As a member of the LGBT community and a part time activist, I often encounter people who have been harmed in some way by people who claim to be christian. As such, I've met many people who have turned away from Christianity and, usually, turned to atheism, agnosticism, generic theism, or something else. Unfortunately, by both being exposed to these people and going to a science and technology school, I've seen many people who have an outright hatred or disdain for anyone identifying themselves as christian. While I understand the frustration many of these people are feeling, I try to see the good in everyone and give everyone a fair chance. As such, I've tried to view religion from a fairly objective standpoint. Additionally, I've done a lot of thinking to resolve some of the worst-case scenarios involving spiritual matters, and I've found some interesting results in the process. While I'll cover some other aspects later, right now I want to share the conclusion I've come to: regardless of your belief system, you are no more or less right than anyone else.
This conclusion came about after I thought long and hard about which viewpoints on spiritual matters required a leap of faith and which were founded in pure logic, and I came to the conclusion that no belief system truly was founded in pure logic. This statement probably would have many of my atheist scientific friends screaming, but I'll explain why this is so. I'm not saying any one religion is more right than the others: on the contrary, I'm trying to give certain religions more of a chance than they normally get.
Spiritual beliefs, when based solely on the existence of a god or goddess or multiple gods, can be classified into four major categories: theist, atheist, agnostic, and irrelevance. Theists are individuals who believe that at least one god or goddess exists, and this category of belief systems encompasses most belief systems on Earth. Atheist, contrary to popular belief, is not the pure opposite of Christianity, and is not an umbrella term for everyone who doesn't hold a belief in a god. Rather, it is the belief in the absence of a god. This is a very important distinction to make, as many people who are true atheists often use a certain argument (which I will get to later) to justify their beliefs that many self proclaimed atheists don't use. Most of the people, I believe, who claim to be atheists are not, in fact, atheists, but rather agnostics. Agnostics hold the belief (yes, the belief) that there is no evidence available to us to determine whether a god exists or not. And the last one, the group most probably haven't heard of, are the ones who believe in the irrelevance of a god to our daily lives. I might go over this idea later on, but for now, I wanted to clarify the four categories of divine belief before going into more detail about them.
Theism is the belief system most people are familiar with. It comprises of Christianity, Islam, Judaism, the well known ancient religions of Egypt and Greece, many of the religions of the Native Americans, and thousands of others. No doubt, if you've been involved in any kind of conflict with a religious individual over the correctness of their beliefs, they'll point you toward a set of circumstances which they believe is proof of the correctness of their religious values. Some will claim that certain aspects of the universe are indicators of God's mercy, as my mom did once by saying that a release of endorphins after a critical injury was proof of God easing a creature's way into the afterlife. Others will say that the universe is too structured, too orderly to have come about randomly and without direction or design. The only problem, however, is no one can agree on the proof for these statements, and no one can agree that certain things about the universe actually do prove the existence of a god or anything about said god's nature. It is possible that some of these people might be right, but as we can't test these theories, we can neither prove them nor disprove them. As such, belief in theism requires believing something whose truth value is uncertain, thus requires a leap of faith.
Atheism is similar. However, the primary argument I hear given to support atheism is the lack of evidence of a god's existence, the idea being that this supposed lack of evidence is evidence of the lack of a god. Now, anyone who can use logic can see that this is a logical fallacy: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Before we delve further into the subject of atheism, we need to examine the definition of evidence. According to Google's built-in dictionary function, the definition of evidence goes as follows: "the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid." The biggest part of this definition is 'available body of facts or information', meaning what we have found and can access with our senses. The idea that our current level of evidence can say something about the existence of god requires many assumptions. One, that any evidence of a god's existence will be observable by our senses, even as enhanced as they are by technology. Two, that our five senses can detect all aspects of the universe and that there is nothing we can't discover, despite the fact that our technology only enhances our five senses and does not expand upon them. Three, that our technology and science will never expand to the point where we might find evidence of a god's existence at some point in the future. And four, that we will never develop additional senses. There might be others, but these are the four I have found. There are many people who are true atheists who claim their belief system is purely logical, however, by just looking at the assumptions I brought up, and knowing that we can't confirm or deny those assumptions, we can come to the same conclusion that belief in an atheist system requires a leap of faith similar to those taken by the theists.
