens this:
I'm a gun owner who believes in the Second Amendment, but I don't believe people should have the freedom to buy whatever type of gun they feel best meets their needs.
Okay, there’s a word for this kind of statement, I know it.  Give me a minute…it’ll come to me.

Oh, right.  Doublethink.

No comments: