NRA lies smartly exposed: The truth about consumer demand for life-saving smart guns

[SecularMotion]

A new national survey by an esteemed team of public-health researchers takes dead aim at one of the gun lobby’s worst lies among too many to count: That there’s just no market for smarter guns that would save lives.

Sane people up to and including President Obama understand that equipping guns with technology that lets them fire only in the hands of rightful owners would cut firearm fatalities.

Plus, the ability to remotely disable a stolen weapon would surely reduce gun thefts — which happen more than 200,000 times a year, fuel much if not most violent street crime and also create new business for gun manufacturers.

The National Rifle Association has long insisted that Americans have no interest in smart-gun technology. Still more, the NRA’s vigorous opposition has cowed gun sellers from marketing such weaponry in fear that the association would otherwise drive them out of business.

http://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/nra-lies-smartly-exposed-article-1.2506721

[Human101948]

1. But how can I use my gun against the gubmint jackboots if they can turn it off????

That is the paranoia that keeps many gun owners supporting efforts to market safer guns.

On the manufacturer side, there would be a whole slew of product liability lawsuits if their product did not perform as intended.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. Not all government oppressors wear jackboots. Some wore white bedsheets and hoods.

[ileus]

16. That's a pipedream of idiots, a SD firearm is for personal and family safety.

The idea of fighting the government is something that happens in the ME and other countries where the government has failed. These scumbags don't realize that can't happen here.

[beardown]

20. One of my analysts is from the Urkraine.

That's what the Urkrainians thought before all hell broke loose a couple of years ago.

While the Urkraine isn't the US is sure wasn't a banana republic either.

[sarisataka]

21. Are you worried

You might miss out on your ticker tape parade?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10027557257

[Human101948]

22. You betcha!

I'm a pitbull hockey mom...you know it's just ridiculous...but Second Amendment remedies...it's Obama's fault!

[gejohnston]

23. Funny you mention that,

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2016/01/robert-farago/quote-of-the-day-not-everyones-on-board-with-trump-edition/

[Eleanors38]

31. Ha! Kind of feel the same way.

[gejohnston]

54. Trump does kind give off

that used car salesman meets Central American dictator vibe doesn't he?

[krispos42]

2. I have a Samsung Galaxy 5S

It has a fingerprint reader on it so I can unlock my phone without having to fumble with keypads or patterns.

If I bought a smart gun that worked twice as well as this phone, I'd return it, because there is no way I'm trusting my life to it.

[Human101948]

4. How often has your gun saved your life?

Just curious because I've never been in such a siuation.

[krispos42]

5. As many times as my gun has

Zero.

[Duckhunter935]

7. let the police use them first

Then ask yourself why they do not want smart guns for themselves.

[Human101948]

8. Perhaps it would even the odds...

With 51 officers killed and 1,000 citizens killed by cops, citizens were murdered by police at 21.5 times the rate of officers in 2014. In other words, the number of police killed by citizens amounted to barely 5% of the total murders committed by police.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/1100-civilians-were-killed-by-police-in-2014/205641/

[Duckhunter935]

9. glad you agree they do not work

And the police would kill less when they fail to work as intended.

[Human101948]

10. Don't have any evidence one way or the other...

so it is hard for me to agree. Key word was "perhaps."

[Duckhunter935]

11. I know how well my phone works.

Dirty fingers nope, gloves, nope, sweaty, nope. Dead battery, nope. Then let's try proximity device. Dead battery, nope, jamned, nope. Bad RFID chip or antenna, nope.

Way too many points of failure. I use fingerprint technology daily on my phone and it us nowhere near close to the performance required for a firearm. Same with proximity, I have to badge in every day and there are problems with that system also.

If the system is so great, the police will be wanting it and screaming for it. They are not and that is very telling.

[TeddyR]

13. " Murders" by police?

The Washington Post had an article a few months ago pointing out that the vast majority of people killed by police either had used a weapon or threatened someone with a weapon of some sort. Setting aside the fact that your post is completely inaccurate, police don't use smart guns because nobody has developed one that can be trusted to work.

[Human101948]

18. Yes, instead they use the reliable Glock

It's a popular handgun for law enforcement in New York and beyond. The Los Angeles Police Department has a number of firearms approved for use, including nine Glock models. The Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department recently began issuing new recruits the Smith & Wesson M&P, a handgun with a short trigger pull that operates in much the same way.