Naturally, we move on to the agnostics, who believe that there is no evidence to support either the theist or atheist viewpoint, so there is no reason to come to a decision regarding the existence of a god. This belief system, however, also makes an assumption, which many people in the scientific community do as well. They believe that their society's scientists have got it right. They believe that the current picture our scientists have painted with the technologically enhanced senses we have now is complete, that our scientists have left no stone unturned and that every bit of the universe they've analyzed has been done so completely and perfectly. However, this also implies that scientists haven't missed something, haven't created a false assumption about part of the universe. Agnosticism requires the belief that our scientists are not only finding the correct image of the universe, but also painting it for us, that what we're learning in school is actually accurate. You might think this is a crazy thing to consider, that believing scientists is something we do every day when we handle any piece of technology. But think about it for a second. Do you go out and try to confirm every aspect of the science behind a laptop before you use it to make sure that the scientists who discovered the principles that were used to design the laptop were, in fact, right? Of course not. You take their word as gospel. You decide that you have neither the time nor the resources (or in some cases, the intelligence) to grasp all of the scientific principles behind an object and examine each and every one of them for correctness, so you decide to believe what our scientists are telling you. Don't get me wrong, I don't believe that all of the world's scientists are participating in some kind of conspiracy, but we tend to forget the fallibility of human beings when we put so much faith in our scientists. Agnosticism, like atheism and theism, requires that leap of faith.
And now comes the fourth category, irrelevance. Technically irrelevance can be thrown into any of the above three categories, as irrelevance can say that there is a god, or that there isn't, or that we don't know. But the big part of the irrelevance belief system is that it doesn't matter whether a god exists or not, that the potential impact a god can have (or would have) on the universe as we know it shouldn't affect our every day lives. This requires a belief that is less based in the existence of a god and more based in the existence of a divine purpose. The irrelevance belief states that whatever purpose a god might have for us, if there even is one, is not relevant to our lives and should be ignored. This, of course, requires the belief that we can find a purpose that is meaningful enough to us to bring significant meaning to our lives without having to turn to the divine for that purpose. That requires making arbitrary assumptions about who and what can provide said purpose and how to define meaningful purpose. The answers to these questions are arbitrary, and as they can't be proven or disproven, they require a leap of faith to believe in.
The idea that a belief system is better than others because it is not, in fact, a belief system is a logical fallacy, as I've already shown. The idea that any belief system which tries to make any kind of determination on the existence or nature of a god is nothing more than a logical conclusion is also false. The idea that an atheist is superior to a theist simply due to either party's beliefs is nothing more than a continuation of the problems that drive many people away from modern religions, and the prevalence of this viewpoint in the LGBT community, among others, is saddening. It's the kind of self-righteousness and bigotry that we've been fighting for years to end, and by calling ourselves superior for simply having a belief system, we continue it. If we're to ask for equality and acceptance, we have to extend that same courtesy to others that we don't agree with, to create an example for others to follow. And to do that, the hatred and bigotry need to end.
And not just on the theist side, but on all sides.
Sunday, February 23, 2014
"Go Live Your Dreams": Total Bullshit
Often times I run across articles on various business-related sites that have something to do with job choice. Of course, this isn't unexpected. What is interesting is the number of articles that deal with pursuing one's 'dream job' or doing something a person loves. They're the kind of mushy inspirational posts you might see in a school counselor's office, designed to keep you focused on some far-off dream, telling you that if you work hard, you can achieve your goals.
It's a nice thought, but it's total bullshit.
I'll give you an example. I have an acquaintance who went to school to pursue a petroleum engineering degree, finding the idea of doing whatever it is petroleum engineers do to be appealing to what he wanted to do with his life. The only problem was this: while he had the education, he was openly and flamboyantly gay, the the culture of part of the workforce he was trying to get into was fairly conservative and homophobic. Additionally, as more and more companies switch from petroleum to other energy sources, the availability of jobs in the petroleum engineering area will dwindle. As such, even with the necessary education, demand for jobs that my acquaintance was going into wasn't high enough to get him his dream job. And trust me, he worked his ass off, so this wasn't the result of being mediocre. And his story isn't the only one I've heard: more and more I'm hearing of people who went to school to pursue a particular job but didn't get that job because there wasn't enough demand for their services. This is one of the many ways that what I call the "Modern American Dream" isn't widely possible.
