The "Personalized Handgun Safety Act of 2013" sounds friendly, doesn't it? How can anyone disagree with safety? It won't be welcomed by many, perhaps most, firearms owners though.
Democratic Representative John Tierney has introduced legislation to "require handgun manufacturers to personalize their weapons to make them impossible to fire if they fall into the wrong hands". As the article points out "technology...already exists". It's, of course, another "common sense reform to save lives" (gun control) measure.
The cost would be put upon the manufacturers to incorporate their technology solutions within 2 years of the bill's passage. That cost would, no doubt, be passed on to consumers. This part is interesting though, "And individuals or businesses selling older handguns must have them retrofitted with personalization technology within three years after the bill is enacted, at the expense of the federal government." Got that "at the expense of the federal government" part? There are an estimated 300 MILLIONS firearms in circulation. Do all tax payers really want to pay to retrofit all those firearms over the next many decades? I certainly don't - just like I don't want to fund meaningless, 'feel good' gun buy-backs with my tax dollars.
"This does not in any way restrict somebody’s ability to own a gun. It recognizes and honors the second amendment." Unless you can't AFFORD it, of course. Will the federal government subsidize the cost of the added technology? It's not mentioned for new firearms. Imagine how the gun control crowd would react if tax payer dollars were being used to subsidize firearms purchases.
"John Rosenthal, co-founder of Stop Handgun Violence who erected what he says is the largest billboard in the country devoted to gun control along the Massachusetts Turnpike near Fenway Park, said Tierney’s bill “has the potential to change the world of gun violence.” " It sure does. It could be one more way that criminals are empowered by ridiculous gun control laws. The criminals' firearms would be ready for action and law abiding firearms owners would have an additional hurdle to jump before they could react to their attacks.
Here's a personal favorite quote. "We could reduce the majority of gun deaths in this country." Consider that sentence. Could we "reduce the majority" to a different but lesser "majority"? Could we reduce "gun deaths" to a different death?
What's the problem? There are plenty.
1) Cost! It's another in a seemingly endless stream of ideas to increase the price of firearms and therefore limit who can afford them. I shouldn't have to pay for a mandatory rear-viewing camera in my next new automobile purchase because some people have backed over and injured or killed children, as has been proposed. Likewise, I shouldn't be forced to have mandatory and costly personal firearms technology because a small minority of people have used a tiny minority of firearms in crimes or because people have been accidentally or negligently injured or killed by them.
2) It's intrusive and burdensome. They want firearms owners to 'reprogram' their firearms every time they authorize someone to use them? When's the last time you programmed your multi-function TV remote? Do you remember how? Could you do it from memory? Do you know where the instructions are? Is there an administrative code you need to do it that you happen to remember? How about for your wireless network?
3) What happens when the owner no longer has the 'key', whatever that might be - a code, device, etc., to reprogram their firearm? Does it become useless except in their hands so they can no longer sell or give it to a friend or relative? Does it 'expire' upon their death?
4) What happens when technology fails and renders the firearm useless? Have you known any of your other technology products to fail? Have you known any that haven't? What if the failure occurs when the firearm is needed for self defense? Will Tierney become liable for the injuries or death incurred because the firearm wouldn't work when needed? One of the solutions involves radio waves. That implies batteries. Anyone remember when their wireless home phones interfered with their WiFi home networks or vice versa? What other technology in this 21st century might interfere with 'gun safety radio waves'?
5) What happens when a responsible child is prevented from protecting themselves or family members and is injured or killed in their own home because their hand wasn't (yet?) programmed to the firearm that was otherwise accessible?
6) How do the biometric solutions (fingerprints, etc.) work when you're wearing gloves, in cold weather or otherwise? Do you know that tactical shooters often wear gloves? Private firearms owners should have that same ability.
7) What happens when the firearm is needed for self defense and it's separated from the bracelet, ring or other activation / key device for that technology solution? Now someone has to grab 2 or 3 things (firearm, ammunition, activation device) before they can defend themselves? I'm sure the criminal will be sufficiently patient while they do so. One of the solutions involves entering a PIN code. What if you can't remember your PIN in the heat of the moment when you're panicking, your adrenaline is pumping, you're sweating and your hands are shaking?
8) How exactly is that retrofitting process for older firearms supposed to work? Where can it be done? Is it local or does the firearm need to be sent somewhere - like a factory? Do I have to pay the cost and hope to be reimbursed by the federal government or will they pay the bill up front? What about any shipping or transportation costs? I really can't see the federal government picking up those expenses. How long does it take?
9) Last but CERTAINLY not least, do you expect me to believe that all 300 MILLION of those legacy firearms that will travel through federal hands (even if only on purchase orders, bills or receipts for funding purchases) will not be at risk of being entered into a registration system at some point? We have PLENTY of evidence that registration records are NOT kept private and that the government CANNOT be trusted (IRS handling of conservative groups' 501(c)(4) applications and data; Justice Department's collecting AP phone data).
http://www.bostonglobe.com/news/politics/2013/05/15/congressman-john-tierney-introduce-gun-bill/0XSrTDRa0iy2BDslCQMG6N/story.html
===
May 20, 2013
Here's another article critical of the "Personalized Handgun Safety Act of 2013" that was inspired by the James Bond movie, Skyfall, and is being proposed by Rep. John Tierney (D-Mass.).
