Gun Rights Groups Say They Don't Oppose Smart Guns, Just Mandates 584
Lucas123 (935744) writes "When two gun stores attempted to sell the nation's first integrated smart gun, the iP1, gun advocacy groups were charged in media reports with organizing protests that lead to the stores pulling the guns from their shelves or reneging on their promise to sell them in the first place. But, the National Rifle Association and the National Shooting Sports Foundation say they do not oppose smart gun technology, which they call "authorized user recognition" firearms. "We do oppose any government mandate of this technology, however. The marketplace should decide," Mike Bazinet, a spokesman for the NSSF, wrote in an email reply to Computerworld. However, the argument for others goes that if stores begin selling smart guns, then legislators will draft laws requiring the technology."
Re:There Is No Demand For "smart guns" (Score:5, Interesting)
Given that the majority of injuries caused by firearms are accidents or non-defensive homicides, I would question your statement that "the most important safety feature of a gun" is its ability to actually shoot. Detroit had about 50 defensive homicides in 2012 against 500 offensive homicides; if the gun literally didn't work half the days out of the year, you would be saving 250 lives at the cost of 25, before you count accidents.
Re:...but that doesn't explain... (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm burning a well deserved mod point to post this.
I'm not so sure the NRA doesn't use FUD as their primary tactic to keep themselves funded. I'm a gun owner, I have a carry permit, and I own scary 'assault rifles'. I joined the NRA to support my right to own firearms.
Then the NRA started sending me letters.
First, Obama was going to take away all of my guns. Next it wasn't just Obama, but the entire UN coming after my guns. Next the single greatest threat to this nation was Obama. It just kept rolling on and on. Most of the arguments presented in the letters were pure FUD, the kind that would make old Microsoft proud. It was enough to ensure I never give them money again. I've donated to state groups and I'm still looking for a sane national gun lobby.
In regards to the topic of smart guns. I personally don't want one, but I don't see anything wrong with them. I don't think that mandating smart guns will have any effect on gun violence. If I can steal my dads gun to go to school, I can steal the watch it uses to fire. If I'm going to commit a crime with a gun I bought, I bet I bought the device to fire it. That's no reason to stop working on smart guns, but this technology should remain the choice of the end user.
Re:Yes! No more mandates! (Score:4, Interesting)
No, free markets really are good, the problem is that they very rarely exist in reality. Dumb libertarians try to apply naive "free market" thinking to everything, including roads, showing why their philosophy doesn't work.
Free markets work great when you have high availability of information, so consumers can make intelligent choices, and when there's lots of competitors and the barriers to entry are very low. So, for instance, you don't really need much regulation for things like landscaping or housekeeping; consumers can make their own choices here, there's no shortage of competition, there's almost nothing keeping someone from entering business as a landscaper or housekeeper, etc. Even better, large companies don't have any real advantages here or any way of keeping smaller competitors out of the market (instead, larger companies end up just having higher prices due to their higher overhead). But internet service, electricity service, water/sewer service is totally different because of the natural monopolies in those markets, and the very high barriers to entry, so regulation in these markets is essential. Libertarians simply cannot understand this due to their simplistic thinking, and just cling to the mantra of "free markets will solve everything!".