Technology: Bane or Boon?

Hypothetical Scenarios

Scene One: 2:00 am. Husband and wife are awakened by the sound of an intruder. Husband reaches for his handgun while wife reaches for the phone. Suddenly, the drug-crazed intruder bursts into the bedroom and, before the husband can bring his weapon to bear, the burglar viciously clubs the husband with a crowbar and sends the weapon flying across the room. While the husband is being beaten, the wife picks up the handgun. The intruder now advances upon her but she is unable to save her husband or protect herself. The gun will not fire.

Scene two: Late Friday evening. Patrolman stops a speeding vehicle with a single occupant. After obtaining the offender's license, the officer turned to go back to his patrol car. Hearing a sound, the officer looked back and instinctively unsnapped his holster. At the same moment, the burly driver slammed into the officer, knocking him to the ground. His palms outstretched to break his fall, the officers hands skidded into the loose roadside gravel. The officer rolled, pulling his handgun from the holster and attempted to engage his assailant. The weapon would not fire.

Scene three: A single mom is helping her two children (ages 12 and 14) with their homework before bedtime. A sexual predator who has been stalking the woman now breaks into the house. He has already disabled the phone lines from outside the secluded residence. He knocks the 12 year-old child almost senseless to keep her quiet and then begins assaulting the mother. The older child runs to the bedroom where s he knows her mom keeps a revolver for their protection. Returning to the living room she beholds the horror of what is happening, aims, and pulls the trigger. When nothing happens, the big man leaves the mother on the floor and advances towards the 14 year-old daughter.

In all of these scenarios, the handguns were equipped with high-tech bio-safety mechanisms (AKA "smart" weapons) which recognize the owners fingerprint or palm print. If the weapon does not "recognize" the hand print of the owner, it will fail to fire. The legislature contemplates elevating itself to the lofty moral position of mandating these safety devices "for the children" but, in the hypothetical scenarios above, several children would now without parents if some in the Virginia state legislature has their way.

Technology or Tyranny

HOUSE JOINT RESOLUTION NO. 679

The following resolution was proposed in the Virginia House of Delegates on February 1, 1999: RESOLVED by the House of Delegates, the Senate concurring, That the Virginia State Crime Commission be directed to study the technology known as "personalized" or "smart" handguns. The Commission shall (i) review the status of the present technology to develop "smart guns," and the present and future accessibility and availability of such technology, and (ii) determine the feasibility of developing future leg islation which conforms with the Commission's findings regarding "personalized" or "smart" guns. The entire document is available as an appendix to this piece and the reader is encouraged to go there to read the language for himself. It reaches the Resolution by building arguments upon speculation, presumption, and partial truths. I will counter the more egregious arguments below with, hopefully, more careful reasoning than was evidenced by the author of the Resolution.

Fundamental principles

Montesquieu: "The deterioration of a government begins almost always by a decay of its principles."

Good arguments may always be made for increasing the level of order in society by curtailing the liberty of its citizens. Noble ideals and lofty goals are always invoked when the taskmaster wishes to convince the masses to lay aside personal liberty. The scales of justice are balanced by order, on the one hand, and liberty, on the other. While a free people may never enjoy the predictable social order offered b y totalitarianism, the converse is also true, that people ensnared in that kind of system may never know the blessings of liberty. We must look to our founding documents to remind ourselves of the legitimate purpose of government as conceived by our fathers. Virginian Thomas Jefferson penned the Declaration of Independence in which he noted that all men, ". . . are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed." Article I, Sec.1 of the Virginia Constitution affirms, "That all men are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inherent rights, of which, when they enter into a state of society, they cannot, by any compact deprive or divest their posterity; namely, the enjoyment of life and liberty. . . " Further, it is expressly NOT within the purview of government to alter fundamental principles, no matter how expedient or efficient for the cause of government. Rather, that citizens, as individuals, enjoy both duties and rights which they are obligated to preserve for posterity by, "a firm adherence to justice, moderation, temperance, frugality, and virtue; by frequent recurrence to fundamental principles. . ." Art. I, Sec. 15, VA Const.

Technology may be a bane or a boon but government should wary of mandating a wide-sweeping technological solution to a problem that is fundament ally the responsibility of individuals. Many unforeseen dangers may lurk in the dim light of the future, especially when the law seeks to impose a "one-size-fits-all" solution. For example, automobile manufacturers are now mandated by federal law to install air bags in nearly all current production models. Although many lives have been saved, many other lives have been lost because overzealous legislators failed to anticipate that when air bags deployed at low speeds, even minor crashes were fatal to children and the frail elderly. The Detroit News, quoting the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) reported that, " . . .about 30 people, including at least 10 children, have been killed by air bags in the past five years. Auto makers, air bag suppliers, and the federal government are hurrying to find solutions." Detroit News, March 8, 1996.

Technology has made it easier for government to gather information on the citizens it serves but this, also, is a two-edged sword. Traffic cameras placed on major highways give instant information to law enforcement but the use of this technology has now expanded to include the issuance of citations for offenses when no officer is anywhere around. The result is a mechanistic application of "strict liability" tort principles to an area of criminal law for which it is entirely unsuited. The burden of proof is now shifted so that the citizen must establish his innocence and state's burden of evidence is reduced to simply producing a photograph. The technology makes it possible for the government to violate sacred principles of "due process" of law to which every citizen is entitled and for which millions of Americans have fought and died.. This application of technology is utterly beyond the legitimate purpose of government as envisioned by our founders.

POINT BY POINT

Here are the "whereas" statements (called presumptions) which, if accepted as the truth, would lead to the logical conclusion that is stated in the resolution. The stronger the presumptions, the more compelling will be the resolution. "WHEREAS, a personalized handgun is a firearm that cannot be fired by an unauthorized user, including a child or criminal;" While it is certainly true that a child or criminal cannot fire such a handgun, neither may the owner (if injured as in the scenario above) or any person authorized by him, including a spouse, subsequent lawful heirs, potential buyers, etc. unless the owner is capable of disabling the device. But if the owner can disable the device, hasn't that defeated the entire purpose of the legislation envisioned by the " great protectors?" If the owner may not disable the device, then perhaps it must go to a gunsmith who, of course, would be obligated to record the make, model and serial number of the gun, plus the legally required information on the new owner. Sounds a lot like firearms registration to me.

"WHEREAS, personalized handgun technology may help to establish future statewide handgun safety standards and thereby help to prevent needless firearm deaths and injuries;" Is the reader familiar with any other kinds of death besides "needless?" However, that aside, it is evident that the delegate who proposed this anticipates "future statewide. . .standards" which places the state government squarely into the manufacturing scheme. One of the hallmarks of socialism is that the state controls industry. Conversely, the identifying characteristic of capitalism is that production remains in the hands of the worker. Private enterprise and free-market capitalism is, and has been, the one thing that makes men free and keeps the government at bay. Such reading as I have done on the subject suggests strongly (perhaps conclusively) that enduring social systems which value liberty are those which are economically rooted in capitalism. While there are legitimate reasons for government to regulate certain aspects of business, any attempt to do so should be examined closely and accepted only in cases most compelling. Moreover, any regulation of business must be likely to achieve its intended result AND the authority to regulate must be either explicit in the Constitution or the implied power to regulate must derive from an express power.

"WHEREAS, unlike a trigger lock that must be removed and replaced each time a handgun is used, a personalized handgun contains a mechanism that is incorporated into the design of the handgun;" Inexpensive technology is now available which permits the owner to remove and replace a lock each time the handgun is used. Hmmm. This sounds like responsible ownership, to me. Is it, then, the objective of this Resolution to take away the owner's discretion with regard to whether he locks his weapon? Should such a decision be made by the government? Isn't this more of an economic market question which should be between the technology marketer and the ultimate consumer? Is the government supporting or promoting private technology industries by this kind of study? Maybe the people who propose this stuff have some kind of personal interest in the technological "solution" that the rest of us don't know about. It wouldn't be the first time that legislators push a bill through that is favorable to some special interest group. What other motivations might exist for this kind of proposal?