Glock uses the marketing term “Safe Action” to describe its firing-pin system, but the truth is that Glocks are accident-prone. They contributed to more than 120 accidental discharges in the Washington Metropolitan Police Department from 1988 to 1998. Anecdotes of increased accidental shootings have followed the pistol for more than 30 years wherever it has been adopted by police officers and citizens alike.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-owens-glock-accidents-20150508-story.html

Here's one with less inflammatory language , with numbers on unarmed people. The problem is that there is no official collection of data so it is very difficult to get a clear picture on this topic...

776 People Killed By Police So Far in 2015, 161 Of Them Unarmed
But, just 25 police officers have died from firearms-related violence in the same period.

Editor’s Note: In November 2015, the total number of police killings surpassed 1,000.

MINNEAPOLIS — So far in 2015, U.S. police killed 776 people, 161 of whom were completely unarmed at the time of their death.

The data was compiled by The Guardian for a project called “The Counted,” a continuously updated, interactive database of police killings in the United States. Based on their figures, police have killed, on average, about three people per day so far this year. The Counted database is the most comprehensive information available on police killings, since no U.S. government agency maintains a similar listing.

http://www.mintpressnews.com/776-people-killed-by-police-so-far-in-2015-161-of-them-unarmed/209127/

[Human101948]

19. So switch to the M&P...oops! More accidental discharges!

Sheriff's officials say that the increase in accidental discharges — from 12 in 2012 to 30 last year — occurred because deputies were adjusting to the new gun. They expect the numbers to fall in the years ahead. So far this year, the department has recorded seven accidental discharges, five of which involved the new weapon...

....The M&P has obvious benefits. It is easier to shoot accurately, can be fired more reliably under stress, and is a better fit for people with small hands. The switch was prompted in part by the threat of a lawsuit by women who had failed the Sheriff's Academy. More recruits — including more women — are now passing the firearms test, and veteran deputies are also logging better scores at the firing range.

But the sharp increase in accidental discharges has prompted an investigation by the Sheriff's Department's new inspector general. Critics say this type of semiautomatic, which is widespread in law enforcement and includes the Glock used by many agencies, is too easy to misfire.

http://www.policemag.com/channel/weapons/news/2015/10/20/rise-in-accidental-gunshots-by-l-a-county-deputies-follows-new-firearm.aspx

[gejohnston]

25. what it really means is that

"highly trained police officers" is mostly a myth. The average teenager who goes through a hunter safety course is better trained than NYPD.

[Duckhunter935]

29. don't pull the trigger

Keep your finger off the trigger until you need to shoot. Ensure the chamber is empty and never ever point a firearm at something you do not want to destroy. Simple firearms rules those "highly trained" police officers should know.

[Lizzie Poppet]

50. Exactly.

As someone over on DI so colorfully put it: "keep your damn booger hook out of the trigger guard until you are absolutely ready to shoot, period."

[branford]

41. How many of those 1,000's of civilians were lawfully and legitimately shot

by police because they were criminally dangerous?

Are you implying that anyone killed by police constitutes a "murder," a term which actually has a precise definition?

There are very bad people in society who often present a clear and present danger to police officers and innocents, and I applaud, not condemn, law enforcement officers who do their job, even when they need to resort to lethal force.

You may certainly cite instances where lethal force may not have been justified, but it still would not support your original hyperbole or change my point at all.

[mog75]

57. Source? NT

[ileus]

17. It only takes once...a risk many aren't willing to take.

Chances are if you ever need a gun and don't have one you'll never need one again.


A for my life and the lives of my family it's just not worth that risk, I have a moral progressive obligation to do my best to keep them safe. I know I know, that sounds sexist, but my wife also has her CHP and can protect herself, but she doesn't mind having backup.

[beevul]

51. How many times has your seatbelt or fire extinguisher saved your life?

Just curious because I've never been in such a situation.

See how that works?

[flamin lib]

58. We covered this over here:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=185776

And I believe we put to rest the unreliability aspect of smart guns unless you want to limit discussion to that one single technology.

I suggest anyone interested in the technology read the entire thread.

[krispos42]

60. The biometrics wasn't put to rest

The fact that an electronically-controlled safety system in a mechanical device can reliably allow that mechanism to work is not an issue.

The fact that the electronics must be able to quickly, accurately, and reliably unlock the system for the proper user(s) is an issue.

[flamin lib]

61. No, it's not. Proven reliable just like seatbelts. Nt

[krispos42]

62. Which system? the print reader or the transponder?

Which?

