Why the NRA is more monstrous than you think

[krispos42]

18. Oh, lord...

Really? You really think this?


Let me propose an alternative scenario:

Gun owners don't want smart guns as currently designed; the current designs might be serviceable for target practice and casual plinking, but they are not suitable for crisis scenarios for which many guns, particularly but not exclusively handguns, are intended.

And since plinking and target guns don't need to be accessed in a hurry, they are relatively easy to disable and lock away in a safe, and thus personalization isn't really much of a safety benefit.

Smart guns, as currently designed, require too much thought, manipulation, and fine motor skills to activate in a crisis, particularly when added onto the purely mechanical skills required to load and ready a gun. Watches, batteries, and PINs are not something people in a crisis want to add to their burden; imagine trying to enter a PIN on a tiny watch face, in the dark, with your front door being smashed in and people shouting in confusion and anger and fear.

And there is no record of smart-gun use in crisis situations. How well does it work when you're fighting for your life? Are their blind spots? Dead zones? Will a smart gun fire when held in an awkward position? How about if I'm wearing gloves? If my palms are sweaty?

You can't answer that question; neither can I. So, for my crisis gun I will not be buying one. It's that simple.

If they're so great, why aren't cops using them?




But who is mandating "smart guns", anyway?

Quite simply, it's people that either don't know or don't care about this kind of stuff. Their deliberate ignorance is shown in their continuing insistence that bans on "assault weapons" will somehow fight crime and murder, for example.

Now, obviously, the idiots out there that made the giant stink over that one gun store starting to sell smart guns were in the wrong, but they have a point; there are very few smart guns available on the market, they aren't being made by any major brands, and mandating their sale is very ill-advised when the technology is still in it's infancy.

The gun-control forces are fighting to eliminate "gun culture"; Hillary said so just a few days ago and it's been said by other major politicians as well. And that's what it's about... curing the "sickness" or whatever the current talking-point is.

That's why Democrats are, unbelievebly, pushing for laws that actually prevent gun makers from selling guns with protections for the user! Because those protective features are "assault" features. It's a bit flabbergasting.

And your thesis statement up there is flat-out wrong.

The NRA wants more and more gun violence, because it's good for business. It's just that simple, and just that hideously evil. The NRA wants as many Americans to die from bullet wounds as possible, because the more death, the more fear, and the more fear, the better for the bottom line. Smart guns are bad for business.

The culture war that some people, and perhaps you're one of them, feel the need to fight by using the power of the government is far better for the gun business than death and bullet wounds. By making people that own guns feel that gun ownership is inherently a political statement, and by trying to culturally change using the government, you get a far larger reaction than action.

Look at "assault weapons". The term itself is ambiguous and arbitrary (and expandable), but it serves a political purpose by being inflammatory and repressing discussion. Gun owners know this, but non-gun-owners didn't, or didn't care if it was. Trying to ban "assault weapons" actually sold FAR MORE AR-15s and AK-47s than just leaving things alone. Legal, non-assault-weapon AR-15s and AK-47s, by the way; just like the one used at Sandy Hook. And now the AR-15 is one of the best-selling rifles in the country.

Quite frankly, if I was a major shareholder in Smith & Wesson or Ruger, it would be in my best interest to give some money to a gun-control organization!