|
BamaD -> RE: Kanasas to make it easier to have concealable weapons (1/28/2015 9:27:59 AM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: joether
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
I do understand. And I disagree.
Fight the law. But fighting the gun is clearly anti-market. And not very 2nd Amendment either. Let people buy guns they want--and if they don't, the market will take care of it. But if they do, this is simply anti-capitalism to protect a vested market.
Here...have more kool-aid.
That is where you are wrong, people won't be able to buy the guns they want. Please tell me how, if one smart gun is available, you can buy anything else in NJ or CA and a couple of other states with those others banned in those states. The smart gun requirement is anti choice and anti 2nd no matter how many times you say otherwise. The gun that was going to go on sale was a bulky .22 that cost $1200. And it would have driven every other handgun off the market, not because people would have preferred it but because the law would have banned them. They can't put out the smart gun and let the market decide until it is the market and not politicians who decide.
Back at the start of the last century, automobiles could only be had by the richest of rich people in America. Then one automaker created a concept by which everyday Americans could obtain a car. In any color they wanted, just as long as it was black! At one time computers were massive and complex machines that took up whole rooms in the 1960's (an exceeding expensive). In 2015, the typical smartphone has more computing power at a fraction of the size and cost. At one time it would take months for a message to go from one side of the planet to a location that was very remote from civiilization (usually a hand/typewritten note). In 2015, people communication to the other side of the planet in 'real time' face to face meetings.
So if smartguns started off being few and very expensive, you would have us believe that it will forever remain so. Given the technology curve right now, with people 'jockeying' for that device to be very cheap to produce, is a gold mine waiting to be tapped. Fifteen to twenty years ago, people were learning how to use email; today there are more emails generated than the printed word.
From a technology and economics perspective, you really dont have an argument with smartgun technology. Legally, a smartgun would be safer then regular firearm in the home. The people that would push legislation to require smartgun purchases would not come from liberals, but insurance companies. Would be a curious battle, insurance lobbyist verse the NRA. The NRA would eventually lose is my best guess.
So 'yes', that firearm you mention costing $1200 now, in five years could be $200. In a dozen years later? Maybe a mere $30. Your going to tell me you couldn't afford a modification to a firearm that lowers your insurance bill by several hundred a year?
You miss my point completely. I do not oppose the development of smart guns. The thing that creates the problem is laws that ban everything else.
You must be a little behind, the laws have already been passed in CA, NJ, and a couple of other states that say that that $1200 .22 going on the market would ban all other handguns period. Thus it kills the need for makers of smart guns to create the advances you predict. Repeal the laws and lets see what happens. PS I already know all that history, but it only happened because of competition not because of regulation.
|
|
|
|
