The latest “common sense” idea for gun control is the “smart” gun. These guns would contain a chip making it only able to be fired by the person who is somehow identified as the owner of the gun. The National Shooting Sports Foundation did a survey and found that most people don’t approve of this idea. Now why could they possibly be against a “common sense” idea that could keep children from accessing and using guns? Maybe because long-term thinkers actually think about the far-reaching unintended (or maybe truly intended) consequences.
A German company (Armatix) has developed a gun that can only be fired if the person is also wearing something like a wristwatch that matches up to the electronics of the gun. This watch would supposedly be powered by a battery. What could possibly go wrong? First of all, anything electronic also has its drawbacks.
In the event of an emergency where I need to quickly use my gun for self-defense, it could malfunction as with any electronic device, and be as useful as having no gun at all. Obviously the battery could go dead at an inopportune time. Or the EPA, with all their overreaching powers, would find an “issue” with the battery maker and put them out of business, completely ending the use of these guns.
Then let’s talk about criminals. They’re not a stupid bunch. Oh, sure, every so often we see a great news article about the “dumbest criminal of the week” but, really, as a whole, they’re pretty sharp. They figure out every way there is around every law and every loophole. If only their powers could be used for good… but they’re not. So what would they do if all guns had to be made with a chip? There are still millions and millions of old-fashioned guns in existence.
And the criminals would have a lot of them because they certainly wouldn’t trust a smart gun to work properly. If they wanted one of these smart guns, they could simply steal your smart gun AND the watch. Boy, what a nightmare that would be because you would be charged with murder if they used it and you have no denial because you are theoretically the only person who could use the gun. And good luck proving that it wasn’t you because the gun-hating politicians and elites would hide all evidence that it was possible for anything else to occur.
So why else might we be against this type of gun? Anything electronic can also be manipulated. An smart gun would have a chip, a chip that could be tracked, that could be “shut off” by the government, thereby completely disarming the American populace. Oh, don’t think for a minute the police and Obama’s “military” or politicians would have to follow the same law – they know the dangers of it so would exempt themselves. But they will push it on us in the name of “common sense” and “for the children” and if we speak against it we are “conspiracy nuts”.
In researching this topic I found that New Jersey passed a law in 2002 that said three years after the first smart gun hits the market, ONLY smart guns can be sold in New Jersey. But guess who’s exempt? The police. Why? Because of those future unintended consequences? Or because they don’t trust the technology either? Have you noticed that you can tell how good a law really is by who gets exempted from it?
After the disasters of Obamacare, the IRS, and the NSA privacy violations, we have every right to stick to our conviction that the combination of the government and electronic technology cannot be trusted with our guns.