new-york-times

The editorial board at the New York Times is pissed. They thought President Obama would be their knight in shining armor for enacting ever more draconian and nonsensical gun control laws. Unfortunately the pesky Congress has gotten in the way time and again to prevent much of anything from happening. It’s almost as if will of the American people conflicts with The Times’ preferences…but that can’t possibly be because the Grey Lady stocks her editorial staff almost exclusively with morally and intellectually superior individuals. Obviously it’s Congress’s fault that nothing has been done, so The Times has come up with a few proposals as to how the commander-in-chief can enact some rather expansive gun control without a single vote of the legislative branch . . .

The essence of their plan, as laid out in their how-to article, “Here’s a Way to Control Guns“: use government contracts against the gun companies.

For more than a year, we and fellow religious leaders across the nation have worked to persuade President Obama to use what we believe is the most powerful tool government has in this area: its purchasing power. The federal government is the nation’s top gun buyer. It purchases more than a quarter of the guns and ammunition sold legally in the United States. State and local law enforcement agencies also purchase a large share. Major gun manufacturers depend on these taxpayer-funded purchases. For the government to keep buying guns from these companies — purchases meant to ensure public safety — without making demands for change is to squander its leverage.

The broad strokes of their scheme is to use those government contracts and buying power to require gun companies to do the anti-gun administration’s bidding. Want the U.S. Border patrol contract for pistols? Then you’d better fall into line. They argue that since the majority of crimes in the United States are committed using firearms from companies that also have contracts with the .gov, then surely by enacting these regulations on those specific companies we can reduce crime!

It’s precisely the kind of logic you’d expect from the same people who believe that a ban on “assault weapons” will have any measurable impact on crime. Those guns are popular in crimes because they are widely available. Adding odious restrictions to the sale of GLOCKs may reduce the proportion of GLOCKs in criminal hands, but they will only be replaced with Hi-Points and Kel Tecs, brands not typically sourced by the feds. You don’t specifically need a GLOCK to shoot someone — any old thing will do.

Expecting that limiting the availability of one specific model of handgun will reduce the overall crime rate is like expecting a ban on BMW Z series cars to eliminate drunk driving. But that logic seems to have escaped the NY Times’ editorial board.

OK, so this is dumb from the start, but what exactly do they propose?

They could distribute their guns exclusively through dealers that sell guns responsibly, and end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes.

[…]

First, use federal purchasing power to begin a substantive conversation with gun manufacturers. The Pentagon is in the process of selecting the provider of handguns for the United States Army. It should require all bidders to provide detailed information about their gun safety technologies and distribution practices in the civilian market. No response, no contract.

The F.B.I. should do likewise. In his forthright statement on how Dylann Roof obtained the gun used to murder churchgoers in Charleston without having a completed background check, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, explained that gun dealers have the discretion to execute a sale — or not — if a background check isn’t completed within three days. The next logical step, in our view, is for Mr. Comey to ask the F.B.I.’s firearms suppliers to stop doing business with dealers who won’t agree to use that discretion to protect the public.

So, what you’re saying is that you want to hold gun store owners accountable for the actions of their legal customers? How about we tell GM to stop using dealerships where a “disproportionate number” of their cars are used in fatal drunk driving accidents? The law of the land already states that gun stores (and gun manufacturers) are not responsible for the actions of their customers at the end of a legal gun sale, but the NY Times wants to ignore that little fact and impose restrictions anyway.

The ATF already conducts regular inspections of gun stores and ensures compliance with the law. If the Times is concerned about these “bad apple” gun stores, then perhaps their rallying cry should be more ATF oversight of bad actor stores instead of some nefarious backdoor legislation. Instead of removing one specific brand of firearm from their shelves, if the Times was really concerned about the health and safety of people in the area, they would demand that the entire shop be shuttered.

More funding for the ATF investigative branch. Better oversight of “bad apple” shops. Both of these suggestions would have made more logical sense from the NY Times’ editorial board, had a bigger impact on their perceived threat of illegal gun sales, may have made the local area safer, and actually have a snowball’s chance in Hell of getting enacted. But no, according to the Times the only way to make the world safer is to eliminate guns at the source.