Let's move beyond the realm of college students and go to other people. Let's say a woman named Bertha wants to write books, as she believes its her purpose in life. Here's the only problem: writing books takes time, time that, to Bertha and many other Americans, can be better spend doing something that earns money. As such, Bertha isn't going to be able to write books full time and survive, unless she's privileged enough to write something that lots of people will love and perhaps be turned into a movie (and with how unpredictable people are, this is more of a matter of luck). It also depends on the opinions of whatever publishers she tries to send her books to, so being able to survive while living her dream full time is in the hands of others. Let's say, however, that Bertha has a job as a grocery store clerk, and earns minimum wage. It's barely enough for her to survive on, but she can, at least survive. Will she pursue her dream of becoming an author in her spare time? No. Why? Because Bertha, like so many other Americans, believe the only things worth doing are things that earn you money or material goods. Think about it: the kinds of hobbies that exist in America consist of collecting things (which gains material goods) and refining skills that could one day get someone famous (writing, music, etc, etc). There's little else in the way of hobbies that we Americans do, because those are the ones that have a possibility of gaining us things or money, or both. Our hobbies are never for enjoyment, they're for personal gain, because that's how our capitalist/corporatist society works.
Let's say, however, that Bertha is like me, working a boring job (or in my case, still working through college) but able to pursue her dreams in her spare time. This only works if her dream is something that doesn't require training or experience to perform. Creative arts are probably the only kind of dream that can be pursued without official training and certification: most others require a college degree and some amount of training. Let's take my acquaintance from earlier. Let's say he works at a fast food restaurant to survive, but he wants to do petroleum engineering in his spare time. He's unfortunately screwed because there's no way in hell a company is going to hire a hobbyist for a job that needs a petroleum engineering degree or going to hire him part time or hire him without experience. It just won't happen. So, he has a choice: either give up on his dream and settle for another dream, or go to college and get the training and certification he needs to be applicable for the job. He'll still run into the problems he faced when we talked about him earlier, but they're now a bit reduced.
Of course, this depends on the ability to get a college education. With rising college costs and costs of living, more and more people are unable to get college degrees and pursue whatever dreams they have that require a college education. And with more and more jobs requiring degrees (hell, even trash men need them now), less and less people are able to pursue a job at all, much less one they want to work at. Can these people pursue their dreams? No, at least not most of them. Only those whose dreams lie in creative pursuits truly have the opportunity to pursue their dreams, and if they don't care about getting money from them, then they are some of the few can achieve them.
Of course, that won't matter if they don't have the time to pursue those dreams. More and more people, especially those with families, are working multiple minimum wage jobs just to support their families. As such, they don't have time to pursue their dreams: they can't write, they can't act, they can't work on their music, they can't work on a college education. They simply don't have the time. As such, these people, trapped as they are by our capitalist caste system (more on this later), can't pursue their dreams, no matter what they are. They might be able to after their kids leave, but by then, they start to face age discrimination, slowly deteriorating mental and physical abilities, and a general loss of interest in a dream they gave up a long time ago that it no longer becomes feasible to pursue it.
So many of these business sites have articles that try to tell people that the world is full of opportunities, and that all you need to do is take advantage of them. Of course, these are usually written by middle to upper class individuals, people who have never had problems finding opportunities in life. They have a strong disconnect from the rest of the world, and believe that everything else is as bright and sunny as their world. Of course, so do many of the people who read those articles, so there's no need for the writers to expand their horizons. For them, they have opportunities, and there's no reason for them to consider those who don't.
Following your dreams is a nice thought.
But unless you're rich, it's only just that: a thought.
It's a nice thought, but it's total bullshit.
