Bob Owens at Bearing Arms has the background on how he spoke, at length, with a columnist at the recent NRA convention about “smart guns”
You wanted to talk about “smart guns,” and how in your view, the industry and the NRA are against them.
I explained that very few of people who I know in the industry (and being the editor of an industry news site, I know a few) are against the concept of so-called “smart guns.” What we are against is the mandating of the technology, especially when it is still incredibly new and dangerously unreliable.
I recall mentioning, in great detail, the shortcomings of the current “best of breed” smart-gun, the Armatix iP1, and the separate watch required to make it function, the iW1.
I recall explaining, in great detail, that the pistol fails 100% of the time for the authorized user if he or she must use the hand without the watch on it, and I gave you several examples of why someone might need to do so. I recall explain how that the pistol is reported to have a failure rate of 10% when used with the “authorized hand,” which means that over the course of a 10-round magazine, the failure rate approaches 100%.
I explained that the pistol is only chambered in .22LR, a very anemic round best suited for target practice, and not recommended for self-defense due to its lack of power unless the user is too weak or frail to use something more substantial.
I explained that the technology used in the pistol is so fragile that chambering anything more a low-recoiling .22LR would shake the gun’s electronic brains apart in short order.
I tried to tie it all up as succinctly as I could, summarizing that a firearm that fails repeatedly, doesn’t use an adequate defensive cartridge, and cost three times as much as the best of breed pistol has no natural market… only a political one.
I explained that mandating a $1,400 gun/watch combo is the Second Amendment equivalent of a poll tax, and that limiting citizens to buying an unreliable, inadequate, and prohibitively expensive firearm is incredibly and obviously racist by design, hoping to disenfranchise the poor and middle class in urban areas most affected by violent crime.
Saddest of all, Yasha, I recall that at the end of our conversation I gave you my business card with my email address and my phone number, I remember extending a very sincere invitation to help answer any questions you might have about firearms and technology, at any point in the future… far prior to the publication of this incredibly dishonest attack piece.
That “dishonest” piece is an absolute abomination. It is filled with lies, ignorance, more lies, anti-gun bigotry and talking points, still more lies, and drips with sarcasm. The kind of sarcasm that is driven by stupidity and closed-mindedness. In short the author of this piece. A few low, and I mean LOW lights
He thought the NRA was a harmless gun trade/lobby outfit, and didn’t seem to realize that it was much more than that: a cultural nexus for some of the most toxic politics in America: rabid xenophobia, racism, longing for a purer past, the glorification of extrajudicial justice against a creeping threat from within… tendencies that are not all that different than the bile that brought Hitler to power, I might have pointed out.
But I didn’t press the point. I wasn’t there to preach or educate. I was there to report.
Oh no doubt education had nothing to do with the reporters’s mission. The fact is he likely has no ability to educate anyone on anything. He certainly knows nothing about the NRA at all. all this dimwit knows is what he feels in his little mind. But there is more
There was even a company selling Stand Your Ground legal insurance — which would cover up to $1 million in legal fees for people who live in states with Stand Your Ground laws and shot someone in “self-defense.” The company motto: “Why settle for less? Get the MOST COMPREHENSIVE protection for armed self-defense in America.” The guys at the booth told me their policy would’ve been great for an armed vigilante like George Zimmerman — who shot and killed a 17-year-old black kid named Trayvon Martin just because he looked suspicious. “Of course, Zimmerman’s uninsurable now…” Naturally, the rep made an Obama assassination joke. He couldn’t help himself.
Apparently this “crack reporter” never watched a second of Zimmerman’s trial or looked at one shred of evidence. If he had, he would not have written the paragraph above. And who wants to bet that the “assassination” joke was never made. All the time I spend at the range, in gun stores, and on-line reading and talking with fellow gun owners, and I have yet to hear one hint of such a joke. But maybe Mr. Crack Reporter has a “smart ring” that allows him to detect jokes that are never spoken. What a douche!
Of course, Crack Reporter and his Smart Ring also were deeply butt hurt over guns he saw that were brightly colored
Most gun makers now feature entire lines of shotguns, hunting and assault rifles, handguns, and all sorts of gun accessories with “girly” trim: bright neon colors, shades of pink, rose camo patterns. One stand even sold pink shooting targets, with proceeds helping fund breast cancer awareness.
It was a worrying trend — bright and colorful guns also look a lot like children’s toys.
You mean like your reporting might look like the actual work of a real journalist? Y’all can go read the rest, it is a long piece, so bring hip waders, you will need them.