Introduction
As a lobbyist for the National Rifle Association of America [NRA], it is my position to defend gun rights in America. The NRA is a non-profit that teaches and promotes gun safety and advocates for American gun rights. The audiences the NRA aims to address are Washington and voters. The NRA uses multiple channels to communicate. The organization publishes multiple magazines and is considered the most influential lobbying group in US politics. The NRA encourages its audience to encourage safe gun use in order to protect the second amendment right (Caffrey).
The technological advancement in question is the ‘smart’ gun. The concept of ‘smart’ guns is nothing new. Since the nineties, society has been considering the possibilities of guns that can only be fired by registered users and can be traced using GPS (Stokes). By definition ‘smart’ guns are guns equipped with features meant to identify their operator with a goal of eliminating unauthorized use. There are two categories of ‘smart’ guns. The first category uses fingerprint recognition technology to ensure only the registered user is firing the weapon. The other type of ‘smart’ gun uses radio signals to identify the registered user. Often this second type of ‘smart’ gun is paired with a bracelet that sends a radio signal the gun uses to authorize its use (Berke). On the surface, the concept seems logical. However, if you consider the consequences of ‘smart’ gun failure the concept becomes a mass-producing public safety concern. ‘Smart’ gun technology could offer many safety enhancing features.
The problem with the ‘smart’ gun concept is trifold: the reliance it would create on technology, the probable incidents that would occur when the technology malfunctions, and legislative. The argument against ‘smart’ guns begins with ensuring gun owners remain responsible for the safe handling of their weapons. If ‘smart’ guns become popular gun owners could begin to rely on their features rather than taking responsibility for gun safety. The second issue with ‘smart’ guns is the likelihood that their technological feature would fail. As with any other technology, ‘smart’ gun features are likely to fail. The difference between a cell phone’s technology failing and a ‘smart’ gun encountering a technological glitch is the impact of the situation. Finally, there is legislature than would begin to ban regular guns once ‘smart’ guns become available. The legislative issue comes from a New Jersey gun control law. In 2002, the state of New Jersey passed a law saying that if a ‘smart’ gun is sold anywhere in the US then within six months all guns available for purchase in New Jersey must be equipped with the ‘smart’ gun features (Farago). The issues with ‘smart’ gun advancements can be summed up in the scenario they would create. Gun owners beginning to rely on their ‘smart’ gun’s safety features, leaving their safer guns around, assuming the features are replacing gun safety. The technology will begin to demonstrate its flaws once there are many of the ‘smart’ guns available in households across America. Finally, once these advanced weapons are available in the market older guns without the ‘smart’ features begin being phased out along with the common sense gun safety practices that ensure public safety.
Argument
The main arguments against the current development of ‘smart’ gun innovations arise from social/cultural and legislative standpoints. The features of the ‘smart’ gun will create social change that will diminish the need for safe gun owners. While the current legislature would begin outlawing non-smart guns too soon after the new technology is introduced.
The introduction of the ‘smart’ gun is likely to cause of social shift similar to the same shift towards the dependency upon other technology. By producing a gun that can’t be fired by children, parents will assume their firearm is safe. They will become less and less likely to secure it using a proper multistage locking system. The social shift towards dependence upon safe gun features will create catastrophe when the technology fails. The technology’s failure could allow a non-authorized user to fire the weapon or it could cause the gun to seize in the hands of its registered owner during a crisis. The possibility of the ‘smart’ features causing the weapon to lock when its registered user needs it the most creates a high level of concern. What if a police officer’s hands are covered in blood, their fingerprint fails to be recognized and the gun that could have saved the officers life locks? The social argument that ‘smart’ guns are a bad idea is backed by the majority of people voicing their opinions in online debates. Debate.org has posed the question; almost two-thirds of respondents are against the concept of ‘smart’ guns. The quick fix of advanced technology has not convinced the public. Many of the comments made by those against the ‘smart’ gun evolution describe the ‘smart’ gun features minimizing the ability of gun owners to defend themselves ("Are 'Smart Guns' A Good Idea?").
The other major downfall of the sale of ‘smart’ guns is legislative by nature. Back in 2002, New Jersey Democrats hastily pushed into law a ridicules clause that will begin prohibiting the sale of regular firearms once ‘smart’ guns are available for purchase. The statue will automatically ban the sale of guns without user identifying safety features thirty months after the first ‘smart’ gun is sold. The law does not take into account the likely failure of early ‘smart’ gun models. The law doesn’t consider the consequence of product failure if the ‘smart’ guns introduced to the market fail. The law does not take into account the costs the new safety features will produce. The law fails to consider consumers rights to choice. The law only sets a benchmark period to prohibit the sale of non-smart guns once the first ‘smart’ gun is sold (Leghorn). The concept of the ‘smart’ gun law aimed to encourage the development of user identification features but instead produced immense repercussion. With a large public backlash, the law that failed many forward thinking considerations was passed.
Between the gun prohibiting timer legislation and the implications the development of ‘smart’ gun technology will have on society, Obama’s encouragement of the new technology seems to be a personal interest of the president to the detriment of Americans. The push to rush ‘smart’ guns onto the market creates a safety concern for many Americans (Rose). The concept lacks research or testing while legislature would impose the risk of innovation failure onto Americans.
Recommendations
The desired outcome of the NRA is to protect American’s second amendment right and while also ensuring the gun’s sold in America will provide their owners with a lifesaving weapon of self-defence. There are three major requirements to ensure ‘smart’ gun innovation is fair and safe for Americans.
New Jersey’s legislation needs to change, to allow consumers to choose if they wish to purchase guns featuring the innovative ‘smart’ gun features
The federal government should remain in a neutral regulatory position rather than a investor in the products development
Gun safety needs to be actively promoted rather than a dependence on technological features
Before any further government funded development of ‘smart’ gun advancements society needs to protect. These three considerations will ensure that when manufacturers are ready to advance gun features it is done safely. The laws passed by New Jersey need to be amended to ensure consumers are protected from a monopoly of unsafe product advancements. As with any other product in the market consumers have a right to choose. Many logical smart gun purchasers will chose to stick with traditional safe gun features and need to be protected from legislature forcing them to take the risk of technology failure. Secondly, American’s need to be ensured that the federal government is scrutinizing the advancement of weapon technology rather than acting likes a cheerleader. The advancement of weapon technology has profound consequences and should be highly regulated. The development of ‘smart’ guns needs to be highly regulated and scrutinized due to the possibilities of lethal consequences when the product features fail. Active promotion of gun safety protocols need to be promoted rather than placing a Band-Aid on the issue of gun control.
Works Cited
"Are 'Smart Guns' A Good Idea?". Debate.org. N.p., 2016. Web. 25 Mar. 2016.
Berke, Jeremy. "Chris Christie Just Voted New Jersey's Law On Smart Guns - Here's How They Work". Business Insider 2016. Web. 26 Mar. 2016.
Caffrey, Cait. "National Rifle Association (NRA)." Salem Press Encyclopedia (2015): Research Starters. Web. 26 Mar. 2016.
Leghorn, Nick. "The Truth About Why Smart Guns Aren't On The Market". The Truth About Guns .com. N.p., 2015. Web. 26 Mar. 2016.
Stokes, Jon. "Why Obama’S Smart Gun Push Will Misfire". Tech Crunch 2016. Web. 26 Mar. 2016.
Rose, Joel. “Will Obama’s Actions Create A Market For ‘Smart’ Guns?.” NPR: Morning Edition, 8 Jan. 2016. Factiva. Web. 22 Feb. 2016.
