Smart Gun Symposium in the news

This was the Smart Gun Symposium I attended yesterday.


By Danny Westneat Seattle Times Columnist, Smart guns’ may be smart way to keep kids safe:

There is a way to stop all the shootings involving kids getting their hands on guns. But it’s bogged down in toxic gun politics — something a Seattle activist hopes to change.

The contrast between the two reports of the same event is astounding. What also surprised me a bit was that it was originally published the day before the event. With that information you should not be surprised that nearly all the information about the event is from one source, CeaseFire President Ralph Fascitelli.

By Mike Lindblom Seattle Times staff reporter, Weapons of the future: ‘Smart guns’ would fire only for owner:

“Smart guns,” weapons that can be fired only by the owner, so as to reduce shootings by children, by suicidal people or by a criminal who wrests away a cop’s sidearm, were the topic at a symposium Wednesday at the Washington Athletic Club in Seattle


4 thoughts on “Smart Gun Symposium in the news

  1. You just found out that you’re dealing with a PR flack, not a journalist. He writes what he’s been told to write, crafted to push the ideology he’s paid to push.
    The sad part is that people continue to believe they are reading newspapers rather than low grade fiction. It’s like National Enquirer without the honesty.

  2. “…the shootings involving kids getting their hands on guns…it’s bogged down in toxic gun politics…”

    That much is true. “Toxic gun politics” is the one and only reason the subject is brough up at all. Anyone who cared enough about kids’ safety would already know, because they’d care enough to already have looked it up, that kids killing kids with guns is such a rare occurence that they could save a vastly greater number of kids by focusing their attention elsewhere. Thus it is proved that people who focus on guns as a means of saving kids’ lives are all being dishonest about their intentions, or they are suckers for lies.

    Since they like to bring up the subject of “saving the children” as often as it can be used to further their Progressive agenda; let’s think of a Vinn diagram; One circle contains all those who favor abortion on demand, nationwide, as a matter of government policy. The other circle has all the people who favor restrictions on the enumerated right to keep and bear arms. Would that result in a 100% overlap, or only about 90%?

    “Save the children”? Who’s trying to fool whom? We should not waste our time bandying words with what will amount to gemocidal maniacs if they ever really get what they want.

  3. “by suicidal people”
    What? We’re not even going to be allowed to kill ourselves?
    Um, Venn, not Vinn. I think. Maybe.

Comments are closed.