The combination of technology and guns has recently transformed both topics from the realm of science fiction to reality—and some think this could be the newest form of gun control as well as gun safety—but, is this really realistic?
At a press conference in Boston on Feb. 19, Massachusetts Democrat Ed Markey discussed a gun control bill requiring all new guns to be personalized, so they may only be fired by their owners and other authorized users.
Personalization refers to technology, such as fingerprint reading, that restricts the gun from being fired until a fingerprint from its authorized user is recognized by the gun. Although Markey’s focus is to enact gun technology; I believe our focus should shift from guns to people.
According to Boston.com’s Steve LeBlanc, Markey’s bill requires that two years after the bill’s enactment, all new guns would have to be equipped with this new technology, which could be fingerprint reading or another innovation.
Three years after the bill’s enactment, all guns sold would have to be equipped with the technology. The law would go into act once the technology is developed and on the market.
This bill does not include a grandfather clause, therefore collectors would have to have this technology added onto all of their guns no matter how old the guns are, causing collectable firearms to diminish in value, as stated by Jack Minor of The Greeley Gazette.
As stated at the press conference, Markey believes that this bill will decrease the number of accidental firearm deaths of children and the number of crimes conducted with stolen firearms.
There is no doubt that such technology would prevent some deaths and would make the gun safer in the hands of unauthorized users, but can we really trust the technology?
I believe there are too many unanswered questions in terms of the technology right now for this bill to become a reality.
Technology does not always work 100 percent of the time—we experience this every day with our cell phones, laptops, tablets, GPS and more.
This technology’s ability to work correctly could be life or death situation, and forcing all gun owners to trust this technology is questionable to say the least.
Not only is the technology questionable, but so are the loss of rights this mandate would lead to. Such a mandate would cause gun owners to spend almost three times more on their guns than they do now without the technological add–ons.
This change in price would have a great impact on the poor’s ability to buy guns—putting the lower class’ right to bear arms in question.
The mandate itself is just as questionable. Should every gun owner really be required to have such technological gadgets? I believe this should be a choice among gun owners.
Those who want to trust the technology and take the step in aiming to make their gun safer for their children should be allowed to.
Gun owners should be allowed to conduct their own research, in regards to such technology, and make their own educated choices about the guns they wish to own.
Let’s focus on the people behind the gun. How can we help them? There are often events in one’s life that lead to their decision of resorting to violence.
I am not suggesting that such acts like school shootings, mall shootings, massacres, drive-bys, suicides or any other lethal act of violence can be justified by the issues a person is facing, but rather it can help explain their choices.
If we started to really think about how we can help that person, then we may be able to finally decrease such violent acts in our country.
These people cannot be stopped with smart guns, but rather, may be stopped if we had a better mental health system in our country.
In terms of legislation regarding smart guns, I think Markey jumped the gun on this one—pun intended. It is simply too early to tell if this technology is able to be trusted and there are too many unanswered questions.
Markey is essentially proposing a bill for technology that simply isn’t ready yet.
Taylor Howe can be contacted at thowe@keene-equinox.com