As for their expanded point about requiring gun owners to “use discretion” when a background check isn’t complete in three days, what exactly are they demanding? Are they asking that gun dealers look deep into the heart of each and every customer and make a determination as to whether they are a “good” person before releasing the firearm? Or do they just mean “use discretion” as a codeword for “deny the sale anyway?” I think the second one seems more accurate for the Times’ opinion.

What else ya got?

Second, work with companies to develop new models of distribution, such as through dealers certified by the industry as reputable.

Uh, you mean like the existing Federal Firearms License system? Where potential gun store owners go through a rigorous vetting process, have to follow prescribed rules, and are subject to regular inspections? I mean, it’s not like any Jim Bob can put up a tent in his back yard and start selling firearms as a business, there’s already an existing system in place to regulate those sales and ensure that only “reputable” gun stores are allowed to remain open. Again, this is another wonderful example of the Times failing to understand the basic principles of a system that they are demanding change to meet their New York City opinions.

Third, rescue the federal government’s smart-gun research efforts from oblivion. Tens of millions of research dollars are needed to help get promising safety technologies to market.

The NY Times regularly and consistently treats smart guns as if that’s the silver bullet for “gun violence.” They watched that James Bond movie Skyfall one too many times and have come to believe that everything they see in movies is able to be recreated here in the real world. In short, they live in a fantasy world.

“Smart guns” have never been proven to have any impact on “gun violence.” Even if they were introduced today, the existing market conditions (AKA the millions upon millions of cheap “dumb guns” in circulation) would mean that criminals would continue to purchase existing older production firearms to commit their crimes while the law abiding citizens who need the most protection (minorities and those in inner cities) would be priced out of the “smart gun” market and unable to own a firearm. In short, only rich people would be able to afford one of these new whiz-bang gizmos — if they even worked. Which they don’t.

Delightful. Another editorial from the New York Times’ exhausted and hallowed halls that (A) completely fails to understand the nature of the issue (if we just ban these GLOCK fortays then crime will stop!), (B) fails to articulate a way to accomplish their goals that is within the realm of possibility (just punish everyone who doesn’t make a smart gun!), and (C) hilariously fails to understand the existing systems in place before opening their yap to make their inane suggestions (let’s create a system so we know which gun dealers follow the law! Then give them a license! And oversee the system! Oh, wait, that already exists?). Par for the course.

90 Responses to NY Times: Here’s How Obama Should Force Gun Companies To Sell Smart Guns

      • You can buy packing paper that is nothing but blank newsprint. A huge improvement because it has never contained a lie!

    • Old media is like a crotchety old family member. Everyone is just waiting for them to finally die so they shut up.

    • The most important point that gun enthusiasts need to take away from this article is that the NYTimes is an assembly of un-knowing idiots on nearly every issue that they address.

      Since we know something about the topic (guns) it is abundantly obvious on how clueless they are.

      Let me assure that they are equally as clueless on other topics that you DON’T know about. You can rest assured that if you take the opposite position of the NYTimes, you will be on correct side of nearly any issue.

        • Both are specific cases of the general case that “Progressive ‘s just another word, for nothing left upstairs”

  1. It’s awesome that the editorial staff at the NY Times are such experts on market forces, business operations and manufacturing, and not just public policy. Gun companies must be so dense to not have thought of these processes before. They would help their bottom lines and make our country a violence-free utopia. Thanks, Times!

    • Nick, I agree the piece’s ideas are ill-informed and unlikely to work as intended. But I think it was actually not written by the NY Times editors, it was an op-ed piece by a group of clergy. Anyone can write and pitch an op ed.

      • Beat me to it. A clue is found in the first line: “For more than a year, we and fellow religious leaders across the nation…” Whatever the Times may or may not be, it is not a “fellow religious leader.” A further clue is the name of the author of the op-ed. Yes, dissing the NYT is a participatory sport, and though we might infer that it agrees with the ideas in this piece, it still didn’t write it.