I'll give you an example. I have an acquaintance who went to school to pursue a petroleum engineering degree, finding the idea of doing whatever it is petroleum engineers do to be appealing to what he wanted to do with his life. The only problem was this: while he had the education, he was openly and flamboyantly gay, the the culture of part of the workforce he was trying to get into was fairly conservative and homophobic. Additionally, as more and more companies switch from petroleum to other energy sources, the availability of jobs in the petroleum engineering area will dwindle. As such, even with the necessary education, demand for jobs that my acquaintance was going into wasn't high enough to get him his dream job. And trust me, he worked his ass off, so this wasn't the result of being mediocre. And his story isn't the only one I've heard: more and more I'm hearing of people who went to school to pursue a particular job but didn't get that job because there wasn't enough demand for their services. This is one of the many ways that what I call the "Modern American Dream" isn't widely possible.
Let's move beyond the realm of college students and go to other people. Let's say a woman named Bertha wants to write books, as she believes its her purpose in life. Here's the only problem: writing books takes time, time that, to Bertha and many other Americans, can be better spend doing something that earns money. As such, Bertha isn't going to be able to write books full time and survive, unless she's privileged enough to write something that lots of people will love and perhaps be turned into a movie (and with how unpredictable people are, this is more of a matter of luck). It also depends on the opinions of whatever publishers she tries to send her books to, so being able to survive while living her dream full time is in the hands of others. Let's say, however, that Bertha has a job as a grocery store clerk, and earns minimum wage. It's barely enough for her to survive on, but she can, at least survive. Will she pursue her dream of becoming an author in her spare time? No. Why? Because Bertha, like so many other Americans, believe the only things worth doing are things that earn you money or material goods. Think about it: the kinds of hobbies that exist in America consist of collecting things (which gains material goods) and refining skills that could one day get someone famous (writing, music, etc, etc). There's little else in the way of hobbies that we Americans do, because those are the ones that have a possibility of gaining us things or money, or both. Our hobbies are never for enjoyment, they're for personal gain, because that's how our capitalist/corporatist society works.
Let's say, however, that Bertha is like me, working a boring job (or in my case, still working through college) but able to pursue her dreams in her spare time. This only works if her dream is something that doesn't require training or experience to perform. Creative arts are probably the only kind of dream that can be pursued without official training and certification: most others require a college degree and some amount of training. Let's take my acquaintance from earlier. Let's say he works at a fast food restaurant to survive, but he wants to do petroleum engineering in his spare time. He's unfortunately screwed because there's no way in hell a company is going to hire a hobbyist for a job that needs a petroleum engineering degree or going to hire him part time or hire him without experience. It just won't happen. So, he has a choice: either give up on his dream and settle for another dream, or go to college and get the training and certification he needs to be applicable for the job. He'll still run into the problems he faced when we talked about him earlier, but they're now a bit reduced.
Of course, this depends on the ability to get a college education. With rising college costs and costs of living, more and more people are unable to get college degrees and pursue whatever dreams they have that require a college education. And with more and more jobs requiring degrees (hell, even trash men need them now), less and less people are able to pursue a job at all, much less one they want to work at. Can these people pursue their dreams? No, at least not most of them. Only those whose dreams lie in creative pursuits truly have the opportunity to pursue their dreams, and if they don't care about getting money from them, then they are some of the few can achieve them.
Of course, that won't matter if they don't have the time to pursue those dreams. More and more people, especially those with families, are working multiple minimum wage jobs just to support their families. As such, they don't have time to pursue their dreams: they can't write, they can't act, they can't work on their music, they can't work on a college education. They simply don't have the time. As such, these people, trapped as they are by our capitalist caste system (more on this later), can't pursue their dreams, no matter what they are. They might be able to after their kids leave, but by then, they start to face age discrimination, slowly deteriorating mental and physical abilities, and a general loss of interest in a dream they gave up a long time ago that it no longer becomes feasible to pursue it.
So many of these business sites have articles that try to tell people that the world is full of opportunities, and that all you need to do is take advantage of them. Of course, these are usually written by middle to upper class individuals, people who have never had problems finding opportunities in life. They have a strong disconnect from the rest of the world, and believe that everything else is as bright and sunny as their world. Of course, so do many of the people who read those articles, so there's no need for the writers to expand their horizons. For them, they have opportunities, and there's no reason for them to consider those who don't.
