I asked you if you thought there were any guns legal today that you thought should be made illegal. You refused to answer that question, and I asked you several times. You silence said everything. Of course so does the fact that you are pretty much always in theses gun debates and pretty much always on the side with the anti-gunners.
So,you are admitting to stalking? We do not look favorably on that behavior, here.
And here you are getting way too personal as well as crossing the line into personal insults.
Knock it off.
Stick to arguing the actual points of discussion and leave your personal opinions about other posters for The BBQ Pit.
That goes for EVERYONE. Stick to the facts and logic of the discussion and leave observations about posters out of the discussion.
[ /Moderating ]
What does that mean? I feel that if a person avoids a question, it’s worth asking again to be sure it wasn’t an accident. Then when I’m sure it’s not an accident one can get a pretty good impression about another posters opinions. Czarcasm was specifically taunting me to produce data regarding his position. Is that wrong?
Asking once or twice to be sure it was not missed is OK. Your claim was that after you had already failed to get a response, you asked him “several times.” As you note, a lack of response is, in its own way, a response, and pursuing it over and over again is stalking or harassment.
You are spending way too much time trying to hang labels on another poster instead of simply discussing the issue. That is not productive.
So it seems to me that the argument is that the “smart” technology essentially adds nothing to the functioning of the gun, decreases the reliability of the gun, and all to prevent a vanishingly small chance of someone other than the owner using it for nefarious or stupid purposes?
Seems like a solution in search of a problem to me.
Where are you getting that part from?
What I meant by “essentially adds nothing to the functioning of the gun” is that guns’ primary purpose is to fire bullets downrange, and adding “smart” technology doesn’t actually enhance that. Gun technology is pretty mature- most handguns are Browning action variants, or variants of Colt revolvers, both of which are 100+ years old.
It seems like if you have a piece of equipment or a tool that works well, and has worked well for more than 100 years with correct safety protocols, you don’t fool with it.
Alternate example: Technology exists to make table saws stop in milliseconds on the mere contact of the blade to a finger, yet you don’t see it widely implemented. Why? Because it adds cost and complexity to a tool that works just fine, and has worked just fine for a long time when appropriate safety precautions are taken.
The exact same thing applies to this smart technology- it’s a solution in search of a problem.
You are right. This is truly surprising given the ubiquitousness of instances of tablesaw owners throwing tablesaws at themselves or others, or of villains getting hold of tablesaws and using them against their owners.
They can have my table saw when it cuts off my cold, dead fingers.
You’d have a point…if guns were checked out at the gun range, then checked back in when practice was over.
I know the thread is dying down, but in an interest of remaining productuve:
I posted the MiracleTech question to see if gun owners would use ‘smart gun’ technology if it was literally perfect (and I know I phrased it as lala land perfection). I think with one exception it was generally a positive response.
So, obviously it will never be perfect. How close to perfect would it need to be for you to use it, and how close to perfect would it be for you to be comfortable requiring it on new guns (and not old guns)? Semi-obviously the reliability needs to be 100%, or at least better than the chance of jamming (i.e., failure rate has to be less than 1 in 10,000 - or more?). Cost will likely not be $5, but what is too expensive? Etc.
Again, I know anything acceptable would probably be fantasy tech. And I don’t think trying to mandate an imperfect system would be a good idea, nor do I think we really need new gun laws, bla bla bla. Just curious where the stopping points are for most people, which I think is a more productive conversation.
Think you had an answer up thread stating that they’d use it when the cops did. This is my opinion too for when I’d be comfortable installing this tech on a defensive weapon.
That, stated like that, is at least a fair statement of two possible outcomes of two different proposed policies.
But 1%, as it relates to kids, and 1%, as it relates to malfunction in firearms, are not directly comparable. Using them as though they were is the fallacy of equivocation.
+1
I agree with that, I think. What is your opinion about opposition to further development as has been described in this thread?
Cops are far far more likely than a civilian to need a gun to fire in self-defense. Cops are also better trained than an average civilian on gun safety measures. Insisting on police-level quality for your own defensive weapon is silly.
No, what is silly is your assertion that his is silly.
Why would you think that cops safety (or yours for that matter) is more important than mine or my loved ones?
No, they are reasons why it’s important, actually. Cops are going to get a lot more practice at clearing malfunctions under the stress of actual fire than most civilians are. They are going to be better able to deal with gun jams than most civilians are. That’s why I’ll only swap out to a smart gun when cops are willing to carry one - if my gun ever jams when I actually need it, I’m probably going to be toast. So I’ll wait until the technology is mature enough to make that unlikely to happen.
I’d be looking for:
-
A failure rate that’s only 5% or so higher than what we see with current dumb pistols.
-
The tech shouldn’t cause a failure that’s not immediately fixable in the field.
-
It shouldn’t raise the price of the gun by more than 25% or so.
Those are just my own thresholds, of course.
Where are you getting “more important” from? I never said anything remotely like that.
Safety features on a gun represent a trade-off. They reduce the chances of an accidental shooting, while (slightly) increasing the chance of injury in a violent altercation. Is this tradeoff worth it?
Well, cops are FAR more likely to face violent altercations, and marginally less likely to leave their gun in a place that could cause an accidental shooting, than John Q. Public. That means that the safety features will save fewer lives, and cost more lives, on police weapons than on civilian weapons. In other words, the same gun that might (on average) shorten a cop’s lifespan would probably (on average) lengthen yours.