      • So what your saying is that in addition to “agenda” being part of the op-ed selection criteria, “plausible deniability” for the egg-on-face is as well.

      • Yes, however the NYT is not obliged to ignore editorial standards. It’s abundantly clear that the article fails even a cursory fact check. My complaint is less about the message, but that the NYT fails to consistently uphold its standards.

        • No, according to this July 18 piece by their ombudsman, the NYT is upholding its standards of non-neutrality just fine: http://nyti.ms/1CODDUK

          The key phrase: “I often hear from readers that they would prefer a straight, neutral treatment — just the facts. But The Times has moved away from that, reflecting editors’ reasonable belief that the basics can be found in many news outlets, every minute of the day. They want to provide “value-added” coverage.”

          They admitted their bias 11 years ago: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/07/25/opinion/the-public-editor-is-the-new-york-times-a-liberal-newspaper.html

        • Thanks, Rokurota (clever name). The July 18 response does sound like criticisms hit a nerve: “Sometimes, the [NYT’s] effort to “add value” can go off track.”

          I’m not fussed over a liberal bias, but failing to apply the uniform standards of journalistic integrity. Anyway, will be interesting to see the accusation merits handwringing by the NYT – particularly since they now strive to be a national newspaper – not just one focused on New York.

        • Thanks, Rokurota (clever name). The July 18 response does sound like criticisms hit a nerve: “Sometimes, the [NYT’s] effort to “add value” can go off track.”

          I’m not fussed over a liberal bias, but failing to apply uniform standards of journalistic integrity as they purport. Anyway, will be interesting to see the accusation merits handwringing by the NYT – particularly since they now strive to be a national newspaper – not just one focused on New York.

          We should expect more of this given another shooting in Louisiana around 8:30PM EDT. Am surprised that the shooter’s race (white) seemed to mentioned. I thought news outlets had stopped reporting race unless it was relevant to the story as in the Charleston shooting. See http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-killed-least-six-injured-louisiana-theater-shooting-n397586

        • Thanks, Rokurota (clever name). The July 18 response does sound like criticisms hit a nerve: “Sometimes, the [NYT’s] effort to “add value” can go off track.”

          I’m not fussed over a liberal bias, but failing to apply uniform standards of journalistic integrity as they purport. Anyway, will be interesting to see the accusation merits handwringing by the NYT – particularly since they now strive to be a national newspaper – not just one focused on New York.

          We should expect more of this given another shooting in Louisiana around 8:30PM EDT. Am surprised that the shooter’s race (white) was mentioned. I thought news outlets had stopped reporting race unless it was relevant to the story as in the Charleston shooting. See http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/two-killed-least-six-injured-louisiana-theater-shooting-n397586

        • NYT – Standards?!?!?!?

          How quaint.

          They had a bit of a golden age in the 30s. Then that was over.

    • @Rokurota: Yep, IF the Times folks were really experts on economics and market forces they would surely find something more profitable to do that run a newspaper.

  2. … and no mention of what this would do to the cost of the government contracts. Any cost of the changes imposed is something the contractor is going to put in his bid.

    That’s assuming the gun mfrs view the government market vs the commercial market as sufficiently large that they’re willing to alienate commercial customers.

    ETA: Didn’t NJ do something like this with their contracts for LEO weapons a year or two back? Whatever became of that?

  3. We saw how that worked out for Colt and H&K. Government contracts are juicy, but it would be insanity for a publicly traded company to think that anything Obama could offer them would overcome the complete and total hatred they would receive from customers and on the accounts receivable end, especially after the feds drop the guns after the technology fails.

    These are the same people who think writing a law forcing people to buy insurance gets rid of uninsured people. Just point, laugh, then move on.

    • Beat me to it. Colt went down the route that the NYT recommended.HK hates the private market as well. I have no use for either company. S&W Hillary hole can go to hell as well.

    • This might have worked for Colt since they were so adamant against developing products for the civilian market. However, since every other major manufacturer has a strong civilian presence, they could just tell the government to go pound sand.

