Quote:
|
Instead of attempting to require smart technology, why not seek liability exemptions/relief for manufacturers who produce them, thereby enabling the Smart Gun to be sold at or around the same price as current guns, and let the market grow from there?
|
Simple answer:
because, if they don't
require smart gun tech, merely do things that encourage the market (tax breaks, etc) then they don't have the authority to ban non smart guns.
(not that they do, but that's the tactic expected).
Smart guns are "safe". They use the law to require you to be "safe". Then, once this is established and accepted, they ban the guns that aren't "safe".
This does not infringe on 2nd Amendment rights (their view) because you can still buy all the modern "safe" guns you want. Only these old, outdated, unsafe guns are being prohibited. get the picture?
There is NO technology that works 100%. Sometimes, even rocks break.
We debate endlessly (although some of the debate is just for our own entertainment
) about reliability for carry guns. Some folks are adamant about the increased risk of an internal lock system. And that is a mechanical system.
Now add in an electronic system. That's not just ONE more thing that might go wrong, that's a whole laundry list of additional things that might go wrong.
Now, WHEN (not if) it does fail, and someone is injured or killed as a result, who gets the responsibility? Deep pockets? The fool who trusted the tech? The lawmaker who required you to use it? Anyone else? Morally, I know where I would place it, but legally?