4 ms·

Crazy. So in the name of "freedom", these gun-nuts want to deprive other people of the freedom to buy a safer gun if they want. I really wish they'll find a way

Crazy. So in the name of "freedom", these gun-nuts want to deprive other people of the freedom to buy a safer gun if they want. I really wish they'll find a way to sell it anyway. PS to all the gun-nuts dowvoters: Thanks for showing how you really value freedom.

jimbobimbo 12y ago
Nobody is against selling this kind of guns per se - people are against the laws mandating "smarts in all guns" that would be triggered, if this kind of guns become available.
- seanp2k2 12y ago
  https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope
radmuzom 12y ago
So true. Strange how free market principles don't apply whenever this interferes with the power of existing private interests.
- valar_m 12y ago
  I actually think there's a strong argument that regulation is more to blame: Part of the reaction stemmed from a little-known New Jersey law passed in 2002 by gun-control advocates. Once a personalized weapon went on sale in the United States, the law said, then within three years, all guns sold in New Jersey would have to include such safety features. It seems like greater adherence to free market principles could actually have avoided the problem -- without that law, intense opposition to smart guns would likely have not occurred as it did, or at least not to such an extent. Gun rights activists focus their energy on regulation and practically nothing else, which is why smart guns were so strongly opposed -- it was opposition to regulation, not safety.
tomohawk 12y ago
If only freedom was at work here. If the market was actually consensual, then innovations like this might actually have a chance to take hold as evidenced by people buying or not buying the product in an open market. Such market forces may even lead to a smart gun that actually works reliably in all the situations it needs to. However, laws such as the New Jersey one have taken away this opportunity by introducing a coercive element. This has completely changed the dynamic.

jimbobimbo 12y ago

Nobody is against selling this kind of guns per se - people are against the laws mandating "smarts in all guns" that would be triggered, if this kind of guns become available.

seanp2k2 12y ago
https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/slippery-slope

radmuzom 12y ago

So true. Strange how free market principles don't apply whenever this interferes with the power of existing private interests.

valar_m 12y ago
I actually think there's a strong argument that regulation is more to blame: Part of the reaction stemmed from a little-known New Jersey law passed in 2002 by gun-control advocates. Once a personalized weapon went on sale in the United States, the law said, then within three years, all guns sold in New Jersey would have to include such safety features. It seems like greater adherence to free market principles could actually have avoided the problem -- without that law, intense opposition to smart guns would likely have not occurred as it did, or at least not to such an extent. Gun rights activists focus their energy on regulation and practically nothing else, which is why smart guns were so strongly opposed -- it was opposition to regulation, not safety.

tomohawk 12y ago

If only freedom was at work here. If the market was actually consensual, then innovations like this might actually have a chance to take hold as evidenced by people buying or not buying the product in an open market. Such market forces may even lead to a smart gun that actually works reliably in all the situations it needs to. However, laws such as the New Jersey one have taken away this opportunity by introducing a coercive element. This has completely changed the dynamic.