  4. “First, use federal purchasing power to begin a substantive conversation with gun manufacturers. The Pentagon is in the process of selecting the provider of handguns for the United States Army. It should require all bidders to provide detailed information about their gun safety technologies and distribution practices in the civilian market. No response, no contract.

    The F.B.I. should do likewise. In his forthright statement on how Dylann Roof obtained the gun used to murder churchgoers in Charleston without having a completed background check, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, explained that gun dealers have the discretion to execute a sale — or not — if a background check isn’t completed within three days. The next logical step, in our view, is for Mr. Comey to ask the F.B.I.’s firearms suppliers to stop doing business with dealers who won’t agree to use that discretion to protect the public.”

    Bill Clinton pulled this stunt before in 2000 with Smith and Wesson. In return for pushing some gun control, Smith and Wesson would be the recipient of a “preferred buying program”. Gun owners were outraged; they refused to buy new S&W products and even sold the ones they already owned. S&W almost went bankrupt; Tomkins had bought the company for $112 million and in 2001 Saf-T-Hammer bought it for $45 million.

    • … I just noticed they are encouraging the firearms industry to exercise a right that they have stripped away from bakers and photographers. Namely, the right to refuse service.

  5. They could distribute their guns exclusively through dealers that sell guns responsibly, and end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes.

    Let me get this straight: you license certain parties to engage in the business of selling guns, then you refuse to do business with anybody who does business with them because you don’t think the very people you licensed should be selling guns?

    Sort of like “I would never join any club that would have me as a member?”

  6. Cutting off existing manufacturing will cause 10,000 startups to emerge because where there is money a need will be filled. If those new companies only sell in their state then ATF may have a problem because their local enforcement of federal law could be blocked.

  7. “end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes”

    Who are they? New Federal action isn’t needed if there are any ‘bad-apples’ failing to conform to legal requirements. State and local jurisdictions can suspend or lift their business licenses; ditto for FFL by ATF.

    BTW, one statistic from Pfleger’s suit against 3 Chicago suburbs: 20% of guns recovered in crime investigations originated from named stores – no mention where the remaining 80% came from. None of the gun stores were accused of failing to follow legal requirements. Should these innocent retailers be branded as ‘bad-apples’?

    I would expect higher standard from the NYT and have complained to Margaret Sullivan (public editor) public@nytimes.com about the editorial’s poor quality and unfounded claims. http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/contact-the-public-editor/

    Others may wish too as well.

    Thanks, Nick for highlighting this.

    • Oh, I’m sure they’re counting on it. But like virtually everybody set on knocking down civil liberties, they think they’re going to be the tyrants, not the tyrannized.

  8. Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the Times suggesting that the Big G should exploit it’s buying power to force us to buy “smart” guns while the G buys regular guns?

    I have a better idea. Let the G spec smart guns for all its servants — cops and military. Let the G buy nothing but smart guns and refuse to purchase anything else. Because I’m not buying one of those monstrosities unless every Federal agent and soldier, sailor, marine and airman gets one first.

    • Yeah, I keep waiting for these savants to make what should be the obvious connection : If the feds have such massive buying power, and they want the industry to start selling “smart guns”, which are soooo smart that they can be safely and effectively used but only by the authorized user, the Feds should start massively demanding the smart guns for their own massive market (which, BTW, would require no action from that pesky Congress, IINM) But I’ve only seen one lefty go off the reservation and actually make that suggestion. Wonder why????

    • “I have a better idea. Let the G spec smart guns for all its servants — cops and military. Let the G buy nothing but smart guns and refuse to purchase anything else.”

      Yep.

      REQUIRE law enforcement to purchase ‘smart’ guns exclusively.

      ZERO exceptions. Any LE found to be in possession of a non-‘smart’ weapon gets mandatory 20 years in the Federal pen.

      ZERO exceptions.

    • Big Government has market power for buying certain types of guns but the civilian market dwarfs government purchases.

  9. The problem isn’t the selling. The problem is the buying. People hate the concept of smart-guns and their unpopularity drives business away as fast as selling Kobe beef in a vegetarian restaurant.

