I think anything that makes people less nervous about guns is a plus, and that’s why I’m for it.
OK, so you think smart gun technology should never be a requirement? Never?
And I’m not searching for a cite to prove you’re anti-gun, it’s enough for me to know. Not sure who you think you a fooling though, or why.
What about semiautomatic firearms? Do you think a gun that shoots every time you pull the trigger is something that might make people nervous? How about a 30 round magazine?
I would put the device on all my guns
I would be OK with requiring it be put on all new guns as long as there was some way to switch it off (for gun range rentals, boy scout riflery range guns, and stuff like that).
You know what makes people less nervous about guns. Actually using one and handling it. Learning how it works. Then you will see that is not some sort of tiger on a leash that might go crazy and attack for no reason.
When I first handled a gun I was nervous and scared as fuck. I took it to the gun class with the stupid ass rope lock in. Carried the ammo in the trunk, gun in the backseat as if the ammo would load itself if l left them too close to each other. I knew it was not logical but the objects actually made me nervous.
After learning more and demystifying them, I knew to respect them, but not fear them. Seriously if people actually handled guns and were required to be versed in safety and how they work it would calm people the fuck down.
Nobody thinks twice driving a car 70 mph down the road a few feet from other cars heading the opposite direction. Imagine bringing someone from the past or some isolated tribe and taking them on the interstate I think they would be nervous the first time too.
Back to the actual topic.
I would like the technology to be perfected before being put out on the market, but if it fails even then, would it be better if it bricks up so that others can’t use it against you, or should it default to ready?
But using your car analogy, safety devices are a selling point to some drivers, aren’t they?
that was not the point I was trying to make with my analogy at all, but one of how familiarization makes people less scared. I was going to specify a 60’s roadster convertible so they could actually feel everything. The road, wind, vibration, being shoved by big trailers. I actually think in new car they might be less freaked they are so insulated now.
The 60’s roadster, like the old time revolver, has its charms among a large segment of the population. What I’m saying is that other drivers want insulation and safety surrounding them when they drive, just the same way some people may want extra safety in their their guns. Both choices should be readily available and perhaps somewhere down the line some may switch from one to the other, or even have both.
I understand, it’s like asking Romney to answer questions about blacks in the Mormon church.
Czarcasm seriously? I was trying to reply on how to make people less nervous which is something you say you want. and you steer the topic.
I think it’s on topic because there may be more than one way to make people less nervous, that’s all.
Interesting. I suspect a lot of guns guys are like me: I got my first rifle when I was twelve, my dad always had unlocked guns in the house, I frequently saw other people with guns, etc.
It’s hard for some of us to understand why some of the non-shooters feel like they do. It’s been a habit of mine for years to take as many non-shooters shooting that I can, to alleviate some of there fears, an possibly gain an ally. One of my lines is “If you load that gun, point it at me, and pull the trigger, I might die. So don’t do that. But that thing ain’t gonna jump up off the table, load itself, and shoot me. So respect it, but don’t be afraid of it.”
How about making firearm safety courses and self defense a high school elective. Or should we teach safe gun handling in school at a younger age? Maybe combine it with sex-ed?
Oh and guns are pretty simple mechanically and pretty damn safe as it is. The only way to make them safer is by the miracle tech mentioned above or destroying it. The only safety failure is in the operator. You want to make them safer. Require mandatory safety training for everyone wether they want a gun or not. Kinda how if anti-abortionists want less abortions they could teach safe sex.
Can’t wait to see how you twist that analogy.
Chickenlegs, I was not introduced to firearms til my early twenties by a friend. He was moving to Austin to go to UT and I was helping him move. He packed his gun stuck it in the trunk and said let’s go. I was isn’t that illegal? Shit, you have gun? Fuck!? He made it a point to teach me after that and for that I am grateful.Like you he had grown up with guns. Hey it is Texas, I in turn had never been exposed to them being from Mexico and all.
Shit Kable stop reading my mind!
I forgot to add suppressors would be one other way. Hearing safety and all but you know they are hard to get because?? Hell if I know.
I don’t see why they wouldn’t. Sure, maybe some batteries would need to be replaced, but that’s part of maintenance. I assume there’s other upkeep involved with keeping such an old rifle in firing condition.
Most likley not.
I had a car once that locked the doors automatically when I went over 25mph or so. For safety against carjackers, I guess. I found it very annoying - sometimes I didn’t want the doors locked, and if I did, I could lock them myself with the button on the door.
All recent lawnmowers I’ve purchased have some mechanism on them that shuts off the motor if I release the handle. (I wrap a bungie cord around it.)
I can disable any gun I currently own if I so choose by locking it.
I’m a competent adult. I can decide for myself when I want my doors locked, when I want my lawnmower to shut off, and when I want my guns disabled. I don’t want to pay $5 or spend 60 seconds for a feature that I don’t need at all.
Some people may see the need, and for them, maybe it’s a good option, if it could ever exist as you describe. Which it won’t.
That’s true. Plus muzzle blast does make some nervous and makes them flinch. A suppressor sure cuts down on that, plus makes the gun longer so you a new shooter is less likely to sweep themselves with the Muzzle. What do you think czarcasm?
What about everything else? If you add up all the things that might cause you to fail to shoot the gun–the intruder getting to you before you access your gun, or him managing to wrestle it away before you can shoot it, or the gun slipping out of your hands, or you fudging the safety in the dark, etc.–don’t you think these are going to add up to a fairly significant number, say tens of percent? If so, then 1% is a relatively small fraction and possibly an acceptable failure rate.
1% is also acceptable if the odds of the intruder shooting you with your own gun are approximately of the same order.
If you don’t think the failure numbers are anywhere close to this high–how do you know? Have you gone through hundreds of training simulations to find out?
For what it’s worth, double parachute failures are something on the order of 1:1000000 jumps and a single failures are about 1:1000. Therefore, parachutes are only about 99.9% reliable, which is very far away from 100%.