They actually malfunction much less than that if they are of good quality and properly taken care of. Mine are, simply because they constitute a large investment and it would be stupid to spend money on a big-ticket item that you were simply going to neglect. I’ve only had one of my firearms jam, and I didn’t carry it again until I had run enough through it to prove to my satisfaction that it wouldn’t happen again.
I object not to the concept but the current state of the technology. Until it works the first time, every time to my satisfaction, say a failure rate of 1 in 500 or until it’s pretty much agreed that it is dead-nuts reliable, I’m not keen on it. Introducing another point of failure on a defensive weapon is just not a good idea.
I’d just like to chime in that 1% is a ridiculously high failure rate.
You’re adding a safety feature that also increases the failure rate. It provides some benefits but most of those benefits are redundant with a gun safe.
That’s like saying that the chances of my seat belt failing are low, so to mitigate that risk, I choose not to use seatbelts. Remember, some people consider guns to be a security device.
Its probably at least 1%. The best safes have a mechanical keypad alternative to the biometric. They all can be opened by key. I love the fact that these safes all come with the reminder not to keep your safe key in the safe.
+1 I will also feel less of a need for guns when the ordinary beat cop no longer feels the need to carry a gun.
AFAICT, it wasn’t just the smart gun technology that caused the boycott. Smartguns might have been aprt of the list but the folks who put smartguns on the list were probably conspiracy theorists.
This doesn’t give estimates on actual shots fired and I can’t find estimates of shots fired. The only estimates I have are FBI statistics on gun deaths that resulted from self defense. This number is in the hundreds. So maybe 1% isn’t so bad if it will prevent all accidental some signifiacnt portion of these gun deaths. I’m not sure this is true but its worth thinking about. Let me know when they can get to 1% failure rate.
It still requires pucnhing keys possibly in the dark in the middle of the night. I prefer biometric with a mechanical code lock backup.
The mechanical ones go for as little as $80 is your only objestice is to keep the young children out.
And if many of those same lives could be saved with something that already exists.
That assumes that an assault weapons ban would get rid of existing guns AND that people who would otherwise use an assault weapon to kill someone would not want to use a shotgun or handgun. See Columbine and Virginia Tech.
Moreover, DGU statistics tend not to distinguish between a guy planning to kill you, beat you up, or rob you. Obviously we can only speculate on these actual numbers; if the incident was prevented, it’s impossible to tell what would have happened if it weren’t. But the number of lives saved by justified shooting will most likely be lower than the number of incidents.
We could assume that every justified shooting involves imminent risk of bodily harm. But we start considering prevention of bodily harm of any sort by firing a weapon, then the 850 accidental deaths goes out the window and we start comparing those unknown number of DGUs in which a weapon is fired to the ~20,000 accidental non-fatal gun injuries every year.
No it’s not. The chances of a safety belt failing are low. If it fails while in use, I am no worse than if I didn’t use it at all. There is no risk in using a seat belt.
If safe gun tech fails when in use and my gun will not fire, I am in significantly worse shape than if I was using a gun without it and I needed the gun to defend myself. That is a risk I have to take should I employ the safe tech. To mitigate that risk I don’t employ the safe gun tech.
(typing from an iPad please excuse the format issues)
Here’s a better analogy:
“If my seatbelt crushes my sternum in an accident where injury could be prevented by airbags alone, I am in significantly worse shape after that accident. That is a risk I take should I choose to wear a seat belt. To mitigate this risk I don’t wear my seatbelt.”
This reasoning is flawed because it fails to compare the risk of this plausible-but-very-rare scenario in comparison to the much more common case in which seat belts prevent loss of life. Similarly, this consideration of the possibility of your gun not firing when you need it, not being weighed against the probably of your gun accidentally firing when you don’t want it to, adds no value to this discussion.
I don’t think this is right. It may be to some small degree. I think actually it’s as I said earlier: they don’t believe they put their family in danger. Undoubtedly there are Irresponsible Gun Owners but they exist only as third parties. Every single gun owner in the first person is a Responsible Gun Owner. They are all above average, if you ask them.
Well, perhaps regrettably, you don’t have to do much to be above average. Just follow the four basic rules, and keep your guns locked up when they’re not under your control, and you’re ahead of the curve. Just like how Dopers as a group are one or two standard deviations ahead of the teeming millions in intelligence and attractiveness, there’s a self-selecting group of gun owners (to which it is not hard to gain admission) who are in fact very safe with their guns. (Also smart and attractive, but that goes without saying.)
A gun is not like the other things you listed though. A gun is used primarily for recreation, and very rarely for self defense. As such, if it fails for whatever reason, there is likely going to be no harm. You cannot say that for parachutes or car brakes.
A better analogy would be your cellphone, although I would be willing to bet it would be far more assistance than a gun in most situations. Do you keep a lock screen on to prevent unauthorized access, even though the extra seconds to unlock it might be crucial in a dangerous situation? Do you expect 100% reliability for it?
I didn’t notice where the 99% failure rate was sourced from, but here’s a bit of an interesting tidbit from the website iGun, who manufacture a gun with a ring recognition system.
Take that for what you will. Also worth noting is this is preceded by a paragraph detailing how rugged the gun is.
I poked around to see if I could find some more detail on specifically what is failing, and whether it’s specific to the gun’s electronics or user error, something like not holding the ring in the right spot, for example. Couldn’t find too much though. In any case, although failure rates may be something to work on, I don’t think it remotely justifies scraping the tech as some folks are talking.
Much of this discussion has focused on whether smart guns are a good idea and whether you’d buy one yourself.
But, what I don’t get, is why lobby against them? So what if you think they’re a bad idea, why do you want to prevent manufacturers making them or people buying them?
If you’re worried about slippery-sloping to a time where non-smart weapons are banned, well you can always lobby then. (And anyway by then smart guns will probably have ironed out most of the issues discussed in this thread).
If you read the thread I think you’ll find your reasons. Among them is that New Jersey passed a law in 2002 stating that when the technology was available that all new handguns purchased in their state would have to be smart guns. Of course this was before the Heller decision by the Supreme Court so I don’t know if the law would stand up to scrutiny. On the other hand, clearly states and Federal authorities can exercise some control over firearms, so, who knows?
I think that’s the main reason. If it were just an option consumers could evaluate and buy of they want, I think most would be for it. The idea that it might be shoved down our throats regardless of any disadvantages kind of sours the pill.
Gun people would be hilarious if so much death and misery wasn’t caused by their success in killing needed legislation.
What are the odds of someone breaking into your house while you’re there and wanting to do you harm- one in 100,000, tops? Then if there is a 1% chance your weapon doesn’t work, that means you have a one in a million chance of being harmed by a malfunctioning smart gun. You probably have a better chance of beins struck by lightning than having a smart gun fail to kill the bad guy breaking into your home.
Of course, criminals are super human. They can kill you with a pen knife, a pair of scissors, or even an icicle. But to stop them, you need a gun capable of shooting 100 rounds in one minute. Why not just learn the super ninja ways of criminals?
Now you’re against smart guns because if they prove successful, they might be required. Yep, just like my grandfather hated seat belts and was pissed when they were made standard equipment. You love your toys and don’t want safer toys because they might make your toys obsolete. What a riot!