    What are they doing to make it a more appealing weapon for the buyers?
    Threatening to force sales of things they detest is the opposite of appealing.

  10. Editoral board is published. Maybe we out their addresses.

    I blame you, evil house of (D) head blue. Fix yer sh_t.

    FUNY
    FUNYT

  11. How about American Gun and Ammo Companies stop selling to .gov agencies, and only fulfill military contracts. Let the LEO’s and alphabet agencies shoot Wolf and Golden Bear ammo.
    Ask Ronnie Barrett about non military .50 Cal sales in California.
    (Where they are banned). You can’t ship them into CA.

    Uh, NYTimes. Go F yourself. Not even worthy of lining a birdcage.

    • Beat me to it, and a good point some people, even gun people sometimes overlook. A bit of a history lesson; in 1964, the government closed down the Springfield Armory in Springfield, Massachusetts. ANY AND ALL arms federal and government agencies procure come from the private sector. It is not the government that has buying power. It is the other way around.

  12. “…when a background check isn’t complete in three days, ”

    If you stop and ask any of these gun-grabbers just what they think a ‘background check’ really is you might be surprised at just how far disconnected from the world many of them truly are. For example…..

    I have a guy here at work who is extremely anti-gun. He was off on one hell of a tirade about the ‘incomplete’ background check on the Charleston Shooter. When I challenged his understanding of what exactly a background check is I found out he was under the impression that the dealer called the FBI, they called the local Police, who then called your boss for a reference. They also pull your credit score and I facetiously asked him if he thought if they checked your school records.. he thought a good idea. Basically he thinks that you ‘start’ a background check and this dragnet goes out across the nation of phone calls and computer messages with a flurry of secretaries actually checking your background.

    This story is funny for two reasons…. first for the flashback to the old gangster movies where they show an actual net being cast over a map as a visual metaphor. Second, because this is Florida, the Gun-Shine State. It really is pretty easy to get a gun around here, we have plenty of local gun stores and a nice gun show in one of our three counties every month. And the stores and shows both do background checks for every sale. And there are no ‘parking lot sales’ at the gun shows, at least not in the parking lot of the gun show. Maybe some other parking lot, but not at the show.

    • You should offer to take him to a gun store or show, if you haven’t already, then show him the REAL process of a background check/gun purchase

  13. I have an idea… Let’s use the government’s regulatory power to “correct” mass publications that use their press credentials to shield defamation. We could shut down any newspaper that does not present a clear plan on how they fact check their articles and provide redress to people whose lives or businesses are harmed and punish reporters who report incorrect information.

    That sound reasonable?

  14. What a shame. The old Grey Lady has sure come a long way, and not in a good way, since the days when her editors manned a Gatling gun in the lobby during the Civil War draft riots.

  15. “They could distribute their guns exclusively through dealers that sell guns responsibly, and end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes.”

    I may be mistaken, but don’t FFLs buy most of their guns through middle-man distributors like Lipsey’s and Davidson’s? If that’s the case, then how is Ruger or S&W going to keep an “irresponsible” dealer from ordering their guns from a distributor?

    • Let’s assume for the sake of argument that these disarmers can influence the gunmakers. The manufacturers could have quite a bit of leverage with their distributors. Simply dictate that such and such FFL is blackballed, and the distributor will comply. No major distributor is going to go to the mat and risk getting cut off by Ruger, just to protect some shady kitchen table FFL.

      Beyond that, some of the largest retailers do buy direct from manufacturers. That’s a small population of FFLs, to be sure, but those represent a large portion, maybe a majority, of retail gun sales volume.

      Then there are the small gunmakers whom the distributors ignore. They sell direct to FFLs because that’s the distribution channel available to them. In fairness, in that category you’re going to find a lot of specialty gunmakers, including high end heirloom quality pieces. So we’re not talking about crime guns with a lot of those, anyway.

      Overall, this will probably go nowhere; but if anything, it’s apt to create some headaches for honest businesses and do nothing toward crime reduction. As per usual.

