support gun control measures ultimately would like to rid soci- ety completely of fi rearms. I think that’s exactly what they want.” Fueling the mistrust is the pro-
gressive focus on limiting access to certain types of weapons, or maga- zines, already in widespread use. Many gun-crime experts, such as author John R. Lott, say banning fi rearms only encourages crime. Gun opponents push for restric-
tions on the one hand, while reject- ing out-of-hand Lott’s view that “gun-free” school zones are mag- nets for crazed shooters who want to tally huge body counts before going out in a blaze of infamy. From a gun-owner’s perspec-
tive, the ideas proposed by Lott and the NRA — better databases to keep guns away from madmen and felons, reform of the nation’s faltering mental-health system, armed guards in schools, and swift punishment for the falsifi cation of background-check applications — make much more sense. That’s assuming, of course, the actual goal is to stop the bloodshed. “What we are seeing are symp-
toms of a larger problem,” Mark Mattioli, father of a 6-year-old boy shot and killed at Sandy Hook Ele- mentary, told Congress on its fi rst day of hearings. “The problem is not the guns laws.” Instead, Mattioli called for a
return to civility and decency. This in a society where video games and fi lm companies appear locked in a competition over which medium can rack up the biggest, most enter- taining body count. The perception that gun foes
are primarily intent on fi nding a way to nudge their regulatory jug- gernaut into motion, confi dent that once it begins rolling it will gain momentum, brings a seri-
Aiming for High-Tech Answers H
igh-tech security systems, “smart guns,” and clue-catching cartridges
that preserve DNA are just a few examples of how technology’s march is playing a bigger role in America’s debate over gun control. New technologies under development: High-tech schools. Ballistic doors
and electromagnetic locks in classrooms could off er much needed security. By flipping one switch at the first hint of trouble, administrators could lock bullet- proof doors to all classrooms in order to protect students. But the few school systems that have implemented such systems can testify that they cost tens of millions of dollars. Smart guns. In theory, biometric
devices such as fingerprint recognition, or the use of a magnetic ring, would prevent a gun from being fired by anyone other than its owner. That might not be such a great idea if a family member comes under assault, however. And even a recognition system that worked 99 percent of the time could leave a homeowner defenseless. Cost could be a factor as well: Some say it would hike the cost of a gun by as much as 20 percent. Vice President Joe Biden supports smart gun technology. But given the current technology, the NRA thinks smart guns are a pretty dumb idea. Better databases. Both sides in
the debate want more accessible, comprehensive record checks to keep guns out of the hands of those who are mentally unstable or dangerous. Several
states have been notoriously slow in reporting violent criminals and mentally unstable individuals. Microstamping (above). In theory,
firearm manufacturers would build guns that automatically place a unique number on each cartridge case as the round leaves the chamber. While hardly foolproof — many types of guns, including revolvers, do not automatically eject cartridge cases — the ability to match a microstamp with a serial number in a manufacturer’s database would, in theory, help police track down bad guys. Second Amendment champions, however, point out that firing pins can be removed and stamps erased in just a few minutes. Also, microstamping would increase the cost of a firearm — some say by $200. And don’t forget there are already about 280 million un-stamped guns in society. So unless gun-grabbers intend to use stamping technology as a pretext to declare traditional firearms obsolete and round them all up, it’s not clear how much microstamping would help. DNA-grabbing cartridges. As
reported by Popular Science, an English scientist by the name of Paul Sermon has designed a bullet whose surface snags skin cells when the round is loaded. The cartridge case tends to retain enough DNA to obtain a genetic match. Of course, there’s no assurance the person who loaded the weapon is the one who fired it. But U.K. of icials are considering whether to require ammunition manufacturers to change the way they make bullets.
MARCH 2013 | NEWSMAX 59
CHERYL SENTER/THE NEW YORK TIMES/REDUX
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92