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?
No comments:
Post a Comment