I’m a science fiction nerd, so I love technology. The problem I keep running into is that when something new is talked about, some jackwagon out there wants to mandate it. Electric vehicles aren’t ready for primetime, but they’re getting closer, so some places want to ban anything but EVs so you don’t have a choice. Likewise, smart guns may not be ready to be trusted with our lives, but the technology is a fair bit closer than it was a few years ago.
Even so, some are talking about mandating that these are the only guns available.
And I get the argument. If a smart gun can only be fired by the lawful owner, gun thefts become meaningless, unintentional shootings drop, and the threat of kids taking Mom or Dad’s gun to school to settle a score evaporates.
In theory.
The problem with that is that no technology is foolproof and someone out there will figure out how to jailbreak it.
Still, it looks like Massachusetts is going to try and consider a smart gun mandate.
And Biofire, the one company that reportedly has a viable smart gun, is smart enough to recognize that mandates are a terrible idea.
Fortunately, Kai Kloepfer, founder and CEO of Biofire, a “smart gun” company, is on the list of those telling lawmakers that mandating restrictions of what can and cannot be sold just doesn’t work. In fact, it is counterproductive.
Thus far, Kloepfer’s company is the only company that has brought an authorized-user technology-equipped firearm to the market. To be crystal clear, NSSF has never opposed authorized-user technology in the firearm marketplace. NSSF believes gun buyers should have the choice to purchase the firearm that best meets their needs. NSSF has only ever opposed one-size-fits-all mandates, like the New Jersey existing mandate requiring every firearm retailer to carry at least one “smart gun” if that technology becomes available in that state. We also opposed the original New Jersey mandate that was repealed because even the bill sponsor, state Sen. Loretta Weinberg, ultimately agreed with what we told her over 20 years ago — mandates don’t work, and they will suppress innovation.
…
“We are proud to offer the Biofire Smart Gun as a new option for consumers. And we firmly believe that personalized firearm technology should remain a choice for responsible gun owners, one innovative solution among many. Mandates of personalized firearm technology, however well-intentioned, backfire by unintentionally stifling innovation and creating a backlash against adoption of the technology that such mandates intend to promote,” Kloepfer explained, when he testified before the Massachusetts Special Legislative Commission on Emerging Firearm Technology. “I want to be very clear here: The Americans who choose our technology do so trusting that we support their freedom of choice. The existence of the technology, and our ability to develop it, rests upon that foundation of trust. Our goal is to work alongside the firearms community and policymakers to ensure this technology is adopted voluntarily because it proves its value, not because it is forced.”
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is the right answer.
Look, I’ve been hard on Biofire, but mostly it was about the media hype surrounding the company. The news has been filled with a lot of talk of this wonderful new gun, all while they’ve routinely bashed the right to keep and bear arms, and it’s pissed me off.
Biofire, as a company, generally has tried to stay out of politics, but Kloepfer spoke with Cam a while back and it seems that there’s a consistency to his position here.
Biofire doesn’t want a mandate, and that’s smart.
See, if they supported a mandate, they’d have the market to themselves for a while. No one else has brought a “smart gun” to market, so they’d have no competition.
But they’d also sour relations with gun buyers as a whole.
Sooner or later, someone will bring another smart gun to market just to compete with Biofire, and if they supported a mandate, they’d suddenly find that a lot of people would buy their competitors out of spite. Gun buyers do that. There are still people who won’t own a Smith & Wesson because the company made a deal with the Clinton administration, for crying out loud, and that was completely different ownership. Biofire would not escape untouched.
As it stands, they’re taking the smart position.
I’m not saying that Kloepfer’s statement was a calculated business move, though. It sounds like this might well be his legitimate view of things, and that’s good. Freedom of choice is always important, and I’m absolutely a fan of having more guns brought to market so people can decide for themselves. If Biofire’s pistol offers reliability and good performance at a price I can justify, I might get one. I do actually like the concept.
I don’t like government mandates on anything.
Biofire doesn’t either.
Read the full article here