  16. this just shows again how out of touch with reality the media is. the military doesn’t buy top notch gear or guns for mass soldiers. they get the cheapest bid built guns, FACT.

  17. It was six days from the delayed status until the shooter picked up his gun. And another 62 days until he did his shooting.

    The FBI pure and simple dropped the ball. They had over two months to figure out that he shouldn’t own a gun, and send someone to retrieve it.

    • +1. Did anyone actually drop the ball? I’ve read conflicting items as to if one would be eligible to purchase a gun under the exact same circumstances. NetNet: what’s to prevent a recurrence?

  18. In his forthright statement on how Dylann Roof obtained the gun used to murder churchgoers in Charleston without having a completed background check, the F.B.I. director, James B. Comey, explained that gun dealers have the discretion to execute a sale — or not — if a background check isn’t completed within three days. The next logical step, in our view, is for Mr. Comey to ask the F.B.I.’s firearms suppliers to stop doing business with dealers who won’t agree to use that discretion to protect the public.

    I’d be OK with this. Ceasing to doing business with dealers who won’t agree to use their choice of whether or not to proceed with the sale to protect the public. That’s right. If a gun merchant withholds guns from people for more than three days, that merchant is not protecting the public and is threatening public safety. That woman wants a gun for protection against the crazed stalker that’s threatening her, and by withholding the gun indefinitely because of FBI incompetence her attempts to ensure her safety are being stymied by an unethical gun seller.

    Oh, I forgot that in left-wing speak “protect the public” means “disarm the public” and the so-called ethical conduct they want to make mandatory is just to keep guns out of hands as long as possible, no matter the situation. Actually, I didn’t forget and never will.

  19. A) So much for reporting the facts, NYT or doing the investigating. I’m tired of people complaining about systems/laws/etc that they have no experience with.

    B) Smart guns sound like a nice idea for an anti who doesn’t care if the gun goes off expectedly every time especially when you need it to, but given the ingenuity of hordes of idiots, how long before that gun gets a lobotomy rendering it perfectly useful to a person already bent on breaking the law? I think we’ve seen how well affordable electronically locked safes do.

    C) This is all going to be a moot point when in 10 years anyone can print any gun (or something worse) that they want at home.

    I think a lot of the confusion is that the antis, like all of us, fear what they don’t understand. Everyone needs to do a little more self-education before they form dumb opinions without any experience; this goes for everything. People need to open their damn minds and go get some experience with the stuff they “hate” and get over it. It turns out that people tend to be better than we expect (some exceptions expected).

  20. I believe adding these restrictions in order to be awarded the contract would violate

    10 U.S. Code § 2305 (a)(1)(B)(ii) include restrictive provisions or conditions only to the extent necessary to satisfy the needs of the agency or as authorized by law.

    • Am shocked and appalled that our military can’t require “ethically” sourced weapons.

      But seriously, don’t some Federal agencies give extra points for ‘minority owned, women owned business enterprises’ in sourcing acquisitions? That was the case back in the day when I was in govt. sales.

      Absolute travesty. Virtually all added no value but tacked on 10-15% to the sale price via a reseller agreement.

      • “But seriously, don’t some Federal agencies give extra points for ‘minority owned, women owned business enterprises’ in sourcing acquisitions?”

        Yes, indeed.

        The best company I ever worked for was female minority owned.

        And they milked it for every drop.

  21. I love how the liberal elitists who don’t even care about religion are trying to use it against the conservatives who do.

  22. In a similar train of thought, I’d like to see gun and ammo manufacturers use their position to affect political change (kind of like Barrett does with their ban on sales to certain states). Let’s see how fast the psychopaths in DC change their mind about pissing on the Constitution when their thugs are suddenly left without any ammo to use against the lowly taxpaying peasants.

  23. My take away from all this is, the government “only” buys 25% of the guns and ammo. Manufacturers aren’t going to screw around and lose the 75% part (us). They’ll just sell more guns and ammo to us, the regular people.

