Can capitalism help solve the gun problem?

Responding to the OP title. There is no problem.

a reply to: onequestion

Do you realize how bad marxism is?

Communism has murdered hundreds of millions of people.

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

The big difference is that kitchen knives aren't designed to maim or kill.

Well they are made to cut and slice and they are derived from a weapon. What the wielder decides to cut or slice could be a hunk of steak on a plate or a person. Yes guns are used to kill, but the difference is what to kill. For hunting food it can supplement the food stores of a family or in the hands of a criminal taking a persons life. Wielders intent determines if it is used for good or for ill. It's not just the criminals that are the problem, it's lawyers. How many career criminals are repeatedly arrested for illegal possession of firearms and get out after their sentence to be arrested again with a gun? Is it the guns fault that a criminal has acquired another gun? Criminals often get their gun charges dropped as part of a plea bargain, so maybe its time to start blaming lawyers for our societies problems with guns. I say on top of that who writes laws? Politicians and what are the majority of politicians before getting into office????

originally posted by: deliberator
I was not aware that US gun manufacturers were protected by law against litigation. Personally the idea makes sense but equally it would be like having kitchen knife manufacturers protected from knife crime. The idea is basic common sense which does not require a law in my opinion.

The law in question, the PLCAA, protects gun dealers and manufacturers from lawsuits arising from criminal use of their products by the end user and ensures an automatic and immediate dismissal in those types of cases. To that extent, yes, it is common sense and its a principle that generally applies in any business. That law exists as an extra layer of protection for the firearms industry, as Congress was concerned that those opposed to gun rights might specifically target the industry with frivolous lawsuit after frivolous lawsuit in an attempt to harass the industry and force them to spend millions of dollars defending cases that were baseless and unwinnable from the plaintiff's end.

As for the rest of it, the problem with the idea of market capitalism driving additional safety features lies in the simple fact that consumers have a very, very negative view of such features, citing concerns over reliability, high cost, and privacy. Just a year or two ago, there was an enormous backlash in the firearms community against the Armatix IP1, again, with the consumers citing those concerns. I'd argue that those concerns were well founded, as the handgun was offered in 22LR only (likely because the electronics couldn't take the recoil of anything else) and cost $1800 versus perhaps $350 for a similar model from several other major US manufacturers. The backlash was so bad that the product was pulled from the market and I don't think they've tried again.

a reply to: vor78


I missed this post. Thank you for a detailed explanation. It had not occurred to me about technology and privacy. That is a legitimate concern.