The Boogeyman Versus Smart Guns
BY Herschel Smith
9 years, 8 months ago
There is a battle going on in the U.S. over the development and sale of so-called “smart guns” — handguns that proponents say should improve safety and lower suicide rates because they can only be fired by owners.
Gun-store owners say there is no market for such guns and that they have never had a single customer inquiry. In addition, some owners say, smart guns are too expensive, or the technology does not exist.
“I do not personally have any objections to having a gun that only operates when the owner fires it,” says Nick Newman, 48, who for 20 years has owned Cherokee Firearms in Springfield, Mo. “But that is kind of like saying I would prefer flying my car to work.”
National organizations like the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence and the American Association of Suicidology support further development of smart guns and believe such firearms are ready to be brought to market.
An assortment of companies, mostly startups or ones based in Europe, are using various technologies — including the use of a radio-transmitting wristband worn by the owner that sends a signal to the gun — to try to make handguns safer.
The main opponent is the National Rifle Association. But it will not speak. The Springfield (Mo.) News-Leader left six messages on the phone and with a secretary over two weeks for the one spokesman designated to talk to the media, Andrew Arulanandam, in the national office in Virginia. He did not respond. Eventually, the newspaper requested someone — anyone — to send a statement on the group’s position on smart guns. The organization did not reply.
Donald Sebastian has a doctorate in chemical engineering and is the senior vice president for research at the New Jersey Institute of Technology. He has researched smart-gun technology since 1999. The NRA is the leading obstacle to bringing a smart gun to market, he says.
The writers of the article would have you believe that “smart guns” haven’t sold because of the big, bad boogeyman NRA doesn’t want you to have them.
What they really mean is that since the NRA does what we tell them too, mostly, and since they oppose mandating these ridiculous machines by law, they won’t sell since there is otherwise no market for them.
I’ll prove it, if someone is willing to take me up on the bet. I recommend that some company invest an ass load of money into “smart guns.” Try to sell them. Just try. Try to recover your investment without the mandate of law forcing consumers to purchase them. See what happens.
I dare you. Does any company want to take me up on the offer? I’ll admit over the pages of this web site that I was wrong and there really is a blooming market for such things if you succeed. Imagine the victory for gun controllers with such an announcement.
Please? Take me up on the bet. Please. Invest an ass load of money into smart guns. Please? There is a caveat. No laws – just marketing. And a lot of investment money on your part. If you lose, admit that there is no market for such things.
Prior: Smart Guns Tag
|
|
On August 5, 2014 at 9:12 am, Pericles said:
You would think that police departments would be first in line to buy as then no unauthorized person could use a police weapon – if this idea had any merit.
On August 5, 2014 at 5:24 pm, Miles said:
All the .gov laws ever passed or proposes specifically exempts LEagencies/.mil from any requirement to field such devices.
I say; Sauce for the Goose and if the Goose don’t want it, the Gander shouldn’t have it forced on them either.
Eff ’em
On August 6, 2014 at 8:42 am, revjen45 said:
IIRC, the “Smart Gun” was conceived to keep cops from being shot with their own or partner’s guns. A $2,000 .22 that may or may not work when you need it is as useless as a nipple on a beer bottle.