PG editorial about plastic firearms has crucial flaws
Once again, a Post-Gazette editorial is wrapped in faulty logic and ridiculous thought.
The editorial about plastic firearms (Aug. 4, “A Plastic Gun Battle: Develop Countermeasures for Print-at-Home Arms”) is that piece. Here’s why:
1. The right to publish plans for an untraceable, undetectable firearm should be no more protected under the First Amendment than the right to yell “fire” in a crowded theater. Both risk a catastrophic event.
2. Since it is illegal to make, sell or possess one of these weapons, none of your “good guy” gun owners would ever do it anyway, right? So who downloaded the plans, terrorists? For what intent? It could only be something illegal. Something a legitimate gun ownerwould never do?
3. The editorial board, which seems to vehemently oppose government intervention on just about everything, wants the feds to come up with a way to stop this? That’s laughable. The counterfeit “fix” you mentioned was done by the manufacturers and developers. The government, other than saying something needed to be done, wasn’t involved. (But then, I forgot, I’m sure you’re in favor of government intrusion of individual rights in some areas. But that’s a letter for a future date.)
4. The editorial mentions the concern about how this situation could be overblown. How much anxiety should be devoted to this? Just airplane passengers? How about schools? Courthouses? What about newspaper offices? Anywhere a metal detector is used as a security measure is aprime target.
5. Lastly, the editorial conflates two dissimilar problems: the plastic gun situation with the ease of getting standard firearms. Your “honest” gun owners wouldn’t make or sell one to someone who wanted to sneak it in somewhere, would they? That’s (gasp) illegal, but that’s the prime reason for a plastic firearm. You are correct otherwise: Your average, straw-purchased handgun is quite adequate for your run-of-the-mill crime (sarcasm intended).
So, as the PG wraps this piece in the spurious First Amendment argument, I will do the same. A risk of public catastrophe has already been shown to limit the right of free speech. It should be applied here as well. It is the most practical solution. JOSH BAYER Lawrenceville