> people who normally wouldn’t purchase guns would end up purchasing guns. But that's not a problem, is it? Because anti-gun groups aren't against guns per se

> people who normally wouldn’t purchase guns would end up purchasing guns. But that's not a problem, is it? Because anti-gun groups aren't against guns per se, just against the harms caused by guns, right? I suppose there is some small percentage of the US population who don't own a gun because they are afraid of their child using it, for example, so they might end up buying one of these smart guns and then, at a later date, using it to commit suicide themselves, whereas without easy access to a gun they might have had a mental health intervention instead. I'm not sure if that group is bigger than the number of lives that would be saved by smart guns replacing non-smart guns (assuming the technology works) though. Anyway, the really interesting questions are what happens if the federal government tried banning non-smart guns. I think a reasonable objection is that this is a prima facie shift in the balance of power between the federal government and the militia (rather than, say, a consumer safety benefit) unless the mandate also applies to federally procured weapons too.