"WHEREAS, 14 different personalized handgun technologies are under research and development and range from low-tech combination locks built into the grip of the handgun to high-tech devices that can recognize an authorized user's fingerprint;" Low-tech options already exist for the handgun owner who desire them so there is no need to study that issue. The study must therefore be for the high-tech (read that, expensive) options which cannot be disabled and require expert technicians to alter the code (and duly record the required personal information for the federal database).

"WHEREAS, personalized handguns are technologically feasible" Being "technologically feasible" is not the same thing as being "economically practical" or "practically desirable." If "technologically feasible" is going to be the new government standard for manufactured goods, then we can look for many more expensive "safety devices" on our computers, VCR's, electric blenders, etc. Because of the blinding speed with which technological "improvements" keep appearing on the scene, we will never be able to get out of debt because of being forced to buy newer, safer, "technologically feasible" fixes for problems of our own creation.

"WHEREAS, the integration of electronics into law-enforcement and consumer handguns and rifles is a natural evolution of technology which can be used for safety, performance and reliability;" Interesting term-- "natural evolution" of technology. Sounds rather Darwinian. But Darwin argued for "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" which is more consistent with free-market economics than this Resolution pretends to be. Because technology " can be used. . ."does it necessarily follow that it "must" be used? What might be considered reasonable limits on the government to mandate our use of technologically superior gadgets? Perhaps they could require that you have a new "bio-metric" identifier before you get access to the Internet, open a bank account, get a driver's license, buy groceries, etc. I am reminded of the prophecy in Revelation where no man may buy or sell without the mark of the beast. I wonder what kind of a "mark" (identifier) that might be?

"WHEREAS, national consumer initiatives and legislation have challenged consumer industries to improve the safety and design of several products, including automobiles, pharmaceutical packages and cigarette lighters;" It is one thing to say that consumer initiatives have challenged consumer industries, but it is a far stretch to suppose that all laws are the product of concerned citizens pressuring their congressmen to act. More likely, it is economic special interes ts that are driving this issue and the average American is at the mercy of politicians whose vote is being influenced by well-financed special interest groups.

"WHEREAS, firearms presently are the second leading cause of death among children and youth; guns presently are the leading cause of death for young African American males; and in 1995, 440 American children and teenagers were unintentionally killed by firearms in the United States;" The reader is encouraged to visit the Center for Disease Control web site and view the breakdown chart, by age, and see the statistics for themselves. Armed with that info rmation, you may be better able to spot the inconsistencies relied on in the Resolution. It can be viewed at http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/map.htm Causes of death are broken down into categories and ages. The figures for Virginia only are available by following the links for the states. Since the scope of this article deals only with Virginia, those are the figures that should be of primary concern to Virginia legislators. It is misleading to quote national statistics as a basis for Virginia law unless there exists a relevant statistical relationship. For example, national statistics do not take into account regional variations. In addition, the way in which the Center for Disease Control distinguishes age groups can lead to inaccurate conclusions. Note from the chart that ages 15 through 24 are grouped together for statistical purposes. This more-or-less coincides with insurance company actuarial tables used in determining insurance rates for young drivers. However, the more astute among you may recognize that only three years within that age group (15, 16, and 17) are considered "children." When the clock strikes midnight on the morning of your eighteenth birthday, you are an adult by almost every standard in America. Thus, to use a group for statistical purposes when 66 % of the group is non-representative is, at least, shoddy scholarship, and at most, outright fraud!

