Article Image
IPFS News Link • Gun Rights

If your gun is too accurate, you are a terrorist, says legislation-seeking nit-wit

Is it possible to create a rifle that's too good, too accurate, too easy to use, leaving only terrorists and other outlaw groups as potential buyers? That is what Elliot Fineman, CEO of the National Gun Victims Action Council says about the Precision Guided Firearms made by TrackingPoint, a gun maker located in Austin, Texas.The NGVAC wants to ban the rifles, which they say have "no legitimate civilian use." "There are three groups who will buy these rifles ? insurrectionists, terrorists and hate groups," Fineman said in a recent statement. "Given the sniper rifle's deadly accuracy, no one is safe ? this cannot be allowed."The group's biggest objection is to the technology behind the heart of TrackingPoint's Precision Guided Firearm system, its "network tracking scope," a computer which calculates 20 ballistic variables 54 times per second. All the shooter does to fire the $27,500 weapon is align the reticle onto the target, press the "tag" button, pull the trigger and hold it to the rear. Once the scope determines the proper alignment is achieved, the rifle fires on its own. "TrackingPoint's sniper rifles are a classic example of technology outpacing legislation," Fineman wrote. "The weapons unquestionably pose a significant danger to public safety, and this danger will only grow as additional companies develop similar technology." His group is seeking legislation to "banish the threat posed by these weapons." TrackingPoint, for the most part, has ignored the fury and declined to comment to the mainstream media ? until now. "We really believe this is a direct attack on our guns and our freedom," TrackingPoint spokesman Anson Gordon told the Herald-Tribune last week. "We think it's time to stand up against the NGVAC."Banning weapons, Gordon said, is a "slippery slope." "If we start banning technology like this, what's next? What scope is next? What firearm is next," he asked. "We have to stand together to prevent this kind of erosion of our constitutional rights." Gordon also clarified previous reports that his firm's rifles are "smart guns.""That's not accurate," he said. "When we first came out that term was used, but it has become synonymous with gun control. We are not a smart rifle. There are no elements of gun control in our systems."Gordon acknowledged that TrackingPoint's chairman John McHale had tried to patent an electronic device that could send a signal to disable his rifles. "He did this as a preventative measure," Gordon said. "We saw this as a way to prevent anyone from doing it in the future." He also clarified that TrackingPoint is not just a "scope company.""We are a precision guided firearms company," he said. "It's a complete system. When we do a build with a Daniel Defense carbine or another partner's platform, by the time we're done it's 90 percent TrackingPoint."The Department of Defense is currently evaluating TrackingPoint technology in Arizona, he said, under conditions similar to combat zones overseas. Law enforcement agencies are also evaluating the weapons platform for SWAT team use. "So far, all the feedback has been extremely positive," Gordon said. "This is technology that is positive for the future." Asked if he was aware of any legislative interest in the NGVAC's call for a ban of TrackingPoint rifles, Gordon said, "No."

1 Comments in Response to

Comment by Jim Welch
Entered on:

I'm sure there were hand wringers like this in the Upper Paleolithic period crying out warnings of the end of mankind with the advent of the Atlatl. Of course, control freaks like this man would have unleashed a firestorm over the introduction of the English longbow because of it's superiority in both distance and accuracy. When gunpowder came on the scene the wailing must have reached a crescendo as the Chicken Littles of the world sought to stop advances in weaponry. Improvements in weapons will always be made, and people should be able to enjoy and use them if they can afford it and have a desire to do so. Blunt objects, sharp objects, hands & feet kill more people every year in America than all the guns put together, much less moaning about the accuracy of some $30K rifle system that few will ever be able to afford. Even AT 72 I personally would love to own one. He would be a lot fun to hit targets at that distance, but I would also love to own an AMG Mercedes. I doubt I ever will have either one. But, I will defend your right to own one. I really tire of people wanting to manage my life and tell me what I can or can't have, or do.