If it doesn't exist, it can't save lives. And that's not a silly argument, that is a rock-solid, iron-clad argument for which there is no dismissal or avoidance.
What this likely is is an attempt to outlaw sales of new guns by putting in an impossible requirement.
Might as well put in a requirement that the guns have a GPS with a mapping system so it won't fire if it's on a school campus, and that's powered by a battery with a 30-year lifespan. Oh, and maybe it can send a GPS fix with a date and time stamp to the FBI each time it's fired. And it won't work if it leaves the state it's sold in. And it's got a built-in DNA analyzer, so it can send the DNA of who fired each shot to the FBI. And a forward-facing camera, so it can take a picture a half-second before the gun fires and a half-second afterwards and we can see what was really happening. And it sends those pictures to the FBI as well.
It's the typical playbook... if you can't directly outlaw something, make the requirements difficult or impossible to achieve. It's how the red states handle things like abortion.
Now, the police buy huge quanitities of guns. The NYPD has something like 35,000 officers, and that's a hell of a lot of guns. If the NYPD put that requirement in a RFQ (request for quote), somebody besides Glock would seriously look into it in order to corner the NYPD market, and with it many other municipal departments.
And once it become police-standard, the technology will rather quickly move into the civilian market. As it is, nobody trusts the technology because it doesn't exist past the prototype stage and it has operational limitations. A large police department can MAKE their officers use a certain gun with certain features, and the buying power of a PD can move gun makers far more than you or I with our purchases.
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read