Homicide involving teenagers occurs almost exclusively in large cities (which, not coincidentally, have the most stringent gun control laws already in effect!) and affect teens involved in high-risk conduct (gangs, drugs, etc.) Since most of Virginia is largely unaffected by crime in Houston or Los Angeles, legislative resources should not be wasted on solving those problems. What Virginia lawmakers should concern themselves with is the prohibition of high-risk behavior in Virginia. Of course, the fact that such prohibitions already exist while the conduct continues unabated suggests that lawmakers really have no "solution" and are willing to take more draconian measures to show their constituents that the government is "doing something" about the teenage violence problem. Somehow, their promises do not leave me with a warm, fuzzy feeling.

"WHEREAS, in the Commonwealth of Virginia, 63 children and adolescents under the age of 18 were killed by gunfire in 1994, and such deaths were the second leading external or unnatural cause of death for this age group;" The facts do not distinguish between self-inflicted gunshot wounds and homicide, nor do they attempt to isolate accidental shootings from intentional ones. This is an important distinction because any legislative effort must have a strong likelihood of achieving its intended results and its proponents must be able to show a cause/effect relationship between the bill and its outcome. The patron (Delegate) who proposed this masterpiece and the large number of elected representatives who voted for it, seem to want the reader to believe that they are concerned about accidental injury to small children and that the intended legislative outcome will be to affect a near-total elimination of such injuries from handguns. What effect, if any at all, would this kind of legislation have on deliberate acts of violence?

Sixty-three children lost to violence in one year is a tragedy. Yet, how many children's lives were saved because there was a handgun available to protect them from criminal harm? Isn't that statistic valid with regard to the question at hand? Don't the fact-finders have a duty be fully informed of all of the relevant data before they craft some legislative mandate? If the Resolution to study this matter does not include that aspect, the cruel reality is that the government may have created a more dangerous environment than the one that already exists.

Conclusion

Good intentions notwithstanding, this is a poor piece of work. Not only is it poor because it plays fast and loose with data, but it purports to act under the authority of the state and works to diminish personal liberty. Such a mindset is elitist and represent a dangerous challenge to fundamental principles of liberty. It may not be excused because it merely authorizes a "study" because it also states clearly the intent of the legislative body to "enact future legislation." They are perfectly willing to sacrifice principles of personal accountability for the "greater good" of a more "efficient" government. We must all be reminded from time to time that it is seldom a legitimate function of government to build a safety net of protection around people whose suffering is a direct result of their own willful conduct. It is a truism that, "no pain, no gain." It applies not only to physical training of the body but to spiritual and emotional training as well. Our most enduring lessons in life come from the "school of hard knocks" and we would be remiss in our duties as parents, teachers, and leaders if we withhold (or eliminate) the natural consequences of bad conduct. Our next generation will be unlikely to learn to make good decisions if they are denied the opportunity to know the full extent of the consequences of their poor choices today.

What Did Our Founders Say?

"Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters." Daniel Webster

Mr. Justice Brandies of the U.S. Supreme Court has written a dissent passage in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438, (1928) that is right on point with this issue. He writes:

Decency, security and liberty alike demand that government shall be subjected to the same rules of conduct that are commands to the citizen. In a government of laws, existence of the government will be imperiled if it fails to observe the law scrupulous ly. Our government is the potent, the omnipresent teacher. For good or for ill, it teaches the whole people by its example. Crime is contagious. If the government becomes a lawbreaker, it breeds contempt for the law; it invites every man to become a law unto himself; it invites anarchy. To declare that in the administration of the criminal law the end justifies the means- to declare that the government may commit crimes in order to secure the conviction of a private criminal- would bring terrible retribution. Against that pernicious doctrine this court must resolutely sets its face.

George Washington, Farewell Address: "Occupants of public offices love power and are prone to abuse it."

Benjamin Franklin, 1759 (Franklin B. Historical Review of Pennsylvania. 1759) "They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

Links to sites with information on this topic

From Technology Online, July 30, 1998. An article on different types of proposals. http://go2.guardian.co.uk/technology/901721445-guns.html

CDC Statistical Chart for causes of death (National) http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/pub-res/map.htm