[flamin lib]

63. WTF difference does it make?

Smart guns are proven safe, effective and reliable with instant accessibility. Yes, I'm talking about the Transponder technology. If you insist on finding ONE piece of technology to pin the 'unreliable' tag on I'll just have to use this ONE dumb gun to prove that all stupid guns are unreliable.

[friendly_iconoclast]

64. Interesting video- but most 'stupid' guns are very reliable these days,...

...shoddy manufacturers like Taurus, Raven, and Lorcin aside


Kindly let us know when a law enforcement or military issues a 'smart'
handgun for general use, or a civilian model is a sales success, mkay?
Vaporware, or the firearms equivalents of the front-wheel dive Cord or the Tucker Torpedo
don't really count...

[krispos42]

65. Okay, the transponder technology.

The one that works at a distance of several feet to several yards from the gun. The one that is not biometric. The one that has not been adopted by any police force, nor seen service use.


Gotcha.

[flamin lib]

67. The Mossberg technology works at 2 to 5 inches, has passed mil spec testing and is under testing for

police use by local LEOs as I type this.

The only reason to oppose this technology is to be a Luddite opposed to any new technology. I keep proving you wrong and you keep coming back for more.

At this point it's expensive because each one is essentially hand made, but the components can be produced on an assembly line for pennies and are small enough to be adapted to even a small CC pistol.

Come into the 120th century, will ya'.

[branford]

68. Most gun rights supporters don't oppose the technology or further research per se.

They oppose idiotic laws like the one in New Jersey that effectively mandate such technology and ban everything else.

When such technology provides an increases in potential choices to gun owners to suit their individual circumstances, there will be little, if any, opposition. When gun control advocates seek to use the technology as a means of banning guns and drastically limiting choice, no less when the technology is still unproven over years of hard use, it's hardly surprising that there's substantial push-back.

You claim the Mossberg technology has passed mil spec and in under testing. That's good. Let's talk again when numerous law enforcement agencies actually adopt the technology and it proves entirely reliable under a variety of adverse conditions over the course of a decade or three.

[flamin lib]

69. Moving the goal posts while doing everything possible to prevent the technology from

meeting the goals you set.

Luddite reasoning.

[branford]

72. Where did I "move the goalposts?"

If permitting the technology is a means to ban tens of millions of reliable firearms. opposition to the technology is smart and effective politics.

Gun control proponents are the ones who made this issue a binary choice between smart guns or no guns. Blame yourselves for the current predicament.

In any event, there are no legal impediments stopping research into "smart gun" technology, nor preventing anyone from adopting it. As I and many others have observed, the best way to convince gun owners and gun rights supporters of the value of the technology is for law enforcement and the military to use it extensively under harsh conditions and prove it reliable.

Whether you like it or not, you're demanding gun owners adopt unproven technologies and give up tens, if not hundreds, of millions of perfectly reliable firearms. That's foolish and never going to happen.

If you want "smart guns," establish their inherent reliability over time, and then let the market freely decide that they're the best choice for self-defense, sport, and other lawful purposes.

[flamin lib]

73. Please see reply 71. nt

[branford]

75. Ah, the "people who don't agree with me are unreasonable" position,

and therefore they can be ignored.

Good luck with that in the legal and political debate over firearm rights. Note that you're arguing here with otherwise liberal fellow Democrats (I don't even own any guns). It only get more challenging in the real world.

BTW, how successful has that strategy been with"smart gun" technology or most other gun control?

[krispos42]

70. Spectacular news.

I hope it works out. When it's proven that will be an interesting day indeed.


When it's proven. It should be a simple matter to have tactically-trained people run realistic tactical training exercises with both "smart" and "dumb" guns, in a wide variety of conditions.

[flamin lib]

71. I am fucking done with this conversation.

Your inability to reason does not constitute an inability to offer proof on my part.

You lose. You get nothing. Good day sir.

[branford]

74. Passing mil spec does not equal proven and reliable, no less for all lawful civilian purposes.

It's a good start, but that's all. Many products pass such specification and yet are still proven unfit for purpose over time.

[krispos42]

76. I'd be interested in reading about the Mossberg

I'm not a Luddite, unlike those vicious people that have tried to repress sales of smart guns by threatening gun store owners. I do, however, object to people such as yourself that think that gun makers should just stop making all current-production guns and turn on a dime to start making smart guns.