Following your dreams is a nice thought.
But unless you're rich, it's only just that: a thought.
Wednesday, February 19, 2014
My Thoughts on the "iPhone of Guns"
Recently, the Washington Post had an article dealing with something called a 'smart gun'. This gun is designed to prevent people who don't own the gun from using the gun, with the goal being a reduction in cops being shot with their own guns in a fight, kids shooting themselves with their parents' guns, and mentally unstable individuals from going on a shooting spree with a gun they don't own. The article had views from both advocates and opponents of this device, and I'd like to respond to some of those views.
You can read the article here: Washington Post Article
Early in the article, points from both sides of the debate as to the value of the smart gun are presented. One of the first, brought about by opponents to the smart gun, was the following:
But gun rights advocates are already balking, wondering what happens if the technology fails just as an intruder breaks in.
A similar view is brought up later in the article:
A commenter in an online Glock forum explained the concern this way: "They can’t even make a cellphone that works reliably when you need it, and some dumbass thinks he can make a reliable techno-gadget gun that is supposed to safeguard you in dire circumstances?"
This view on the technology in the smart gun is extremely ignorant on the part of the commentators, but I don't expect people who have never worked with a computer to know why it's ignorant. First of all, you can't reasonably compare the smart gun with a smart phone, as the article, and the commentators, attempt to do (I use the term 'smart gun' simply because it's what the article uses). A cell phone, even a dumb phone, is incredibly complex. It requires an operating system that can coordinate several programs at once, interrupt processes that are currently going on in case something more important (such as a phone call) come up, and synchronizing all of the processes going on in the phone. This level of sophistication and synchronization in any computer system is no easy feat -- otherwise Bill Gates would not be as famous as he is today. And as with any technology, the more sophisticated it becomes, the more likely it is to fail. As such, smart phones, which are the phones the commentators were most likely referring to, are very likely to fail.
But the idea that the smart gun is as unreliable as the smart phone is false. The technology in the smart gun, which consists of some kind of personal identification mechanism which then allows the gun to fire, is no more advanced than a car door remote. In the gun featured in the article, it consists of a watch that activates the gun when the gun is in close proximity to the watch. The technology used in this mechanism is the same kind used in car door remotes. With excessive use, the technology can become unreliable, but even with at least twice daily use, car door remotes are extremely reliable. And I can guarantee you, despite what the NRA wants everyone to believe, no one, perhaps with the exception of some law enforcement personnel, will use a personal hand gun as much as they use a car door remote. So the large amount of concern around this mechanism failing at the exact moment it's needed is the result of flawed logic.
Some more ideas brought up in the article surround the idea of the government imposing these safety restrictions on guns:
Although National Rifle Association officials did not respond to requests for comment about smart-gun technology, the group fiercely opposes “government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire,” according to the Web site of its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. “And NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.”
Some of their fears, however, are not unfounded:
Lawmakers around the country have been intrigued by the possibilities. New Jersey passed a hotly contested law in 2002 requiring that only smart guns be sold in the state within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. A similar measure made it through the California Senate last year
Also, another point was brought up later in the article about the price of the smart gun:
The cost is high. Amatrix’s iP1, a .22-caliber pistol, is priced at $1,399 — plus $399 for the watch. A .40-caliber Glock handgun can be had for about $600.
I won't go back into the debate about the reliability of the technology, but another point has been brought up: government-required technology. The idea of regulations requiring safety-enhancing technology on various other products are not new: the seat belt and the air bag are good examples. But while people are able to accept these safety measures, any attempt to improve the safety of guns is seen as an attempt by the government to take guns away from 'responsible gun owners' (I'll get to why this concept doesn't exist in this country in a later post). What I find odd is that many of the people that bring this point up don't seem to realize that, despite the government-mandated safety measures added to cars, cars weren't suddenly banned by the government. The ones that didn't have the safety measures were either banned or simply phased out of existence as more and more people chose the safer option of having a car with an air bag and seat belts over one that didn't. The existence of such technology wouldn't even require a government ban to become the new standard, as more people would want the safer product. The same is true of the smart gun. Firearm production companies would see this trend and capitalize on it, producing more smart guns and phasing their more dangerous counterparts out of production. As more companies start producing these products, the prices of the smart guns would drop to competitive prices -- prices much more affordable for the average gun user. The idea that the gun is too expensive to be feasible is correct, but only for the moment. Soon, it will be widely available and popular, and the price will drop. The cost concern will soon become moot.
