It’s impossible, in this day and age, to pick up a stranger’s password-protected mobile phone and send a text. It’s easy to steal anyone’s gun and fire away … So President Barack Obama wants the government to assist in the development of smart-gun technology, which has the potential to reduce the number of preventable deaths. – Bloomberg
Obama’s is trying to control guns again. And this is the proximate cause for articles like this Bloomberg opinion piece about how necessary it is to stop gun violence by any means necessary.
But the larger issue is one that is not often pointed out.
It is actually quite unbelievable that this incessant effort to make guns more difficult to use is entirely motivated by well-meaning individuals who want to protect our loved ones from deadly weapons.
Anyone who has had even occasional interactions with US governments at state or federal levels – especially on the East or West coasts – is well aware of the bureaucratic rigidity.
Whether it is the prosecution of military conflict around the world, the imposition of questionable taxes domestically, adult sentences for juveniles or prisoners placed in solitary confinement for years or decades, the vast scope of the US empire renders it essentially uncaring.
It is hard to conceive of bureaucracies being caring anyway. Cultures tend to be caring, but not sociopolitical entities.
Nonetheless, this Bloomberg article makes the argument that gun legislation is being promoted entirely out of caring and concern.
The need is great. At least 278 children unintentionally killed or injured someone with a gun last year, and at least 84 have done so already in 2016. Additional suicides and murders have been committed by people using guns that did not belong to them.
This effort could soon move beyond courts and legislation. All that stands in the way for now is the California federal appeals court ruling.
According to the Wall Street Journal, the California federal appeals court will rule at any moment “on whether states can force firearm manufacturers to incorporate safety devices in their products.”
If it makes a favorable ruling to states, then expect to see a surge of gun control technology that will make it more and more difficult to operate guns.
States – pursuant to the ruling – could mandate that one has to wear a ring that facilitates the firing of a gun at close proximity. No ring, no operation.
The technology itself is expensive, and there is little market demand. But Obama hopes to change that.
Obama’s new idea is to bring to bear the “government’s vast purchasing power to serve as a ‘market participant’ that can spur innovation.”
We learn from Bloomberg that the National Institute of Justice has already “funded research into technologies, including biometric readers and proximity devices employing radio frequency to make guns operable only by their owners.”
Police organizations have been approached as well, with the proviso that the technology being developed will not be mandatory. And the article adds that no companies will be required to manufacture the technology.
Here is how the article concludes:
Resisting technological innovation has never been a winning strategy, especially when the status quo is not working. And the status quo — 100,000 Americans killed or injured by gunfire each year, and many more terrorized by it — is unacceptable.
The figure mentioned – 100,000 – must be considered within the larger frame of reference of US jurisprudence and governance.
As we’ve pointed out on numerous occasions, the total amount of individuals in the US penal-industrial complex is something like six million. And US prisons are increasingly operated as slave-labor camps run by private penal firms.
These firms may have contracts with local government entities to supply a certain amount of “criminals” per year.
Meanwhile, overseas, the US government is involved in numerous wars that have killed millions. Many of these wars cannot be justified. All too often the surroundings are poisoned by depleted uranium weapons.
In Iraq, women were told not to have babies because of the amount of problems being caused by exposure to depleted uranium.
Within this context, it is difficult to believe that US gun-control efforts are out of concern and care for those who hurt or killed by guns.
One way or another, legislative efforts at the state or federal level are mostly aimed at breaking down communities and cultures while asserting greater political and economic control over individuals.
Even torture is not beyond the bounds of fedgov and the CIA these days. In fact, the CIA is withholding a voluminous report on torture from Congress.
What can we conclude?
Conclusion: It is far more likely that gun control is aimed at disarming people than it is for purposes of reducing casualties. Nothing about the way US government operates these days gives us any confidence it is concerned with people’s best interests, only with increasing its control over society and promoting vast globalist bureaucracies.