I mean, god forbid the technology evolve, right? That the technology go through development and adaptation to seek out flaws and refinements in the system. God forbid that people field-test the things outside of a laboratory, or do an endurance test on it.

I'll tell you what I'd like to see... the transponder safety system in a competitive shooting environment. "Race guns". It's a way to test the guns over thousands of rounds, in a variety of tactical situations, and with some very demanding people judging it. But, nobody's lives are put at risk because if the gun fails to shoot, it's just a loss of points.

If the system will work there, it will work in other places. But somehow I don't see Bloomburg or MDA or any other gun-safety organization putting any effort at all to make this happen.


It's pretty simple and pretty cheap, compared to the cash spent lobbying. Bloomberg simply finds an up-and-coming but unknown competitive shooter. A few uniform shirts, a few hundred dollars for gear, a couple of grand for a quality competitive gun, a couple of more grand for the transponder safety system, and a couple of thousand dollars a month for practice ammo. Throw in some travel money, and this guy (or woman) could travel the country with advertising targeting the very people YOU need to convince. If the system works, then this person will perform at least decently in shooting competitions because, as you like to say, it's at least as reliable as the mechanical action of the rest of the handgun, right?

So for a ten-grand outlay and a maybe 4 grand a month your side could be having a high-impact spokeperson delivering real-world, undeniable, YouTube-able performance that proves your side is right.

I'd LOVE to see that. So ask yourself why it isn't happening.

[flamin lib]

79. Armatek tested their gun in every conceivable environment.

Rain, dust, mud, oil and grease for 250,000 rounds. It exceeded the industry standard by 2x.

I object to you making shit up, like accusing me of wanting to discontinuing all conventional firearms.

Mossberg information is available on line.

I guess you have to do something when you keep being proven wrong . . .

[krispos42]

80. Considering your vehemence that these guns be accepted wholesale and in large quantities...

...bu gun owners, of course I figured you would also be for the next logical step: discontinuing production of dumb guns. Maybe not entirely, but by a large percentage. Probably via New Jersey-style smart-gun laws.



If you act a certain way, people will draw certain conclusions.


Regardless, there is ample opportunity for Armatek guns to show their worth without needing bulk sales to law enforcement, which is a point that some people, including myself, have made: once proven on the street by law enforcement, private sales will get a boost. This is a truth for many kinds of guns, such as Glocks. Police/military acceptance paves the way for civilian acceptance.

Armatek can showcase their products in shooting competitions, which will both publisize their products as well as improve them. If your side wants to get these things accepted, that's probably the fastest way. Hoping the NYPD or the FBI will order 20,000 of them in a bulk sale to stimulate public acceptance probably is a fantasy without a few years of competitive success first.


You do realize I'm trying to help you, right?

[flamin lib]

81. I've got enough evidence to form some definite conclusions about you. nt

[branford]

82. If you believe these "smart guns" have proven their value and reliability,

your efforts should be focused on repeal of counterproductive laws like those in NJ and encourage the adoption of such weapons by law enforcement, the military and sport competition. This is the avenue for market acceptance and general increased demand, both for purchase and further technological research.

If you basically insist that all civilians immediately use "smart guns" currently unproven in the real world over time to the exclusion of all others, no less by an effective ban of conventional firearms by force of law (to the extent even constitutional), you will, to the surprise of absolutely no one, get nowhere fast.

[friendly_iconoclast]

85. The same could well be said about many people- including you. nt

[pablo_marmol]

77. "You lose. You get nothing. Good day sir."

This arrogance has been working so well for your team thus far.

By all means, flamin lib --- please proceed!

[beevul]

83. Everyone is done conversing, until they aren't. N/T

[Nuclear Unicorn]

84. .

[Duckhunter935]

6. they better work better than my phone

The uninformed making feel good choices. I would love to see the question, methodology and sample size.

Of course we know you will never answer for one of your Google dumps that you refuse to comment on or discuss per the group SOP.

[krispos42]

12. I love the polling on this in the linked article

-If they were going to buy a gun, 59% of respondents said they would be willing “to purchase a childproof gun that fires only for authorized users.”

-Fully 43% of gun-owning Americans said they would be willing to buy a smart gun, while 55% those who owned just handguns were on board.

-There is high interest — 65% — in households with children under 18.

-Two-thirds of non-gun owners said they could make a purchase like that.

-Interest in childproof guns crossed the political spectrum — 71% of liberals, 56% of moderates and 56% of conservatives share the concept.