In regards to the concern over the government banning non-safe firearms, all I have to say is this:
You are not required to own a gun.
Do you have the legal right? Yes. Do you have to own a gun? No. Do you have to have the highest-tech gun money can buy? No. Thing is, smart guns are the future of the gun industry, and while an overall ban on non-smart guns is certainly possible sometime down the line, there is no reason a gun owner can't get a smart gun, which will be reasonably priced by the time such a ban would be feasible enough to be implemented, or to go without. You are not going to be robbed the instant you don't have some protective measure in place, despite what happens in every Sims game ever.
The final main point brought up in the article is the effectiveness of such a safety measure. Some of the following figures were shown regarding the number of certain kinds of gun related deaths:
In 2010, children under 18 accounted for 98 of the 606 unintentional or accidental firearm deaths in the United States.
As for school shootings, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study in 2003 analyzing firearms used by students in 323 school-related shootings found that 37 percent of the guns came from the shooter’s home and 23 percent from a friend or relative.
The safety measures put in place on the smart gun are designed to prevent these sorts of disasters from occurring. As the numbers show, many of the accidental firearm deaths were children, almost all of whom died by playing with their parents' guns. A smart gun, with the watch and gun stored in separate places, would prevent these deaths, or at least significantly reduce them. Additionally, a gun that can recognize its owner by their fingerprints will prevent it from being used in the large number of school shootings in which another person's gun was used. The idea that safety measures such as this, measures designed to prevent the deaths of children and college students, are nothing more than an attempt to rid the world of guns is incredibly short-sighted and, quite frankly, selfish.
There were also concerns regarding the fact that the smart guns won't remove all of this country's gun violence. While this is certainly true, the idea that we shouldn't fix only a part of a problem if we can't fix the entire problem is incredibly irresponsible. Do we prevent the production of medication simply because that medication won't work on everyone? No. Did we prevent the addition of seat belts and air bags to cars simply because they would not prevent every death from car accidents? No. Should we prevent the installation of safety measures into guns simply because they won't prevent every gun-related death? Of course not. The only way to do that would be to remove guns completely, and in a country as unstable as ours, that's never going to happen. So, it would be better to produce the smart guns and make those gun owners who purchase them safer rather than keep everything the way it is.
Smart guns are the future of the gun industry. They are safer, and the safety technology is reliable. While they are currently expensive, they will become more popular over time, and as such, their price will drop. Even if a government mandate is handed down that prevents the production of non-smart firearms, by the time enough support exists for that to happen, smart guns will be cheap enough for anyone who still wants to own a gun to buy one. And while they won't prevent every gun death, they will prevent many of the gun deaths involving children, which is why the push for gun safety measures has increased so much in recent years. And really, if a product can prevent needless deaths, why shouldn't it be produced?
You can read the article here: Washington Post Article
Early in the article, points from both sides of the debate as to the value of the smart gun are presented. One of the first, brought about by opponents to the smart gun, was the following:
But gun rights advocates are already balking, wondering what happens if the technology fails just as an intruder breaks in.
A similar view is brought up later in the article:
A commenter in an online Glock forum explained the concern this way: "They can’t even make a cellphone that works reliably when you need it, and some dumbass thinks he can make a reliable techno-gadget gun that is supposed to safeguard you in dire circumstances?"
