Would you fly on an airline with a 99% safety record?
Seat belts, helmets, airbags, etc., etc. do not affect the functionality of the vehicle. Still, I don’t see any reason to fear a smart gun. I’m a bit worried some lawmaker might decide to push a law stating that only smart guns can be stored in a manner that makes them useful for self-defense. But given the Heller decision I don’t think it’d pass Constitutional muster so I’m not too worried.
It would also be a good way from keeping a kid from shooting himself with Daddy’s handgun. And that, along with the other reasons you mention, would be a good reason to use the technology IF it ever becomes reliable enough to really trust. But I agree it’s almost certain that thieves would be able to find a way to reprogram a stolen gun, so it would be of limited usefulness there.
I do not know about you personally, but many such people, yes. I do think that a lot of gun owners have such fantasies, and that it has a lot to do with why they get so upset by any hint of gun control. That, of course, is where they do not have even more absurd and violent fantasies, such as being the heroes of an armed uprising against tyrannical government.
Without some such psychological cause, the deep irrationality and the compounding of fallacy upon blatant fallacy of the arguments of the American anti-gun-control lobby becomes inexplicable.
These gun debates have got way ahead of me and I’m not even trying to keep up any more. But is there truth in that old thing about how (accidentally or deliberately) the person most likely to be shot by the gun a homeowner buys is the homeowner or their family and friends, and not some bad guy?
If that’s right, the equation is far more complex than you allow. Effectiveness has to be measured not just in terms of reliability for shooting bad guys but in features that prevent shooting good guys.
I kinda get the feeling this is an elephant in the room subject though. No one needs to concern themselves with their gun being used against them in the same way that everybody is a better than average driver.
[tt;15955951]I do not know about you personally, but many such people, yes. I do think of gun owners have such fantasies, and that it has a lot to do with why they get so upset by those int of gun control. That, of course, is where they do not have even more absurd and violent fantasies, such as being the heroes of an armed uprising against tyrannical government.
Without some such psychological cause, the deep irrationality and the compounding of fallacy upon blatant fallacy of the arguments of the American anti-gun-control lobby becomes inexplicable.
[/QUOTE]
Wow, I’m really not sure how to respond to this. Being an active gun owner my entire life, meaning I have participated in target shooting (hunting never really appealed to me), I have to say that rarely have I ever encountered shooters that have openly admitted to harboring that fantasy. I won’t say it had never occurred, but usually it is said by a young guy trying to impress those around him. And generally any statement like that is met with a raised eyebrow and blown off.
I am positive there are gun owners who fancy themselves a Dirty Harry or Rambo, but in my experience this is very rare. The people I shoot with are level headed people with families that use their guns for the sport of target shooting. It is a social event that brings us all together to enjoy a common interest. We don’t talk about projecting our homes from intruders, keeping ourselves free from a dictatorship or any of that nonsense. Our usual conversation is about our families, work and what was on TV last night. While shooting our number one priority is the safety of those around us. I concede and say I don’t deny that there are a few owners that live in a fantasy world, but I don’t know any and the same can be said of any group of people, there are immature, irresponsible and sometimes flighty individuals in any group. But to try to paint that as the norm is ridiculous. As I said before, the people I’ve been associated with in the sport of shooting are just like myself. Responsible gun owners who hope that they never have to use their weapon against another human, but if that need arises are prepared to do so.
Another thing I find amazing is that anyone is surprised that gun owners are vocal when an assault is taking place to either eliminate or severely restrict our right to own a firearm. What do you expect? For us to sit there without saying a word? A good comparison is abortion rights. (just using it as a comparison, not debating it)When the right wing attempts to eliminate or restrict a woman’s right to an abortion, those that are pro-abortion go ape-shit. Using the reasoning that you stated am I to assume that every single protester can’t wait for the chance to get knocked up so she can then have an abortion? That would be just as stupid, but the issues are similar. One side is telling the other that they want to change the way things are. It is only natural for those supporting an issue to be motivated to action. It in no way infers that those very supporters, just by the fact they support the issue, want to take it to the extreme.
Probably. After all, you’re more likely to assault or murder someone you know rather than a total stranger. Accidental deaths from firearms are pretty rare and account for about 850 deaths in 2011.
Neither my wife nor I engage in criminal activities and we have no history of mental illness, drug/alcohol abuse or domestic violence. I’m pretty confident we’re not going to shoot one another.
That’s never stopped people from doing so before.
I’m sorry, Der Trihs, you’re making less sense than usual. I can’t quite understand what your point is.
Goggle “Instructor shoots self” and see how many hits come up.
I remembered a story about an instructor who was explaining gun safety when he shot himself in the leg. I was going to point out that accidents happen even to the best of us.However, when i actually googled it, hit after hit came up with different stories.
Now, these aren’t your average mom & pop, they’re certified people who’s job is gun safety and they’re accidentally shooting themselves.
I guess a pretty simple test for the technology might be that when it’s deemed good enough for the police it’ll be good enough for the citizenry.
His pretty simple point seems to be a person can shoot another absenting “criminal activities and we have no history of mental illness, drug/alcohol abuse or domestic violence”.
Here’s another heart-warming storythat we hashed about on the Dopeabout a law-abiding, responsible gun-owner who had no criminal history nor history of mental illness who killed his wife and himself while their kids were in the house.
The “Yeah, But That’ll Never Happen With MY Guns” attitude I see ubiquitously drives me crazy.
Which of those items have been modified with changes that do not add to their original purpose and reduce their effectiveness?
I could get on board with that logic assuming it was wide spread acceptance by varying law enforcement agencies around the globe, and not just the Mayberry Sheriff’s office.
In what way is the gun’s effectiveness reduced? It stops children from using it accidentally, and if your spouse has need of a weapon it would be better if he or she had their own that they are comfortable with and trained with, wouldn’t you say?
Them too.
By not being reliable enough for when it’s needed. Also, it could fail in a way as to allow anyone to use the gun.(Depending on the actual system.)
What do you think would happen to an automobile manufacturer who’s brakes failed 1% of the time? Or seat belts? What if it were a crapshoot on your lights working?(Lucas, Prince of Darkness) Would you like a 1% chance of your tires blowing out for no reason?
Pretty much all of them are modifications to things or activities that (when viewed from a single angle) detract from the purpose and reduce the effectiveness of that thing.
Cars would be more convenient without seatbelts, biking is more comfortable and convenient without a helmet, safety rails often get in the way, airbags reduce the area available for use on the dash or steering wheel.
It’s only when you stop looking at it from a single angle and start looking at the picture more broadly that any of those items are enhanced and more effective by the addition of the safety features.
OF those who say they need almost instant access to their weapon because time is of the essence in the case of a home break-in, how many wear contact lenses? Do they they stop in the bathroom to put the lenses in first?