  24. I would be fine with “smart guns” as long as EVERY police department and military agency has to use them. Let’s see how long it would take for them to start whining that they do not work and have flaws. My guess is about 2 days…

  25. That small percentage of “bad apple” gun dealers are also known as “fences” and don’t have Federal Firearms Licences.

    Firearms manufacturers have no control over the dealers of stolen guns.

    If the “bad apple” is an FFL, the ATF already has the authority to deal with it.

  26. This would matter if anyone actually read a newspaper. No one does. I think about the only buyer of them are Hotels. Go to one and there’s literally a huge pile of them. On top of that NY Times has been for quite some time in its death spiral.

    Today sadly everyone gets there news from Facebook and Twitter. Most news if you notice is all the same recycled trash.

  27. The Times has a mexican billionaire as a big share holder now. I guess some of the drug money is paying for “good journalism” now these days.

  28. If the NYT’s were not a large wealthy MSM forum, they would be ignored as the biased rag they truly are. Don’t listen, subscribe or otherwise to these jokers.

  29. To paraphrase The Matrix: “Don’t try to end the gun violence problem, that’s impossible. Instead try to realize the truth. There is no gun violence problem.”

  30. It takes an especially sick, twisted mind to sit around and think up ways the government can oppress people and circumvent rules that enable a checks and balances system.

    Things like this remind me that being American does not make one an American. I think the US has more Nazis per capita now than Germany did in the 1940s.

  31. Nick,

    I wrote the editor and offered my condolences to the massive failure to achieve any realistic conclusions – and I asked him to offer a rebuttal by posting your piece about it in the hope that it could be a learning moment for the sheep that gobble up this crap. Just to let them know that there is a much more solid understanding of reality on this side of the fence too. I assured him that you would immediately grant permission to reprint – was I right?

  32. if the local tween can jailbreak an iPhone, or with a few more years/dollars stop a car dead on the road with a laptop what time do you think it would take to crack a smart gun?

  33. So much fail crammed into just one article. It’s truly impressive.

    First off, let’s look at purchasing power. The only really substantial purchases the government makes are service weapons for the military. They might buy a few thousand handguns for the FBI, but that pales in comparison to a few million service rifles. According to Wikipedia, about 8 million M16 pattern rifles of all variants have been produced worldwide for service in 80 different countries. (Sorry, I’m too lazy to keep digging for the number in US service, and the 8 million number will serve point.) Now, let’s consider that statistics say there are 300 million guns in the hands of private American citizens. The long term math is crystal clear: over time, citizens buy more guns than the government. Smith & Wesson already found out what happens when a company pisses off American gun buyers by kowtowing to the statists. If the government were to try to implement such a ridiculous plan, it’s likely they would get no bidders or the bidders would pay lip service to the requirement just enough to be in the running.

    Second, the concept of a smart gun as a crime prevention measure is absolutely laughable. While there are a lot of dumb criminals, there are a lot of smart ones too. They can hack corporate and government databases and steal data on millions of users. They can build devices that will pulse a signal and read the little chips embedded in your credit card. They can file down the seer on a semi auto to make a fully automatic weapon. Sometimes they even manufacture their own guns. In short, a criminal with the right tools and few hours can defeat any smart gun that anybody can conceive of. The electronics can be hacked, or the mechanicals altered to disable the interlocks. A smart gun might keep Jame Bond from getting shot with his own gun in a fight, but if the evil SPECTRE operative steals the gun he can have a working piece in a short time.

  34. With that logic, all New York Times News Papers will now be sold by one vendor, and only after that vendor is sure the reader is brain dead

  35. Re the other post & thread about use of language, the Times action is a great example.

    “It’s almost as if will of the American people conflicts with The Times’ preferences…but that can’t possibly be because the Grey Lady stocks her editorial staff almost exclusively with morally and intellectually superior individuals.”

    This. Do this.

    Also, “Hmmmm. Well, changing the law unilaterally, against the preferences of the people and their representatives seems like … a kind of insurrection, does it not?”

    “Wow. Really? So, who’s the insurrectionists here?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *