Subject: Misstatements in Tuesday's "smart" gun article Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2002 12:37:12 -0500 From: Terry Wintroub To: Trenton Times Letter to the Editor: Tuesday's Times contained an article, "N.J. is first state to pass 'smart gun' legislation" [http://www.nj.com/statehouse/times/index.ssf?/base/news-0/1040727866324290.xml] that misstates some facts about this new law. Today's editorial [http://www.nj.com/editorials/times/index.ssf?/base/news-0/104081400599570.xml] repeats the misinformation. Since the article was unsigned, I take it to be essentially a press release rather than a piece of honest journalism. The nature of the errors suggests that the press release came either from McGreevey's office or, worse, from that well-documented purveyor of falsehoods Ceasefire NJ. The story says the law will require "a mechanism that allows only their owners to fire them". Actually, the new law is almost, but not quite, THAT irresponsible. It does not say that only the owner can fire a "smart" gun, but rather that only an "authorized" user can fire it. The difference is substantial. Take for example a situation in which the owner of one of these "smart" guns is using it to defend her family from home invaders and she is wounded or killed by the thugs. If only she, the owner, can fire it, then her family is toast. However, if she had programmed the gun to recognize and "authorize" other family members, one of them could still use the gun to ward off the killers. This distinction between "owner" and "authorized user" would also be germane if you were instructing a relative or friend how to safely operate your gun. If the law restricted use to just the owner, you could not use it for such safety instruction. The story says the technology will be required after the state attorney general determines a "smart gun prototype is safe and commercially available". Actually, the law requires that a PRODUCTION model be available; it specifically rules out a mere prototype as evidence of "commercially available". The story says the technology will be required in all new handguns sold after the AG makes his determination. This statement is false on multiple grounds. 1) The law applies only to licensed firearm dealers, so a non-dealer individual can still sell his "dumb" handgun to another individual. 2) The law prohibits dealers from selling ANY handguns -- new OR old -- that aren't "smart"; so even with the required permit from your local police chief, you will not be able to buy a used, i.e. more affordable, normal gun from a legitimate gun store you trust. Contrary to what the story says, the law NOWHERE requires the attorney general to determine that these guns are "safe". It requires that he test them for reliability, not for safety. The irony here is that the new law calls for the same reliability standards that the manufacturer uses for its "dumb" guns. So "smart" guns will be no more reliable or "safe" than normal guns. Load it, point it, pull the trigger; it reliably goes bang, just like a "dumb" gun. It's still not safe to point it at your head! After you've had your "smart" gun programmed to recognize all your family members, they'll still be able to "accidentally" shoot someone or commit suicide. Bryan Miller and the other airheads pushing this law claim that it will reduce the number of children who "accidentally" shoot themselves or another child. But wait! In 1999 and 2000 combined, there were but TWO children (ages 0-16) unintentionally killed by a gun in New Jersey. TWO! [http://webapp.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/mortrate10.html] We don't know if those two were killed by an adult or by another child; we don't know if they were killed with a handgun, a rifle, or a shotgun. But we know there were only 2 and we know that we don't normally fire up the legislative, regulatory, and prosecutorial machinery to address a "danger" that has resulted in only 2 deaths in 2 years. That same CDC website reveals that there were but NINE suicides-by-gun among children ages 0-16 in New Jersey in 1999 and 2000 combined. Again, we don't know if these 9 used a handgun, rifle or shotgun, but we do know that 9 in two years is a pretty small number to justify this new law. For perspective, note that during that two year period there were 92 children 0-16 unintentionally killed in New Jersey by motor vehicles. But we don't see lawmakers and lobbyists pushing for automobiles that only an authorized user could crash. They're not even pushing for automobiles that only an authorized user could START. This law is not about child safety. It is about achieving the goals of the Guns-Are-Yucky-and-Only-Government-and-Other-Criminals-Should-Have-Them crowd. Terry Wintroub