I nominate Ronald Brownstein over at The Los Angeles Times for the Nobel Peace Prize. He's single-handedly come up with "A Smarter Way to Control Outbreaks of School Gun Violence."
If only the fed-gov would force us to use "smart guns," the Red Lake Massacre wouldn't have happened.
Well, the technology isn't actually ready yet, Brownstein admits, but if it was, this would sure be a smarter way to control outbreaks of school violence.
Of course he doesn't address what we'll need to do with the estimated 250 million or so "dumb" guns already in circulation. Nor that the Red Lake killer would have still been able to steal guns from his LEO grandfather, since the police will exempt themselves from using them (even though the justification for the original research was to create a smarter way to control incidents where perps shoot cops with their own guns.)
He doesn't say anything about how the new technology will likely raise the cost of basic defense pistols out of the reach of many low-income people, the ones who live in the most crime-prone neighborhoods and presumably in the most routine danger. Nor does he consider how criminals, like the police, will also be exempted from any mandates.
He also doesn't consider the near universal experience of pointing a remote control at a TV or garage door and having absolutely nothing happen. But maybe increasing the likelihood of a firearm failing to perform as intended will turn out to be a smarter way to revive gun industry lawsuits.
And he's dead silent on the certain demands for the police to have a "shutoff switch" like the engine disablers being developed as a smarter way to stop car chases. After all, what excuse could a "law-abiding" citizen have for not supporting this? Like someone who asserts his Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop, what have you got to hide?
The sad thing is, I'll bet over 90% of The Times' readers will never hear such arguments, and of the ones who do, the majority will find the outcomes desirable.
Ronald Brownstein is counting on that. After all, we've established that he's a pretty smart fellow.
If only the fed-gov would force us to use "smart guns," the Red Lake Massacre wouldn't have happened.
Well, the technology isn't actually ready yet, Brownstein admits, but if it was, this would sure be a smarter way to control outbreaks of school violence.
Of course he doesn't address what we'll need to do with the estimated 250 million or so "dumb" guns already in circulation. Nor that the Red Lake killer would have still been able to steal guns from his LEO grandfather, since the police will exempt themselves from using them (even though the justification for the original research was to create a smarter way to control incidents where perps shoot cops with their own guns.)
He doesn't say anything about how the new technology will likely raise the cost of basic defense pistols out of the reach of many low-income people, the ones who live in the most crime-prone neighborhoods and presumably in the most routine danger. Nor does he consider how criminals, like the police, will also be exempted from any mandates.
He also doesn't consider the near universal experience of pointing a remote control at a TV or garage door and having absolutely nothing happen. But maybe increasing the likelihood of a firearm failing to perform as intended will turn out to be a smarter way to revive gun industry lawsuits.
And he's dead silent on the certain demands for the police to have a "shutoff switch" like the engine disablers being developed as a smarter way to stop car chases. After all, what excuse could a "law-abiding" citizen have for not supporting this? Like someone who asserts his Fourth Amendment rights during a traffic stop, what have you got to hide?
The sad thing is, I'll bet over 90% of The Times' readers will never hear such arguments, and of the ones who do, the majority will find the outcomes desirable.
Ronald Brownstein is counting on that. After all, we've established that he's a pretty smart fellow.