By Matt Rooney | The Save Jersey Blog
Loopy Loretta is at it again, Save Jerseyans. Emboldened by Democrat legislative gains, she’s preparing to revisit and strengthen her 13-year-old “smart gun” bill. The goal? Make it so you don’t have a choice but to buy a smart gun.
I’m going to keep this simple, without even getting into the liberty argument since few hardcore gun control-types are susceptible to those appeals…
(1) This is another solution in search of a problem.
Everything liberals do is allegedly “for the kids” unless the kid in question is an unwanted fetus. Smart guns are also for the kids despite the fact that even the most excited anti-Second Amendment activists will admit they don’t know exactly how many children are killed every year by accidental gunshot. Facts don’t enter into their hyper-emotional decision-making process. We do know the number is small; in 2011, 102 Americans killed in accidental gun deaths under the age of 18. Half were under 13. So roughly the same number of Americans are killed every year by lightning, a point I’ve made many times in the wake of statistically rare mass shootings.
“But Matt! How can you be so callous! Saving even one child is worth it.” Okay; I’ll shut off my brain and join you in the emotional deep end. Let’s ban swimming, too, while we’re at it since drowning is a far more common way for children to die than accidental firearm discharges.
The other oft-cited rationale for smart guns is preventing gun crimes committed by someone who stole the gun. Again, the data just doesn’t back up the premise that there is tons of violent crime committed with stolen guns and what’s more, the way smart gun proposals are structured, they’d have zero impact on so-called “straw purchases.”
Shouldn’t corrective legislation designed to curb a fundamental constitutional liberty at least pretend to correlate to a problem?
(2) Smart guns would likely kill far more people than they’d save.
There are a number of technological, biomechanical and practical reasons to be extremely wary of these electronic, computerized smart guns, particularly if you’re using it primarily for self-defense like most private owners.
Can they be hacked? Tracked? Or jammed by the government or other third parties? What if it runs out of electrical power during a home invasion? What if someone else in your home needs to use your gun in a life-or-death emergency situation? Or you need to use theirs? Or your finger is too dirty, or covered, to pass finger-print scanning protocol? A common variation requires the wearing of a range-sensitive wrist watch to fire. How realistic is THAT when someone breaks down your door at 3 o’clock in the morning?
The list of scary (and common) scenarios is almost infinite while the satisfying answers from the proponents of smart guns are few.
Tell me: what comfort will your participation in a grand technological experiment be when you and your entire family are dead? I’d hope the answer is obvious. It’s not a trick question.
(3) Smart gun laws disproportionately burden poor people who need protection.
Regular Save Jersey readers are familiar with the stories of Carol Bowne – a South Jersey domestic violence victim murdered by an ex-boyfriend against whom she had restraining order – and Shaneen Allen, the Philly mother persecuted in New Jersey over the gun she bought to defend her children in the low-income neighborhood where they reside.
There are a lot of common threads, ones which we’ve connected for you before, but one of them is the routinely overlooked point that violent crime disproportionately impacts Americans who aren’t filthy sticking rich like the Democrat and Big Labor political bosses.
Loretta cares not! Smart guns – like the Armatix iP1 – cost around $1,800, a few to several times more than your standard handgun purchased for self-protection. Can a working class mother of two afford that? The answer is “no.” She’s on her own in Democrat-dominated New Jersey when the wolves are at the door.