NRA lies smartly exposed: The truth about consumer demand for life-saving smart guns

[beevul]

53. I don't see any lies. I see strawmen. Now deconstructed.

one of the gun lobby’s worst lies among too many to count: That there’s just no market for smarter guns that would save lives.

I've never seen that argument made by 'the gun lobby' or more specifically, the nra.

All I see, is someone claiming, with zero evidence provided, that it happened.

Plus, the ability to remotely disable a stolen weapon would surely reduce gun thefts — which happen more than 200,000 times a year, fuel much if not most violent street crime and also create new business for gun manufacturers.

How can it be done, so that a 'stolen gun' can be remotely deactivated, while lawfully owned guns can not?

Like it or not, that's a legitimate concern, and its not going to go away. I wouldn't want some asshat criminal remotely disabling someones smart gun, similar to how hackers have hacked into numerous auto operating systems. Again, that's a legitimate concern.

I bet if we asked the author, he would still insist that private sales of firearms are a huge problem, in spite of claiming that stolen guns "fuel much if not most violent street crime".

The National Rifle Association has long insisted that Americans have no interest in smart-gun technology.

Another very specific claim about the nra, with zero evidence provided.

That number, never credible, is demonstrably proven wrong. On the very remote chance that it was accurate at the time of the survey, events like mass shootings have surely changed attitudes, while smartphones and GPS have acclimated millions to the powers of technology.

Its not demonstrably proven wrong anywhere in this OPINION piece. Its also never proven that the results of the NSSF survey was never credible. The author as much as admits it, when he says "never credible" and then admits in the next sentence that at the very least theres a "very remote chance".

More people are against gun control now than before all these mass shootings the author cites, so that talking point was a falsehood.

And smartphones and GPS have shown the people that actually USE them, that they're less than 100 percent reliable for regular duty, let alone if ones life is on the line. Another talking point deconstructed.

As the public-health researchers put it in an accompanying editorial in the American Journal of Public Health, “This suggests a substantial market exists for childproof guns among potential purchasers of new guns.”

Pay close attention folks. The "this" in the above paragraph refers to all the falsehoods contained in the previous paragraph. Yes, it really does. Unbelievable huh?

In the perverse logic of gun zealots, the mere idea of a smart gun is distorted into a threat against Second Amendment rights: If smart guns are allowed, they will soon be mandated; then all guns will be tracked; then all guns will be confiscated.

Another strawman. The argument is not that "they will soon be mandated". The argument IS that mandating them has already been done, and the intentions behind it are clear. See NJ. Oh, and 'perverse'? The author needs to sit down and read the cheerleading replies from our anti-gun friends about "the right people" being killed by guns, if he wants to see perverse.