Reading Between the Lines Of Focus on Firearms Safety
January 10, 2004
by Joseph P. Tartaro
Executive Editor
You can learn a lot from your moral and social enemies, especially if you read between the lines of their letters, news releases and friendly news reports. What the anti-gun organizations and their friends in the media are saying is a good indication that 2004 will be an important year in the continuing battle to preserve the right to keep and bear arms.
News from the Democrats’ presidential campaigns makes it clear that the gun issue is going to be a major part of the debate between their candidates and the Republicans.
For instance, people who are listed as supporters or prospective supporters of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence and its subsidiary, the “Million” Mom March (MMM) got an interesting e-mail from those groups in mid-December. As one might expect, the anti-gun communiqué was as heavy-handed and slanted as possible.
The message from the anti-gunners was headlined: “Good News and the Upcoming January Brawl.” (To find out what brawl, read on.)
The letter begins: “We hope this update finds you in good health and we wish you a safe holiday season. We have had a very eventful three months and January promises to be nothing short of a brawl. Here’s why: While the world is currently and appropriately focused on Iraq, the NRA is quietly up to more mischief than you can believe. Here are the details in the MMM correspondence:
MMM Correspondence
“Thanks to your support and the successful advertising and public relations campaign, funded largely with your contributions, the Senate postponed the Gun Industry Immunity Bill. (Gun industry immunity bill is the anti-gun name for the Protection of Legal Commerce in Arms Act—S-659.) Delaying the vote on this heinous bill gives us more time to advertise and more time to organize. And that’s just what we’ll do.
“The 2004 election year will be the most important for the gun movement in a decade. And the fight has already started. The NRA is gearing up to try to pass three utterly reckless bills in the dead of the night. (Congress doesn’t do much in the ‘dead of night’ but the MMM use of such a term is intended to link the NRA and a Congress that supports firearms freedoms with burglars, robbers, kidnappers, rapists and murderers.)
“We (the Brady Bunch) intend to take them on directly. We intend to expose how the NRA’s extremist policies weaken law enforcement. And, we intend to win.”
Before the MMMers explain what is going to happen in January 2004, they insert several paragraphs soliciting donations. But then they offer what they claim are the “facts.”
“Bill #1: No Renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban.” According to the Brady Bunch this bill “Puts military style rapid-fire assault weapons that have been banned for the last 10 years back on the street.”
“Bill #2: Gun Industry Immunity Legislation.” The anti-gunners claim this measure “grants sweeping immunity for Bull’s Eye Shooter Supply, who armed the DC snipers and sold guns used in at least 52 other crimes, and other reckless gun dealers.” They also claim the measure, S-659, “Slams the courthouse door shut on victims of gun crime once and for all.” Neither of these claims is true. S-659 does not bar liability suits for victims of crimes or accidents resulting from truly defective products, criminal recklessness, or violations of existing laws.
“Bill #3: Omnibus Appropriations Bill. Destroys records of firearms sales in 24 hours instead of the current 90 day law.” According to the anti-gun crowd, this measure “Blocks authorities from requiring Bull’s Eye and all other gun dealers to take regular inventories of firearms.” That’s not true either, but then truth has never been a strong suit for the anti-gunners.
Media and Safety
The media gun debate is morphing on demand of the anti-gunners as well. They don’t use the term “control” anymore. Now the watchword is “Safety.”
A recent series of articles by Melvin Claxton of the media-giant Gannett News Service is all about safety. And, once again, reading between the lines, you can see that they blame the gun industry and the NRA. Of course, as usual, the articles are heavy on emotionally loaded words and “trigger phrases.”
The latest Claxton article follows the theme of the earlier ones.
It begins: “The lack of safety features in many guns in America poses a serious risk to gunowners. Many have been wounded or killed when their guns accidentally discharged or were unintentionally fired because of manufacturers’ safety omissions.
“Gunmakers have been allowed to decide what safety features, if any, to use on their weapons because no federal agency can set standards for firearms manufactured in the country. Not only have gunmakers ignored long-established safety options, but they have been slow to embrace new technology,” Claxton claims.
“In 1996,” he reports, “the Sandia National Laboratories—a highly respected research unit in the Department of Energy—completed a $620,000 study for the National Institute of Justice on available technology to personalize police guns and prevent their unauthorized use. But much of the technology reviewed by the lab has practical applications for gun safety in general.
“The government decided to fund the study because statistics showed 16% of officers killed in the line of duty were shot with their own weapons, or those of their partners, by assailants who managed to get the guns.
“The Sandia report outlined several systems, some impractical to date, others at the time already in prototype. And experts say the wide-ranging review by Sandia may hold the future for safer, smarter guns.”
Claxton then details some of the technologies examined by Sandia, including: Radio-operated guns; Remote-controlled guns; Proximity sensor-operated guns; Touch memory guns; Fingerprint-operated guns; Palm print-operated guns; Fingertip sweat pores-operated guns; Voice recognition-activated guns, and Magnetic ring-controlled guns.
However, he does not mention the problems with this technology, nor did he do so in earlier articles dealing with magazine safeties and other devices which have their own drawbacks.
According to Claxton, Sandia reviewed 40 smart gun devices patented between the 1970s and early 1990s as well as less technologically advanced systems, including: Manual locks; Built-in combination locks, and other systems.
“One smart gun concept not examined by Sandia, because it didn’t fit its criteria, was the use of Global Position Satellite (GPS) technology,” Claxton reported. “The use of a GPS system to render guns useless outside of predetermined areas is seen as a major possible tool for fighting the movement of stolen or illegal guns across state lines.
“But it raises serious concerns for many gunowners, who worry that their guns could be rendered inoperable without their permission. The proliferation of GPS technology could make such a gun practical in the near future.”
Claxton’s Gannett series is pretty well geared to showing that firearms manufacturers have disregarded practically every safety suggestion anyone came up with, even within the industry. He also focuses once again on the Consumer Products Safety Commission (CPSC) gambit, which was defeated years ago, but which the anti-gunners keep hoping to revive. He claims that the CPSC has the authority to set safety standards for toy guns but not real guns.
Of course, this is all the same old gun control agenda wrapped anew in the security blanket of safety. Perhaps they figure that if they promote the idea of CPSC control of firearms safety standards during a relatively pro-gun Republican administration, they will then be able to regulate guns out of existence when an anti-gun Democrat administration is in power and calling the shots.
The one thing that is abundantly clear is that reporters like Claxton don’t really know that much about gunowners and how guns are used. There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all solution, but they don’t really care. After all, Claxton and many of his colleagues are explaining guns to people who may know even less than they do.
That’s how policy is made.
Return to Archive Index
