> > Well, among the key facts necessary to understand that is that the "safety features" are not pure cost-free benefit, and the NRA believes the costs outweigh

> > Well, among the key facts necessary to understand that is that the "safety features" are not pure cost-free benefit, and the NRA believes the costs outweigh the benefits. > Sure. Advanced safety features in cars probably cost a lot to develop, too, and I'm sure there's a lot of people who think seatbelts are lame and cars would be cooler without them. But car companies actively work to promote safety while the NRA seems to actively undermine it. The cost at issue here is generally not monetary. Most safety features are designed to prevent the weapon from firing, which gives rise to the expression "loaded club." Consider, e.g., the magazine safety, which prevents a semi-automatic weapon from firing without a magazine, even if a round is already chambered. If I owned a handgun, which I do not, I would absolutely want this feature. The likelihood that it would prevent a potentially fatal negligent discharge is much higher than the likelihood that it would be the decisive factor in me losing a gunfight. However, there are combat techniques that depend on the weapon firing without a magazine, and competitions in which it would be difficult or impossible to participate without that ability. There is also the risk that the safety would otherwise interfere with the operation of the weapon.