Should have been done ages ago!!!
This fight against this says two things.......
Companies HATE doing anything GOOD that will cut into their profits, and gun owners don't want to leave clues around about how they use their guns.
Might be worse than just not wanting to spend $6 per gun. Perhaps too much of their business is actually to criminals so they don't want to lose that entire market segment.
Wasn't there something a few years ago about tagging gunpowder in such a way that each batch made was identifiable after its use, and that technology was refused by the ammo makers?
I wonder what Smith & Wesson had to say. It is obvious to me that this requirement would change the mass production system into a pseudo piece by piece manufacture. Maybe the objection was not the $6 per gun (sounds awfully low as a cost of individualizing the manufacture and record management involved). And to give up a large market would not be good business unless something more than a few dollars per gun is involved. Might be that California is not that great a market for handguns after all. Anyone know where the company comments are to be found?
Should have been done ages ago!!!
This fight against this says two things.......
Companies HATE doing anything GOOD that will cut into their profits, and gun owners don't want to leave clues around about how they use their guns.
Might be worse than just not wanting to spend $6 per gun. Perhaps too much of their business is actually to criminals so they don't want to lose that entire market segment.
Wasn't there something a few years ago about tagging gunpowder in such a way that each batch made was identifiable after its use, and that technology was refused by the ammo makers?
I wonder what Smith & Wesson had to say. It is obvious to me that this requirement would change the mass production system into a pseudo piece by piece manufacture. Maybe the objection was not the $6 per gun (sounds awfully low as a cost of individualizing the manufacture and record management involved). And to give up a large market would not be good business unless something more than a few dollars per gun is involved. Might be that California is not that great a market for handguns after all. Anyone know where the company comments are to be found?
I don't know where the comments would be. But with the water shortage I would think california would be an expanding market for personal firearms.
Smarter, are you thinking of "Taggons" (sp?) suggested for fertilizer that might be made into bombs?