If I ask a question of car owners, a response from someone who doesn’t drive stating that they don’t drive is a silly response. A question isn’t silly just because you don’t want to(or can’t) answer it.
I’m into archery and have a high end bow. I needed to put a sight on this bow. My choices included sights that are battery powered. These perform better since the battery powers a light that shines on the sight pins to make them glow and be visible in the dark when lots of shooting occurs.
I opted not to get the sight that needs batteries.
It’s more important for me to have a bow that always works, even if the sights aren’t as bright as they could be. Having reliance on a battery just isn’t acceptable for me in hunting situations. There’s too much chance that it will die suddenly or fail mechanically. It’s not worth it for me to take that risk, even to get the increased performance.
Back to handguns. You are asking me to take that same risk. Except there is no benefit to me, as there is with the bow example. Also the stakes are much higher. If the gun doesn’t work it doesn’t just ruin my chance to shoot at a deer walking by my stand. It prevents me from defending myself in a life or death situation.
No thanks.
Analogy fail. If you ask a question of car owners and get a response that someone stopped driving precisely because of the question you were asking I wouldn’t call that silly.
Right, like that ‘life and death situation’ happens anywhere but in your fantasy life.
But it might happen right - maybe 1%. No, not that much.
Changing batteries is easy, who said otherwise? Making the technology work is not the issue. It is making it work every single time after thousands of rounds have punished it with recoil, and after it spent countless hours in hot and humid conditions while being carried, that make for concerns that it is less that 100% reliable.
Nothing works 100% of the time.
But a 1% failure rate is too high.
I’d never keep a car that failed to start 1% of the time, for example.
But as always, I appreciate hearing your special Czarcasm-brand pro-gun rights responses.
I’d be very nervous with a seat belt that had a 1% failure rate.
I’d also be very nervous if you tried to add a device to my seat belt that increased its failure rate.
So? Pretty sure every contact wearer has a pair of glasses as back up. I know I always did.
Is it your stance then that greater than 1% of the time, people are accidentally shot?
The evidence proves you wrong.
Anyone trying to justify a 1% rate of failure as “acceptable” is one of the biggest groups of hypocrites you can be.
Jump in your car and have your brakes fail 1% of the time, or an airplane’s engine, or any number of things.
Hypocrites the lot of you.
What percentage would satisfy you?
Leave the personal commentary in the Pit.
A person who wears contact lenses typically also has glasses, and in an emergency would presumably uses the glasses rather than dashing into the bathroom to get their contacts in.
Yet another Czarcasm-brand pro-gun rights response. Thanks for defending gun-rights, bud – we can always use another voice!
Boy, that was fast.
Noted.
The probability that someone will break in to my home is low. To mitigate the risk, I have chosen a home that is in a relatively crime free area, I have a security system with active monitoring, two large dogs, and very secure entry ways.
The probability that safe gun technology will fail is low. To mitigate that risk, I choose not to use it.
I’m not sure I know the answer – but since 1% is at least two orders of magnitude away from actual gun failure rates now, i don’t need to know what rate WOULD be acceptable to know that 1% is not acceptable.
I’d say one-tenth of that rate – a failure rate of 0.1% – is in the ballpark. That tells me that 999 times out of a thousand, I’m OK. Maybe I mitigate that by having two guns in play, and life is good.
I already accept some small failure rate by the fact that my bedside gun is in a biometric safe.
One in a thousand sounds good to me. BTW, what is the failure rate for your biometric safe?
It wasn’t Melinda Herman’s fantasy life.
Sure, it’s uncommon. So is a car accident.
But I still wear a seatbelt, and carry liability and collision insurance.
Imagine you are in a life-or-death fight and someone is shooting at you and your family, and your weapon suffers the Blue Screen of Death. Congratulations, you are now dead.
The more variables you take out of the equation, the better off you are. Anything that adds to the complexity of the gun increases the chance of failure.
Assuming proper maintenance – which includes battery changes at prescribed intervals – less than 0.1%.
Get a gun that runs Linux.
flees