I was already pretty critical in my last post. This article challenges the outrageous statement that “We could reduce the majority of gun deaths in this country.” with some pretty sound logic and it brings up something I hadn't considered. "Technology is unreliable and it is quite easily hacked, and I would certainly not want to be in a position in which I had to convince a jury that a murder committed with a gun that could ostensibly only be fired by me was not in fact fired by me." Yeah, that wouldn't be pleasant, would it?
http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/348532/tierneys-gun-safety-nonsense
===
June 26, 2013
The US Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice has just released another report the seems to take more wind from the sails of gun control advocates. This one is about the (lack of) viability of implementing (and requiring) gun safety technology today.
Several gun control advocating legislators have proposed laws that would require some sort of technology to be provided in firearms that would render them useless in any hands other than their 'owner's'. It's been written that at least one of these proposals was inspired by a Hollywood movie. Don't you love it when our politicians use Hollywood, known for its factual depiction of reality in all things, for their research and inspiration?
" “authorized user recognition” technology is still in prototype stages"
"An “authorized user recognition” firearm is a concept whereby a firearm would have some sort of technology built into it to recognize and only be capable of firing for an “authorized user.” Since the mid-1990s, the “smart gun” or “personalized gun” concept was proposed as technological response to law enforcement officers being injured or killed when a criminal wrestles the officer’s firearm away and uses it against the officer. Fortunately, officer take away incidents are declining due to improve training and better holster designs."
http://www.nssfblog.com/u-s-justice-dept-agrees-smart-guns-dont-exist/
I have not read the full DoJ report but it is available in .pdf form at the link, below.
In my previous posts on this topic I've talked about reliability as being a major cause for concern. When you need a firearm for self defense it must be reliable. There's already risk of unreliability due to mechanical malfunction or faulty ammunition. Adding additional layers of complexity only compounds the risk. Here are a few excerpts from the DoJ report about reliability. There's also a discussion of risk vs. reliability in the report starting on page 19.
"The reliability of smart guns remains a topic of interest since early efforts at development in the mid-1990s, with reliability indicated as the most important concern by law enforcement practitioners regarding the potential use of this technology in a report published in 1996 that was
funded by the National Institute of Justice."
"the prototypes proved unreliable and not ruggedized enough to permit serious test firing, so reliability evaluations could not be conducted"
"reliably integrating the electronics into the firearm proved to be a challenge and ultimately only two demonstration items were delivered"
"erratic behavior was also observed in the authorization system and blunt mechanical force could
override the electromechanically controlled blocking pin which would allow the gun to fire by an unauthorized user"
Having only scanned the report, it appears there's some fascinating stuff in here about the various methods, etc.
https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/242500.pdf
But in the end, let me consider...
In order to exercise my constitutional 2nd Amendment rights, do I want the added:
* expense
* complexity
* risk / reliability concerns
* limits on authorized users (e.g., How many fingerprints can it store? I would want to program at least 4-6 fingerprints each for an unlimited number of authorized users - family, friends.)
* weight
* size
I'll pass. I have no criticism for those who "want" this as an option, only warnings. For those who would impose this on all of us I have LOTS of criticism.
===
July 23, 2013
This article discusses two forms of firearms technology - "smart guns" for long-range shooting and gun safety devices.
There's not much new in the article if you've followed firearms technology. Firearms safety technology dates back many years already in discussion, legislative proposals and prototypes. Few, if any, have been commercialized. The long-range shooting technology is newer but already at least months old.
Regarding gun safety technology, I'm already on record that I think it's good for the consumers who want it but that it should NOT be mandatory for a variety of reasons that I've written about in the past. Essentially I agree with this quote from the article except that I'm not limiting my reservations to just "ill-conceived" mandates or "conceptual" technology. I don't think there should be ANY mandates for use of this technology, whether it's conceptual or mastered - just like the government shouldn't be able to tell me what features I want on my automobiles or housing.
"The National Shooting Sports Foundation does not oppose the development of authorized user recognition technology for firearms,” wrote NSSF Senior Vice President
and General Counsel Larry Keane on the group’s blog. “What the industry does oppose are ill-conceived mandates … on the use of this conceptual technology."The long-range "smart gun" technology will concern many gun control advocates, I'm sure, maybe even all of them. It surely could be misused for sniping and killing people. There's no doubt about that. It seems to have the ability to make a truly expert 'marksman' in minutes instead of years. If you don't have firearms experience you can't really appreciate how difficult it can be to accurately hit a target that's more than 500 yards away. This technology boasts accuracy up to 1.75 miles! But before we all panic, as some are so quick to do, consider the practical implications. First, it currently costs in excess of $20,000 for these rifles and associated technology. The average murderer isn't going to invest that kind of cash in their crime. They probably don't have it to invest. And in an urban setting in particular and even in most settings, clear fields of fire at those extreme ranges rarely exist. They're more easily found in the wild - deserts, mountain ranges, valleys, gorges, etc.
http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/07/19/smartgun-technologies-transform-hunting-tracking/
===
Related blogs:
http://us2ndamendment.blogspot.com/2013/05/firearms-safety-mechanisms.html
Firearms Blog Collections
Firearms Insurance Blogs
Attacking 2nd Amendment Rights By Making It Too Costly to Exercise
Institute of Medicine Proposes Unbiased Firearms Research
Firearms Tracking or Identification Through Technology
No comments:
Post a Comment