Proposition Summary
Nguyen’s and Fleming’s claim of using the Smart Gun technology through incorporation of biometrics as a means of protection of the second amendment is in a lack of valid grounds. This is through his first claim of having childproof and child safe guns as a safety precaution for the minimization of homicide and suicidal cases (Bobkoff).
There is also the claim of the Smart Gun technology reinforcing responsibility and legitimacy for making, selling and purchasing guns. Here, there are considerations about the irresponsible behavior people have knowing that guns are untraceable to them in case of any killings. There is an adequate presentation of the row between responsible gun owners and those focused on sales as a source of economic earner without any concerns about the dangers of an increase in circulation through the black market (Bilton).
The third point is in the reduction of gun ownership by psychologically unstable people through the Smart gun technology. Gun ownership is in respect of people with responsibility of protection of others and gun owners need to know the repercussions of any irresponsibility. The claims that gun ownership requires a sense of responsibility and that is achievable through the Smart Gun technology, is inadequate since it makes no clear reference to proof that the technology can vet psychologically unstable people from owning guns (Terranella).
Refutation of the arguer’s claims
The arguer notes that the attitude of gun owners is lax and that there is irresponsibility and that is insufficiently proven because he only sites one case to present the danger of the gun ownership. This could simply mean that having safe guns allows for heckles handling of guns and exposure to children. It is unacceptable to have guns stored carelessly under any conditions. If there is a concern about protecting children from the gun danger, the best thing to do is to ensure that there is no exposure of children to it regardless of their being loaded or not (Brody).
Legal or illegal, guns are dangerous and having the safety regulations are still inadequate to make any assurance of responsibility from people. In fact, the safety regulations would only lead to an influx of the number of guns in circulation and that would pose even a greater danger than what the society faces now (Terranella). There would only be cases of people flashing guns around and posing people into greater danger. Those worried about the economic restraint of gun marking act selfishly without the consideration regarding the danger of having guns sold without background checks.
Some of the proposed checks on the psychological status of gun owners are an infringement to persons (Bobkoff). That means that people are overly irresponsible and must face subjections to multiple tests and checks to make any purchases of their choices. What people need is the encouragement of maintaining responsibility once they choose to own guns to protect those in easy accessibility and risk such as children. In fact, it is still inadequate to manage the crisis of the gun ownership (Terranella).
Support of the opposing side
The best idea for regulating guns in the United States would not be through the Smart gun technology because the technology is for one very limiting in its ownership and does not create a balance in those economically interested in the manufacture and distribution of guns. It is also not a guarantee that the regulation of guns through this technology can reduce homicides and suicides. In fact, the accessibility of the guns will be easy, that would promote exposure of children to guns, and they learn to use them when they are young, which is a risk to the society (Bobkoff).
Works Cited
Bilton, Nick. “Disruptions: Smart Guns Can’t Kill In the Wrong Hands,” New York Times. 2013. Web.
Bobkoff, Bob. “Can Smart Gun Technology Help Prevent Violence?” NPR. 2013. Web.
Brody, Jane. “Keeping Guns Away From Children.” New York Times. 2013. Web.
Terranella, Scott. “Study: Parents Don’t Lock Up Guns.”Abc News. 2006. Web.