Not asked: would you buy a smart gun if the reliability of detection was significantly less than an all-mechanical "dumb" gun?

[TeddyR]

14. I'm not opposed to smart gun technology

If a manufacturer makes one that works -- i.e., I can pick it up and fire immediately without needing a bracelet, if there is something on my hands (like blood), there's no chance that it won't work, and it doesn't cost a fortune. Police and federal law enforcement don't use smart guns for a reason.

[ileus]

15. Guns are mechanical, whatever you "smart" them up with can be removed.

any pins batteries boards and solonoids can be removed/disabled if stolen.


Now Smart guns could be good for new folks that don't really understand firearms, and wants a big chunky Self Defense firearm for the home that they can leave around for the kids to play with safely.


Once they newness has worn off they'll want a good CC gun, and that means compact and easy to conceal. That rules out "smart" guns for the most part.


The new owner will also eventually want a CZ75 and 1911 collector piece for polishing and admiring.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

26. IMHO if smart guns were mandated by law...

...the inherent malfunctions would open the door to successful lawsuits against the manufacturers which is a gun-control dream.

Hell no! I want no part of a smart gun.

The only thing worse than a smart gun is a dumb politician voting for a smart gun law.

[Waldorf]

24. As a firearm owner I will not buy one of these smart. Firearms are simple tools, that is why they

are reliable. Introducing electronic parts will just be something new that can go wrong. Plus they are very expensive to purchase.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

27. The folks that want smart guns and smart gun laws....

....are simple tools. case closed.

[SecularMotion]

28. Those are the standard NRA arguments against smart guns

Eventually, smart guns will be as reliable as today's firearms and mass production will lower the costs.

[Duckhunter935]

30. until then

I will take my choice of a dumb gun and a smart person operating it. Are you on board with a persons individual choice?

I know you will not answer and your silence is very telling.

The truth is not an NRA argument, it is just the truth unless you can prove it not to be the case.

[SecularMotion]

32. How would you feel about Bloomberg as Hillary's VP?

Maybe we'll have a Bloomberg group soon where you can be blocked from posting.

[beevul]

33. Will it become your new favorite group?

Or do you enjoy posting about guns too much for that?

[Duckhunter935]

35. I think he likes Google

Cut and paste dumps with no comment or discussion here. This will remain his favorite dumping ground.

[Duckhunter935]

34. when they block you

They are afraid to discuss an issue. Like putting their heads in the sand. Don't you have group to moderate as you are the host. I hear it is real busy over there.

Care to discuss your OP, as I know how much you dislike thread hijacking.

[Waldorf]

44. I've visited that group a couple times. I could swear I saw a couple tumbleweeds blowing about.

[Duckhunter935]

45. only a couple

I am surprised they are still there!

[sarisataka]

36. How would you feel about

Bloomberg running against Bernie?

[SecularMotion]

37. Bloomberg running against Bernie running against Trump?

I think Bloomberg may be a stronger candidate against Trump than Sanders.

[sarisataka]

38. So would you encourage people to

support Bloomberg against Trump unless Hilary gets the nod? Bloomie doesn't seem to popular here at the moment.

[SecularMotion]

43. I support Hillary as long as she is in the race.

I don't encourage people to vote for particular candidates. I only speak for myself.

I will point out that Bloomberg has been a Democrat for a longer time than Bernie has.

[sarisataka]

47. I don't see Bloomberg

Being anyone's VP. He likes to be in charge and his ego would not let him be #2.

Remember this is the guy who doesn't have to stop at the gate when he gets to heaven.

[beevul]

52. Well...

Remember this is the guy who doesn't have to stop at the gate when he gets to heaven.

Lots of self appointed self important politician types who think that they have their own army believe that, particularly those with an authoritarian megalomaniacal view of other citizens and their rights.

[gejohnston]

40. I don't think so

Bloomberg and Trump are two peas in a pod. If Bernie gets the nomination, it would be against the ToS to support Bloomberg, who will run as an independent. That could split the left of center vote it will be Bloomberg's fault Bernie lost.
Trump isn't going to get the nomination.

[gejohnston]

39. Bloomberg isn't going to be anyone's VP

the informed money is on Julian Castro. Bloomberg is pondering running as an independent in the general. If Bernie gets the nomination, Bloomberg will run against Bernie and probably Rubio. No, I don't see Trump or Cruz getting the nomination after an ugly floor fight.
If Bloomberg jumps in, just double check the ToS before you start singing his praises during the general election.

