Kevin, I think you will enjoy this article. Also, I think you will enjoy perusing this website. It seems to reflect many of your views. Democrats and Republicans looking for a middle ground on many social issues, would also enjoy it I believe.
ppionline.org
Smart Guns
Breaking the Gun Control Impasse
ppionline.org
John D. Cohen
Just when it seemed the carnage in America's schools could not get any worse, dreadful news came from Michigan--a six-year-old boy shot and killed his classmate, Kayla Rolland, in their first-grade classroom. Once the shock over the killer's age had faded, people wanted to know the answer to a simple question: how in the world does a six-year-old get a gun?
As it happened, the boy found the gun, which had been stolen, in the flop house where his mother had left him in the supposed care of relatives. Similarly, the guns used in the Columbine slaughter found their way into the killers' hands through a third party. Unfortunately, it's a recurring theme. The U.S. Treasury Department reports that 60 percent of all guns used to commit crimes are either purchased for a criminal by another person, or stolen from their legal owner.
That statistic alone should lead public policy makers to an easy conclusion: if guns were manufactured so that only their legal owners could fire them, much of the death and destruction caused by illegal gun use could be prevented.
The technology exists to do just that--and by focusing on the development of technological solutions, Congress might actually be able to break the ideological impasse that has repeatedly sunk even modest gun control measures (even in the face of clear public support for strong action to reduce gun violence).
The White House has asked Congress for $10 million to continue the research on "smart guns"--weapons with internal features that prevent their unintended or criminal use. The Republican-controlled Congress shot down an even smaller request for smart gun research in last year's budget. But Republican leadership should reconsider this time around, because the fact is gun technologies make it easier to do what the National Rifle Association (NRA) and its GOP allies have long said they favor: target only the improper or illegal use of guns without trampling on the rights of law-abiding gun-owners.
Up to this point, the contours of the gun debate have broken down largely along traditional conservative-versus-liberal lines. Conservatives demand more aggressive enforcement of existing laws, but they oppose any new provisions to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people. Most recently, top National Rifle Association (NRA) officials have launched shrill attacks on President Clinton for daring to propose common sense gun control measures. For their part, some liberals want to restrict access to guns or even ban handguns outright--even if that means violating what a majority of Americans regard as a basic constitutional right. Meanwhile, as the left and the right fight each other to a standstill, more children die and the cycle of violence that has become a part of our neighborhoods, our schools, and our workplaces remains unbroken.
Smart guns make it possible to transcend the false choice between gun rights and gun control by adopting a "consumer product safety" approach.
This approach does not aim to stigmatize gun owners or deny law-abiding citizens the right to own arms. It would simply assign gun manufacturers the responsibility for building safer products.
Like tobacco, motorcycles, or prescription drugs, guns are undeniably dangerous products. Most Americans not only expect but also demand that our government act to protect consumers from unsafe uses of perfectly legal products. Safety caps are required on aspirin bottles, seatbelts are required in automobiles and children's toys, and even toy guns must be safe or they are subject to recall. With current and emerging technologies, it is reasonable to require that guns be made with internal safety features that minimize accidental injury and/or criminal misuse.
Currently, a manufacturer sells an internal trigger lock that requires a gun user to push three buttons on the handle of a gun--in specific order--before the gun will fire. Through the use of this type of internal mechanical device, we can improve gun safety right away -- and in the near future, safety-enhancing capabilities will improve even further. For example, one manufacturer has produced a gun that contains a small radio receiver. In order to fire the weapon, a person must be wearing a special ring containing a radio transmitter that communicates with the receiver. Eventually, advancements in microchip technology will enable the programming of guns to read a user's fingerprints and preclude its use by an unauthorized person. It would be a good use of federal money to help fund such research.
For the most part, the gun industry has resisted efforts to promote new product safety standards. This is not surprising. Historically, companies have improved consumer product safety only after prodding from the government or the threat of lawsuits. In an effort to force the industry to develop these new technological capabilities and include them in gun designs, some U.S. cities, including Chicago, Bridgeport, and Detroit have filed lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Meanwhile, policy makers in Maryland, New Jersey, Massachusetts, and Connecticut have introduced state legislation requiring the gun industry to adopt product safety standards.
A recent agreement between Smith and Wesson and the federal government may represent an important breakthrough. Smith and Wesson has agreed to safety, design and distribution standards that include a commitment that within three years they will market primarily "smart guns"--weapons with internal features that prevent their unintended or criminal use.
It will take time to put product safety requirements into effect. Meanwhile, millions of unsafe guns are in circulation, and we must redouble our efforts to prevent them from getting into the hands of criminals and unstable people. Waiting periods on gun purchases, mandatory background checks, and the ban on assault weapons all help. However, we must also provide federal, state, and local law enforcement with the tools they need to aggressively target for arrest and prosecution illegal gun traffickers, people who illegally supply guns to children, and those who use guns to commit crimes. Among the highest priorities are integrated criminal justice information systems that facilitate proactive, data-driven enforcement efforts and information sharing between courts and law enforcement so that the felons, persons under psychiatric care, and domestic abusers are prevented from buying guns.
Effective gun enforcement efforts also require that federal, state, and local law enforcement agencies work together to arrest and prosecute criminals who use guns and those who illegally sell guns. State governments can play an active role in facilitating statewide law enforcement efforts.
For example, the State of Maryland has implemented a statewide "crime gun" enforcement initiative that directs state and local law enforcement to trace seized guns when those guns have been used in the commission of a crime. The measure also expands the use of ballistic imaging, as well as funding for proactive law enforcement efforts that target violent criminals and illegal gun traffickers.
The Clinton Administration has proposed a $280 million enforcement initiative as part of the President's FY 2001 budget. In addition to expanding the funding for development of smart guns, it would fund the hiring of 500 new Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Firearms (BATF) agents and more than 1000 new prosecutors at all levels of government. It would also fund crime gun tracing and ballistics imaging, in order to catch more criminals. Further, the Administration has proposed $30 million to support computerized mapping of gun violence to help law enforcement agencies develop better strategies to protect the public.
Ironically, while Republicans and the NRA now criticize the Administration for a lackluster performance in enforcing gun laws, they have continually opposed efforts to increase resources for the BATF (the agency within the Federal government that has primary jurisdiction over gun related crime). In fact, the NRA has called for the abolition of BATF, whose agents were once described as "jack-booted government thugs" in an NRA fundraising letter.
It's time to move beyond this false and polarizing stage of the debate. Supporting the development of smart guns would be a logical and productive first step. |
