Gun owners, what do you think? Gun control advocates, how about you? Promoted by Rosi
Shortly after the school shootings in Newtown, a lengthy debate over gun control took place across the country. The debate lasted for awhile (though not long enough), and ultimately ended with nothing getting done.
I bring the gun control debate back up because several heated arguments took place in the comments section of a few posts on this site. Some NJ gun owners made intelligent arguments against background checks. Even though I disagree with those owners, I respect their opinions and accept that there will always be a disagreement on fundamental values between them and I. Yesterday, however, I stumbled across this article in the New Republic:
The article presents advances in technology that could essentially end the gun control debate with a victory for both sides. The technology it speaks of are smart guns and microstamping. Smart guns would prevent anyone but the gun’s owner from being able to fire the weapon. It would do so by requiring the owner to wear a watch or ring that would activate the gun’s firing ability. Additionally, smart guns would be programmed with micro chips that would prevent the gun from firing in certain large population areas; such as malls, schools, or movie theaters. Microstamping on the other hand, is a mechanism that would stamp each bullet as it’s fired with the gun’s serial number as it is fired. Microstamping would make it dramatically easier for police to track shooters and might even keep innocent people out of jail.
The NRA, gun makers, and shooting associations, however, have refused to implement either of these measures; and are, in fact, hostile to these ideas. This is beyond disconcerting, as either of these technologies have the ability to end the gun control debate once and for all. Background checks would no longer be essential if a gun is programmed not to open fire in specific areas; and the debate over the legality of high caliber bullets would no longer be necessary. The NRA’s desire to fight these measures has me baffled. What is their rationale? It’s a signal that they are either 1) determined to protect their members at all costs; even criminals. Or 2) Are actively promoting human on human violence.
Reading of the NRA’s decision to fight leads me to believe that we need to reopen the gun control debate in earnest, both in NJ and across the country. If companies like the NRA are willing to fight logical answers to needless violence, than we need to go further than just suggesting background checks.
I’m curious to hear the opinions of both gun owners and anti-gun members of this site. Comments are encouraged.