What 'smart gun' technology is really all about

Josey1

What 'smart gun' technology is really all about Because I was on the media list for the Shooting, Hunting and Outdoor Trades (SHOT) show, which returned to Las Vegas this weekend, I got lots of postcards and e-mails during the month of January, urging me to stop by the booth of one exhibitor or another. Tonya Giudice of Blue Heron Communications, a PR outfit, sent me a routine e-mail a week or so back offering me a personal tour of the Smith & Wesson line at the show. Not thinking much about it, but curious, I replied: "Hi -- Have you formally abrogated and rescinded that deal with the federals, or are we still boycotting you? "p.s. -- I love Smiths, own dozens, and buy no other revolver. (Well, I bought one Taurus in .44 Special -- I thought it was cute.) I just haven't been buying any NEW ones since the previous management sold us down the river." (It was a gun-buyer boycott, after the previous management of Smith & Wesson signed a sell-out deal with the Clinton administration equivalent to Chamberlain's deal with Hitler over Czechoslovakia, that forced the bargain-basement sale of the 150-year old Massachusetts gun-maker last year.) This time, it was Gary Giudice, president of the outfit, who responded: "Good afternoon Vin, We understand how you feel. As you know, the Clinton administration is gone and Thompkins, the previous English owner, is gone. Now we have an American-owned Smith and Wesson that makes quality handguns right here in the USA. During the last couple of years a lot has changed at S&W. But they still have many fourth generation employees, they still have a mission to make safe and dependable firearms and they still promote responsible gun ownership. Please take a moment to come by the booth at SHOT to look at the products you've been missing. ..." Now, I'm a native New Englander, and would like nothing more than to see the Connecticut Valley once again called the "Arsenal of Freedom." But don't try to kid a kidder. I replied: "Hi, Gary -- Love it. You `understand how I feel.' I'm sure you're also `hearing what I'm saying.' I feel so much closer now, don't you? "I take it it's no mistake that your polite message does not contain the sentence, `and we've unilaterally rescinded and abrogated that "deal" in which the previous owners agreed that no gun store would be allowed to stock S&W products unless they installed "safety locks" on all the guns they sold, etc. ...' "There's nothing `responsible' about allowing the federal government to coerce us into manufacturing weapons of a type -- or storing our weapons in a way -- which makes them less readily usable to defend our families (much less weapons which are easily disabled by a cop with a remote `electronic key' -- the final goal of any `smart gun' technology)." Well, Gary didn't take that lying down: "Good morning Vin, "I too am a gun owner much concerned about trends in America relating to my rights as a gun owner. Not speaking for Smith of course, I too was appalled by that agreement and the fact that Thompkins signed it. I've been an NRA member since 1964 and have kept as well informed as possible about all issues relating to my rights. I do understand how you feel. "That said, you don't seem to have a good handle on the agreement, what it said or even what it would've meant, much less the political realities of today. Do you think for a minute the Bush administration would let anybody out of such an agreement? He, and his party, do need to worry about getting re-elected. ... Cops turn off our guns? Yep, there are a few folks that would like to see that I suppose but nowhere in any agreement has that been proposed. Nor would anyone at Smith or any other reasonable American support such stupidity. The stretch you make on this point is worse than some anti-gunners would try. "Most major gun companies that I'm aware of are working on `smart technology.' Are you boycotting them as well? We, as law abiding gun owners in America, have a lot of problems; it's just that Smith is no longer one of them. Smith and Wesson is not the enemy. ..." Pretty much wrapping up our little dialogue, I replied: "Nice try, Gary. I `don't seem to have a good handle on the agreement'? Read it recently, yourself? Not only did Smith agree to impose conditions on its dealers (even when they sold non-Smith products) which would never have been tolerated had not the fedgov been a party to the scheme, but Smith also agreed to develop `smart gun' technology. " `Smart guns' are designed to include chips which `turn off' the gun when it's not in its owner's hand. Take a look at the technology now available for some new cars, which allows the `owner' to throw a remote switch and kill the car's ignition system to `stop a car thief from escaping with the car.' You think police aren't already experimenting with ways to use this technology to `turn off' the ignition system when owners try to drive away in their own cars? "Now, why exactly do you think the police (with federal aid, financing, and encouragement) won't quickly seek to develop technology which will allow an officer knocking on the door ... to use an `electronic master key' to `disable' any `smart guns' in the house -- and then quickly ban the manufacture of any gun that ISN'T a `smart gun' ... all for `the safety of the children,' of course? "What on earth do you think they want this technology for?! The statistical occurrence of the `problem' it's supposed to `solve' -- guns being grabbed away and used against their owners -- is infinitessimal. And even if it were frequent, why would the gun grabbers care -- that would only bolster their otherwise pathetic case against private gun ownership. Do you really believe they want to make guns `safer' so more of us will buy and carry them? ... "Stop it, Gary. You're killing me." Vin Suprynowicz, the Review-Journal's assistant editorial page editor, is author of "Send in the Waco Killers." His column appears Sunday. http://www.lvrj.com/lvrj_home/2002/Feb-03-Sun-2002/opinion/18004463.html