[SecularMotion]

46. I think the strongest ticket for the Democratic Party would be Clinton-Castro

But anything can happen at this point.

Bloomberg's interest in the race might buy him a spot as someone's VP.

[gejohnston]

48. I can think of a few better Democratic candidates other than Clinton

but that is what the party elite wants to stick us with. I agree Clinton and Castro would be strong. Bloomberg said he would spend up to a billion out of his pocket, and he isn't going to be anyone's VP. Like I said, he and Trump are two peas in a pod, two narcissistic and obnoxious and authoritarian billionaires who think they can buy their way to the WH or heaven. Maybe Monsanto Mommy Watts with be his VP. I don't see him doing as well as Perot, that is a bright side. Perot pulled votes from Bush more than Clinton.

[beevul]

49. Ooooooo I know. Double your influence!

You could become the host of the Bloomberg group too, and since you'd be hosting two groups instread of one, you'd double your influence.

Meanwhile in the real world, please understand, that the double of essentially none, is still essentially none.

[Waldorf]

42. So it appears you do agree that they are less reliable than todays firearms and more expensive. :)

I also forgot to add. I will always be against Smart Guns until New Jersey gets rid of their terrible law.

[flamin lib]

59. They already are. nt

[hack89]

66. So let the market do its thing and stop mandating them before the technology is mature

we have no problem with smart guns as long as they are not mandated as a backdoor ban for normal guns.

[beevul]

53. I don't see any lies. I see strawmen. Now deconstructed.

one of the gun lobby’s worst lies among too many to count: That there’s just no market for smarter guns that would save lives.

I've never seen that argument made by 'the gun lobby' or more specifically, the nra.

All I see, is someone claiming, with zero evidence provided, that it happened.

Plus, the ability to remotely disable a stolen weapon would surely reduce gun thefts — which happen more than 200,000 times a year, fuel much if not most violent street crime and also create new business for gun manufacturers.

How can it be done, so that a 'stolen gun' can be remotely deactivated, while lawfully owned guns can not?

Like it or not, that's a legitimate concern, and its not going to go away. I wouldn't want some asshat criminal remotely disabling someones smart gun, similar to how hackers have hacked into numerous auto operating systems. Again, that's a legitimate concern.

I bet if we asked the author, he would still insist that private sales of firearms are a huge problem, in spite of claiming that stolen guns "fuel much if not most violent street crime".

The National Rifle Association has long insisted that Americans have no interest in smart-gun technology.

Another very specific claim about the nra, with zero evidence provided.

That number, never credible, is demonstrably proven wrong. On the very remote chance that it was accurate at the time of the survey, events like mass shootings have surely changed attitudes, while smartphones and GPS have acclimated millions to the powers of technology.

Its not demonstrably proven wrong anywhere in this OPINION piece. Its also never proven that the results of the NSSF survey was never credible. The author as much as admits it, when he says "never credible" and then admits in the next sentence that at the very least theres a "very remote chance".

More people are against gun control now than before all these mass shootings the author cites, so that talking point was a falsehood.

And smartphones and GPS have shown the people that actually USE them, that they're less than 100 percent reliable for regular duty, let alone if ones life is on the line. Another talking point deconstructed.

As the public-health researchers put it in an accompanying editorial in the American Journal of Public Health, “This suggests a substantial market exists for childproof guns among potential purchasers of new guns.”

Pay close attention folks. The "this" in the above paragraph refers to all the falsehoods contained in the previous paragraph. Yes, it really does. Unbelievable huh?

In the perverse logic of gun zealots, the mere idea of a smart gun is distorted into a threat against Second Amendment rights: If smart guns are allowed, they will soon be mandated; then all guns will be tracked; then all guns will be confiscated.

Another strawman. The argument is not that "they will soon be mandated". The argument IS that mandating them has already been done, and the intentions behind it are clear. See NJ. Oh, and 'perverse'? The author needs to sit down and read the cheerleading replies from our anti-gun friends about "the right people" being killed by guns, if he wants to see perverse.

[pablo_marmol]

55. Another blue-ribbon post.

Looks like the "NRA lies" weren't so "smartly" exposed after all.

[beevul]

56. Well...

They aren't exactly making it difficult, you know?

[Straw Man]

78. I'm waiting for the day ...

... when cops adopt smart guns and then a hacker publishes the code to "remotely disable" them.