I imagine many of the most tech-savvy, tuned-in people in the country would suddenly rationalize Ludditism should science ever benignly interfere with idolatry.

I think the armed security for politicians promoting "smart guns" should do the proof of concept.

The law would require shop owners to carry certain items. Like requiring hardware stores to carry garden hoses or grocery shops to carry Corn Flakes. It may be a good idea to carry them, to offer more choice, but should it be mandated?

I can understand requiring pharmacies to carry certain drugs, but what other stores should be so regulated?

that desire? A person would still be allowed to buy a gun, but the chip would identify it with the owner and prevent a non-owner from firing it. That sounds like a no lose proposition.

Your approval or disapproval that fact is irrelevant

The police don't want "smart" guns. The technology isn't there. They'd cost a lot more money. People who want guns want them to work. No gun owner wants to be forced to buy an unreliable $1,800 pistol chambered only in .22 long rifle.

... but it interfere's with a shop owner's choices of what stock to carry. A shop's owner should not have to purchase inventory that he feels will just collect dust and cause financial loss.

If only we could mandate smart owners.

... like for police, military, judges, prosecutors, mayors, city council members / aldermen, members of congress, secret service, rich and well-connected political contributors, etc.

In other words, the mandate should exempt anyone who needs the gun to be reliable.

All very sensible.

But not, of course, you or me.

1) Faith in the technology. Batteries, internal signal failure, intentional blockage of signal and the overall fact that the tech is young.

2) Private business owners being forced to pay for a product that they don't want to sell.

As to number 2, this fallacious argument is often used by business regarding virtually every proposed regulation that might diminish their profits. Reasonable regulation is the key here, and reasonable is generally determined by the courts and regulatory bodies.

... gives me nothing I want in addition to a higher potential for failure and additional cost.

People will still be using 1911s 100 years from now. It's an amazing piece of mechanical engineering.

If there is a desire for it, then people can buy it but forcing business owners to spend out of pocket is ridiculous.

Let's mandate that beginning 2019 all new cars must have self-driving technology.

It will also be mandated that by 2025 all vehicles have self-driving technology. Any vehicle that does not have such technology must be turned in or rendered permanently inoperable.

your advocacy for this technology makes it suspect.

what inventory a retail outlet carries?

What if, a wife finds herself in need, and attempts to use her husband's firearm to defend herself or vice-versa? The gun might just as well be an oddly-shaped paperweight for all the good it would do the spouse - it's a losing proposition.

car makers are making hybrid and electric vehicles while still selling gas guzzling SUV's.
These mandates have pushed alternatives into the marketplace.
This is about The gun lobby keeping safer guns out of stores and Democrats trying to bring alternatives into the marketplace.
We are allowed to create laws to make the country safer for individuals and other citizens.. Seat belt laws being a good example.

Seat belts don't stop my car from functioning either...

We were talking about why people wouldn't want this technology and why it's wrong to force shop owners to buy it.

and the sacred gun hold sway over reason.

Would be Stupid!

It's like everything else. They hate gays until their son fesses up, they hate Obamacare until their daughter can't get affordable medical care and so on and so on and so on. It would be nice if they would exert an iota of common sense before any other tragedies happen.

That jumped in with support for those endorsements that guns are "the most important issue" and supporting pro gun control Republicans is "worth it"?

Seems gun control is very willing to support Republicans; just like 2014 when they cheered Bloomberg attacking Democrats.

Posting in that other gun group are loudly denouncing them for supporting Republicans over Democrats, right?

This bill would have given gun shop owners cover to have this gun in its inventory.

...aside from the small problem of little, if any demand for them.

Not sure why gun advocates would have an issue with a seller adding a smart gun to their inventory to sell but apparently some feel the smart gun is a threat in some form or fashion.


http://wjla.com/news/political/rockville-gun-shop-owner-threatened-harassed-after-announcing-plans-to-sell-smart-gun--102730

What if non-gun owners want them? What if a guy wants a handgun in the house but his wife doesn't? What if he can convince her that he can buy a gun that nobody else can shoot but him, keeping his kids safe and keeping the gun from being used against them? That's win-win, if you ask me. And if the stores aren't required to have them in stock, nobody gets to see what one looks like, the argument never gets to be presented in real life, and no sale is ever made.

This is anti-American on Christie's part. He should be working on increasing commerce in his state, not restricting it. The NRA pressures everyone to marginalize safe guns. Government pressure is the only way it will ever become mainstream. Fuck Christie and fuck the luddites who hate progress. These guns won't reduce the quality of guns available to anyone. They'll just increase the variety of guns available for sale.

And if the stores aren't required to have them in stock, nobody gets to see what one looks like

If they don't want them, I'd say that's a good test of concept showing a need for guns to remain dangerous. "If they weren't dangerous we wouldn't be carrying them."

Anyway, stupid bullets would still be shot out of smart guns' barrels resulting in tragic accidents. Then there'd be a public outcry to make them even more idiot-proof. If a gun ban is impossible, it's almost as if we will be forced to decide what is an acceptable level of injury and death from firearms and create gun control laws that get us there.

But clumsily trying to force them artificially into the market is nonsense.

If I was making them and wanted to sell a bunch I'd probably think differently.

thats kinda funny, in a sick , kid kills himelf, sort of way

dumb guns are the best, greatest even

smart people, not so common

absolute fucking cowards

Who are you referring to?