This view on the technology in the smart gun is extremely ignorant on the part of the commentators, but I don't expect people who have never worked with a computer to know why it's ignorant. First of all, you can't reasonably compare the smart gun with a smart phone, as the article, and the commentators, attempt to do (I use the term 'smart gun' simply because it's what the article uses). A cell phone, even a dumb phone, is incredibly complex. It requires an operating system that can coordinate several programs at once, interrupt processes that are currently going on in case something more important (such as a phone call) come up, and synchronizing all of the processes going on in the phone. This level of sophistication and synchronization in any computer system is no easy feat -- otherwise Bill Gates would not be as famous as he is today. And as with any technology, the more sophisticated it becomes, the more likely it is to fail. As such, smart phones, which are the phones the commentators were most likely referring to, are very likely to fail.
But the idea that the smart gun is as unreliable as the smart phone is false. The technology in the smart gun, which consists of some kind of personal identification mechanism which then allows the gun to fire, is no more advanced than a car door remote. In the gun featured in the article, it consists of a watch that activates the gun when the gun is in close proximity to the watch. The technology used in this mechanism is the same kind used in car door remotes. With excessive use, the technology can become unreliable, but even with at least twice daily use, car door remotes are extremely reliable. And I can guarantee you, despite what the NRA wants everyone to believe, no one, perhaps with the exception of some law enforcement personnel, will use a personal hand gun as much as they use a car door remote. So the large amount of concern around this mechanism failing at the exact moment it's needed is the result of flawed logic.
Some more ideas brought up in the article surround the idea of the government imposing these safety restrictions on guns:
Although National Rifle Association officials did not respond to requests for comment about smart-gun technology, the group fiercely opposes “government mandates that require the use of expensive, unreliable features, such as grips that would read your fingerprints before the gun will fire,” according to the Web site of its lobbying arm, the Institute for Legislative Action. “And NRA recognizes that the ‘smart guns’ issue clearly has the potential to mesh with the anti-gunner’s agenda, opening the door to a ban on all guns that do not possess the government-required technology.”
Some of their fears, however, are not unfounded:
Lawmakers around the country have been intrigued by the possibilities. New Jersey passed a hotly contested law in 2002 requiring that only smart guns be sold in the state within three years of a smart gun being sold anywhere in the country. A similar measure made it through the California Senate last year
Also, another point was brought up later in the article about the price of the smart gun:
The cost is high. Amatrix’s iP1, a .22-caliber pistol, is priced at $1,399 — plus $399 for the watch. A .40-caliber Glock handgun can be had for about $600.
I won't go back into the debate about the reliability of the technology, but another point has been brought up: government-required technology. The idea of regulations requiring safety-enhancing technology on various other products are not new: the seat belt and the air bag are good examples. But while people are able to accept these safety measures, any attempt to improve the safety of guns is seen as an attempt by the government to take guns away from 'responsible gun owners' (I'll get to why this concept doesn't exist in this country in a later post). What I find odd is that many of the people that bring this point up don't seem to realize that, despite the government-mandated safety measures added to cars, cars weren't suddenly banned by the government. The ones that didn't have the safety measures were either banned or simply phased out of existence as more and more people chose the safer option of having a car with an air bag and seat belts over one that didn't. The existence of such technology wouldn't even require a government ban to become the new standard, as more people would want the safer product. The same is true of the smart gun. Firearm production companies would see this trend and capitalize on it, producing more smart guns and phasing their more dangerous counterparts out of production. As more companies start producing these products, the prices of the smart guns would drop to competitive prices -- prices much more affordable for the average gun user. The idea that the gun is too expensive to be feasible is correct, but only for the moment. Soon, it will be widely available and popular, and the price will drop. The cost concern will soon become moot.
In regards to the concern over the government banning non-safe firearms, all I have to say is this:
You are not required to own a gun.
Do you have the legal right? Yes. Do you have to own a gun? No. Do you have to have the highest-tech gun money can buy? No. Thing is, smart guns are the future of the gun industry, and while an overall ban on non-smart guns is certainly possible sometime down the line, there is no reason a gun owner can't get a smart gun, which will be reasonably priced by the time such a ban would be feasible enough to be implemented, or to go without. You are not going to be robbed the instant you don't have some protective measure in place, despite what happens in every Sims game ever.
The final main point brought up in the article is the effectiveness of such a safety measure. Some of the following figures were shown regarding the number of certain kinds of gun related deaths:
In 2010, children under 18 accounted for 98 of the 606 unintentional or accidental firearm deaths in the United States.
