"When police officers carrying Glocks are recovering Glocks at crime scenes on a regular basis, shouldn’t this prompt questions about whether the police department could use its influence to reduce the number of guns that end up in the hands of criminals? When Smith & Wessons turn up frequently in the hands of criminals, shouldn’t questions be asked when Smith & Wesson seeks a contract with the federal government?"
Spoken like a true politico, avoiding the truth as always. Police aren't recovering Glocks anywhere near as often as Jennings/Bryco/etc., broken revolvers, and assorted stolen stuff. Flawed premise based on nothing to start with.
Second, it's not like if we issued Webley revolvers or Howdah flintlocks to officers that crooks would start choosing the same to 'keep up.' The reason both prefer the Glock (when it is available in the case of criminals) is that it does a very good job performing the job needed by both groups' line of work. Bad assumption number two is that both police and especially criminals do not act out of self interest.
Third, it's not a coincidence both the police and military go with the guns they do. While political influence has a small role, it's mostly because the contract winners have the lowest bid for the requirements specified. Glock pioneered the technology that allows for large numbers of pistols to be quickly produced using inexpensive materials; that's why they're cheap, not because they won a contract (for being cheap).
In any case, Glock's aren't the cheap-est firearm-shaped-objects out there, not even close, in fact. That's why (to start where I began) they aren't used in crimes anywhere near the rate of the cheapest used or stolen weapons available. This has been the case since at least the turn of the last century, but probably forever.
I always love these articles; some random idiot reporter or politico literally titling their article "I've got an idea!" and proceed to regurgitate the same old tripe as though it's their own thought;
"What could gun manufacturers do to protect the public?
They could distribute their guns exclusively through dealers that sell guns responsibly, and end their relationships with the small percentage of bad-apple dealers that sell a disproportionate number of the guns used in crimes."
It's the ATF's job to route out bad-buzzword dealers and always has been. I suggest they take this up with Mrs. Lynch. Second, the only disproportionate number is the infinitesimal nature of lawfully-purchased guns (from an FFL dealer, no less) used in crimes of the type described (inner city gang activity)
"But companies will innovate in these areas only if their major customers ask them to."
No one is asking anybody to add useless, expensive, or moronic features to their guns (just useless, expensive, and moronic accessories). Least of all people intent on using them for defense.
"First, use federal purchasing power to begin a substantive conversation with gun manufacturers"
If by "converse" you mean "coerce," I suppose. Reminds me of that article recently about how these statist-minded people are in so deep they don't even understand the nature of coercion, force, or freedom.
Basically, any op-ed which exhibits such limited understanding of 1) firearms (ignorance/lies about the nature of 'crime guns'), 2) the firearms marketplace (what customers want), 3) firearms technology (actual availability of 'smart gun' tech and its reliability/cost), 4) firearms laws ('bad apple dealers' nonsense), and who uses anti-gun mafia buzzwords like 'loophole,' 'bad apple dealers,' 'smart gun' and others constantly isn't an 'opinion' at all. It's advertising.
Here's there list of cures for what ails us:
-Industry cuts off 'bad apple' dealers (code for urban dealers, btw). Basically an endorsement of the illegal Choke Point program. Distribution only through "reputable channels" presumably to be determined by anti-gun zealots.
-Somehow produce smart guns using technology that does not yet exist. Ignore that it would trigger onerous laws in multiple markets banning the sale of more profitable items. Ignore (again) that this demand for new technology is made by people completely devoid of any engineering or technical background.
-Use federal government interference to distort private markets into suiting policy objectives. This is also known as Command Capitalism aka Fascism. Military handgun procurement decisions apparently drive criminal handgun selection (think about that for a second).
-Modify the 68 GCA to automatically deny anyone not immediately approved for a firearm purchase their right to buy firearms. Guaranteed to be struck down in courts almost immediately (possibly with the whole damn BGC). Since three-days is apparently not enough time for a five-minute check, I'll just treat the extension of the 3-day deadline to 'indefinite' as a denial.
-As a more realistic-ish alternative to modifying the 68 GCA, unlawfully coerce FFL dealers to refuse transfers to the same persons
-Throw a bunch of money at something called the federal "smart gun research program" as though DARPA isn't already working on something like this.
-Hold firearms manufacturers accountable for the free will actions of their customers (violates the lawful commerce act) by publicly shaming (and privately punishing extra-judicially) those whose brands happen to show up at crime scenes the most. The desired effect is obviously to increase prices beyond what poor black people can afford.
This is an absolutely shameful editorial, even for antis. Illogical, ignorant, and immoral. The one bright spot is that it is devoid of calls for legislation. It appears these monsters have finally realized that way is shut. So they appeal to extra-legal (unlawful) methods like bribery, harassment, and extortion to effect their desired results.
"Conversation" = Coercion
"Encouragement" = Bribery
"Measurement" = Harassement
"Reasonable" = Totalitarian
The amount of newspeak and doublespeak in the article is jarring. Quite literally none of the policy ideas they describe would anyway resemble the methods used to implement them. I don't understand how people can function with this amount of dissonance in their heads; they must write a brutally honest editorial, the use "find/replace" like a code table to generate the actual article.
TCB
