Smart Gun Technology: Why Criticism Doesn’t Matter

The recent commercial availability of the Armatix iP1 pistol has stirred a number of emotions and raised various criticisms of the technology, but any cool-headed evaluation of the situation will lead to the inevitable conclusion that none of it matters.

Earlier this year gun rights advocates convinced a California store to pull the iP1 out of the display case, and more recently a Maryland gun dealer was the victim of death threats for suggesting that the iP1 should be available for purchase. Part of the controversy has been a New Jersey law passed in 2002 which requires that once “smart gun” technology becomes viable and commercially available all new handguns sold in New Jersey must use this technology. Thus, making the iP1 available in California or Maryland might trigger this law into taking effect and leave New Jersey gun owners in a lurch. Therefore, a proper “pro-gun” position is to boycott a new gun—so the argument goes.

Cliven Bundy and Terrorism

Earlier last week Senator Harry Reid declared supporters of the defiant Nevada rancher Cliven Bundy as “domestic terrorists.” An “astute” blogger, in Reid’s defense, cited the US code for “domestic terrorist” in order to conclude that certain Cliven supporters are terrorists, stating:

The actions at Bundy Ranch incorporate all of the above requirements for domestic terrorism. When people showed up with guns on their sides, and snipers were positioned on overpasses looking down on the federal agents, that was an act that is dangerous to human life and pointing a gun at agents violates federal law.

But, in fact, there is no federal law against pointing a firearm at a federal agent, although there are similar laws on the state level, provided that self-defense is not at play. As to whether Bundy is legally liable for the taxes claimed by the government I am uncertain. What concerns me is the liberal use of the term “terrorism” where no acts of violence have been committed or threatened.

Did Concealed Carry in Illinois Lower the Chicago Murder Rate?

In his April 4 piece, Mike Miller over at IJReview raises the interesting correlation between a reduction in the murder rate in Chicago since last year (for the first quarter), and Illinois starting to accept applications for concealed carry permits in January. He stops short of arguing that the correlation suggests causation, stating:

Coincidence? Hard to say. And too early to tell. Although, I doubt that the anti-gun crowd is celebrating the good news.

But this won’t stop many from immediately drawing the conclusion that the new permits have dramatically contributed to the reduced murder rate. Indeed, over time, it may become clear that the permits are having precisely this effect, but it is far too early to make this simplistic conclusion for one important reason: Chicago’s murder rate had already been dropping. In 2013 it plunged down to 1964 levels and overall crime fell down to 1972 levels. There seems to be a bigger trend at play and correlation should not be confused with causation.

Zimmerman v. Alexander: Similar Cases?

In an article earlier this month Mary Anne Franks delved into the complex issues surrounding self-defense law in Florida and how it may or may not help women. As the article progresses she inevitably raises the comparison between the George Zimmerman and Marissa Alexander cases.

The failure to arrest Zimmerman stemmed from the police’s determination that he had acted in self-defense; the police’s immediate arrest of Alexander expressed the opposite determination. Alexander requested a Stand Your Ground hearing, where the judge ruled that she did not act in self-defense. This was despite the fact that Marissa Alexander appears to be the ideal Stand Your Ground candidate: she had a protective order against a person who did in fact threaten her with great bodily injury, according to the latter’s own sworn deposition. In addition to all of this, Alexander, unlike Zimmerman, did try to retreat — repeatedly. It was only at the moment that she realized she physically could not retreat, and that her husband was threatening her life, that she fired a warning shot. A warning shot, even though a person in her circumstances presumably would have had the right, under Florida law, to shoot to kill.

Unfortunately, this analysis obfuscates a number of important differences between the two cases. First of all, the law explicitly exempts applicability in cases where defensive use took place in a home against someone who was already lawfully there. Rico Gray had not broken into the home.

Guns and Anger

In an opinion piece from early March penned by Leslie Marshall at US News entitled “Standing Our Ground to Death,” two examples were given of recent tragedies where, apparently, anger led to a tragic killing. She then went on to argue:

And these cases are just two examples. I think we see an increasing emerging pattern, or a recipe, for disaster and sometimes death. Ingredients? Person; anger; gun…. More and more in the United States, people are using guns to resolve their disputes.

Such a trend may or may not be true, but it can not be concluded based on two examples. What we have here is the fallacy of hasty generalization. Neither can the clear decrease in the national murder rate over the last two decades be cited as counter-argument, since it may be the case that a greater proportion of homicides by firearm are now dispute/anger-driven, but where are the statistics?