As for school shootings, a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention study in 2003 analyzing firearms used by students in 323 school-related shootings found that 37 percent of the guns came from the shooter’s home and 23 percent from a friend or relative.
The safety measures put in place on the smart gun are designed to prevent these sorts of disasters from occurring. As the numbers show, many of the accidental firearm deaths were children, almost all of whom died by playing with their parents' guns. A smart gun, with the watch and gun stored in separate places, would prevent these deaths, or at least significantly reduce them. Additionally, a gun that can recognize its owner by their fingerprints will prevent it from being used in the large number of school shootings in which another person's gun was used. The idea that safety measures such as this, measures designed to prevent the deaths of children and college students, are nothing more than an attempt to rid the world of guns is incredibly short-sighted and, quite frankly, selfish.
There were also concerns regarding the fact that the smart guns won't remove all of this country's gun violence. While this is certainly true, the idea that we shouldn't fix only a part of a problem if we can't fix the entire problem is incredibly irresponsible. Do we prevent the production of medication simply because that medication won't work on everyone? No. Did we prevent the addition of seat belts and air bags to cars simply because they would not prevent every death from car accidents? No. Should we prevent the installation of safety measures into guns simply because they won't prevent every gun-related death? Of course not. The only way to do that would be to remove guns completely, and in a country as unstable as ours, that's never going to happen. So, it would be better to produce the smart guns and make those gun owners who purchase them safer rather than keep everything the way it is.
Smart guns are the future of the gun industry. They are safer, and the safety technology is reliable. While they are currently expensive, they will become more popular over time, and as such, their price will drop. Even if a government mandate is handed down that prevents the production of non-smart firearms, by the time enough support exists for that to happen, smart guns will be cheap enough for anyone who still wants to own a gun to buy one. And while they won't prevent every gun death, they will prevent many of the gun deaths involving children, which is why the push for gun safety measures has increased so much in recent years. And really, if a product can prevent needless deaths, why shouldn't it be produced?
Introduction Post
As I like to do any time I start up a new blog, I always start with an introduction thread intended to tell more about myself and what the blog I'm starting will contain. So, I guess I'm gonna start with myself.
My name is David, and I'm currently a senior attending the Missouri University of Science and Technology, although I hope I can soon transfer to UMKC. I am openly gay, although I prefer not to make a big deal out of it. I also consider myself a bear, and the only time I make a big deal out of my sexuality is when I show pride in the ability to resist the common stereotype surrounding gay men. I'm also an advocate of disabled rights, a defender of the obese and the poor. I'm also very anti-corporatist, and many of my views tend to lean toward the 'liberal' side of economic and social issues. I do, however, try to consider the views of all parties involved in an issue to try to understand both sides before I come to any decisions regarding the issue at hand.
This blog will contain my thoughts on a variety of philosophical and political subjects, ranging from gun control to the nature of justice to the correctness of any religion. I tend to think of things a lot, especially when I'm doing something that doesn't require a lot of concentration, and if I think of something particularly interesting, I'll probably make a post about it if I can remember to do so.
So, I hope you all enjoy my blog and the thoughts I have to offer.
My name is David, and I'm currently a senior attending the Missouri University of Science and Technology, although I hope I can soon transfer to UMKC. I am openly gay, although I prefer not to make a big deal out of it. I also consider myself a bear, and the only time I make a big deal out of my sexuality is when I show pride in the ability to resist the common stereotype surrounding gay men. I'm also an advocate of disabled rights, a defender of the obese and the poor. I'm also very anti-corporatist, and many of my views tend to lean toward the 'liberal' side of economic and social issues. I do, however, try to consider the views of all parties involved in an issue to try to understand both sides before I come to any decisions regarding the issue at hand.
This blog will contain my thoughts on a variety of philosophical and political subjects, ranging from gun control to the nature of justice to the correctness of any religion. I tend to think of things a lot, especially when I'm doing something that doesn't require a lot of concentration, and if I think of something particularly interesting, I'll probably make a post about it if I can remember to do so.
So, I hope you all enjoy my blog and the thoughts I have to offer.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)