New York Times on Biometric Guns: What’s Worse Than Willfully Ignorant?

 Joe Nocera (courtesy

So there I was, rocking up to Casserta’s pizza with my young ‘un, when the Batphone starts playing the Marimba. Lola rolls her eyes. It’s New York Times’ columnist Joe Nocera, the man I’d taken to the woodshed for failing to include defensive gun uses (DGUs) in his daily roll call of “gun violence.” So I order a small cheese pizza and a spinach pie and Joe and I get into it. “We include DGUs when they show up,” Joe says on the blower. “What do you mean ‘show up’?” I ask. “We Google search ‘shooting’,” he says. “That’s where we get our stories.” “So, Joe, how about you Google search ‘shooting self-defense‘? I counter, wondering if anyone could be so completely biased that they don’t even know they’re biased. Nah. It’s not like that. It’s worse . . .

I’m belching Coke Zero, Lola’s playing Temple Run and Joe’s ready to get to the point.

“What possible reason could anyone have for not accepting biometrically-protected guns?” Joe asks. “It’s not like it’s a Second Amendment issue.”

Nice. A question that says “anything you say can and will be regarded with contempt” combined with a statement that says the questioner has already made up his mind, anyway.

“Gun owners want a gun that they can rely on,” I tell him. “It’s a matter of life or death. A lot of them don’t even like lasers.

“As far as the Second Amendment goes, gun owners don’t believe the government has the right to tell them what kind of gun they can or cannot buy, whether that’s an ‘assault rifle’ or a gun with a biometric lock.”

“But there’s nothing that stops the government from doing it,” Joe counters.

Believe it or not, Joe brings up the Second Amendment on his computer and reads it to me. I ask him what part of “shall not be infringed” he doesn’t understand. He counters the freedom argument by pointing out that we have seat belt laws.

At this point, my spinach pie arrives. I don’t want to debate Joe on 2A because A) he’s not listening and B) Lola’s pissed that her pizza isn’t ready at the same time and her patience meter for Daddy’s business call is running out.

Fast forward to this morning and click here to read Joe’s column on biometrically-protected firearms. And here’s the bit about why they’re a bad idea:

Why aren’t these lifesaving technologies in widespread use? No surprise here, either: The usual irrational opposition from the National Rifle Association and gun absolutists, who claim, absurdly, that a gun that only can be fired by its owner somehow violates the Second Amendment. Pro-gun bloggers were furious when they saw James Bond, in “Skyfall,” proudly showing off his new biometrically protected weapon. They were convinced it was a Hollywood plot to undermine their rights.

There’s ignorance, willful ignorance and propaganda. I don’t know if Nocera’s column, Saving Children From Guns, qualifies as anti-gun agitprop but if it doesn’t, what does? Anyway, the pizza was worth the wait.