To the contrary, it was an argument that exposes the fallacy of equivocation used when comparing 1% failure rates to 1% deaths.
It’s classic fallacy of equivocation. I even identified it as such.
Can you explain in what way you contend it is lacking?
I fully admit that the 1% comparisons are completely dissimilar. In one, the 1% refers to potential deaths in a hypothetical future and the other refers to actual dead children.
Not scared at all. I sleep quite soundly at night.
I could do without the mutts sharing a bed with the wife and I, but what are you going to do?
Once the cops get on board with the technology, most gun owners will jump on board too. If it’s good enough for them (police), it’s good enough for me. I won’t retrofit my older stuff though.
I’d never have a gun, but if I did I’d want it to be as safe as possible. We didn’t have to trade in all of our seatbeltless cars, it seems a bit paranoid to assume that pre-smart guns would be banned.
I never said anything about banning old guns did I? I just don’t see a need to add 21st century tech into my 19th century Winchester lever action rifles.
If this were reliable technology, I would want it for my nightstand and my EDC. My understanding was that this technology doesn’t stand up under field conditions because of the recoil. If they fix this, this feature would be worth at least $80 to me because that is what a cheap nightstand gun safe costs (I would probably pay up to $200 for my EDC and my home defense handgun).
No, people are opposed to legislation which might require “smart gun” technology on all new guns sold even though it is not (yet) reliable, and legislation which would might ban the sale of older guns that cannot be retrofitted with the technology. Did you even bother to read the thread before you posted your blather?
I think that’s how most gun owners feel. Once the technology’s truly reliable, I’d buy it.
How about an Austrian manufacturer instead? Glock makes the best-selling pistols in the world; I bet they’d love to have a model that would give them an even greater edge in getting contracts from police departments.
There’s such a thing as too much techonology.
My house had one of the thermostats that are naughty now because they contained mercury. It worked for many decades until my father replaced it with one of those programmable doodads in the last 1980s. Now constantly replacing batteries, and replacing thermostats because they break every couple of years, and what’s more the programming is actually a nusance because I want the house at 71 degrees 24/7,
I have a nearly 100 year old rifle (A M1917 “Enfield”) that was tested by a gunsmith and certified as safe to fire. If there were any electrical components I doubt they’d still be good.
[QUOTE=Mdcastleman]
I have a nearly 100 year old rifle (A M1917 “Enfield”) that was tested by a gunsmith and certified as safe to fire. If there were any electrical components I doubt they’d still be good.
[/QUOTE]
Good point there. I’d the smart gun uses a microprocessor, they usually go obsolete in about a decade after being the latest and greatest. I have a 1891 Mauser in the safe, and a colt army special on loan to museum…both in fine fettle.
Which reminds me of something else anti- gun people don’t get: The Mauser belonged to my departed brother, and my great grandfather was carrying the colt when he was killed in the line of duty as a policeman. Losing the EBRs would piss me off, but would pale to taking those family hierlooms.
You don’t know much about crime rates, do you?
In 2011 it was 386 per 100,000. That’s:
[ul]
[li]4.7 murders per 100,000[/li][li]26.8 forcible rapes per 100,000[/li][li]113.7 robberies per 100,000[/li][li]241.1 aggravated assaults per 100,000[/li][/ul]
Cite
You did specifically ask about “the odds of someone breaking into your house while you’re there and wanting to do you harm”. I don’t have time to dig into how many of these violent crimes occur in the victim’s residence, but I’m fairly confident it’d be more than 1 in 100K.
As for the “wanting to do you harm” bit, I’m not sure that any “original intention” statistics exist, but I’m not sure that it matters. If they break into your home wanting only to rob you, and end up raping your wife and daughter, beating you with a baseball bat, burning your house down, and killing the rest of your family, their “original intention” doesn’t count for much. I suspect that William Petit would agree if someone were calloused enough to ask him.
I don’t think it’s been mentioned but even when the tech is perfected, there’s going to be a huge cost of producing versions to fit the hundreds of different gun models, both for new manufacture and reto-fit kits plus the cost of installing the retro-fit kits.
Example: the Magna-Trigger
Only available for a few S&W revolvers and a single Ruger. No semi-autos.
Two rings needed if you want to be able to use your weak hand if needed plus rings for other family members.
You must ship the gun for fitting so add in shipping and insurance.
Based on the cost in your example, it would probably be more cost-effective to simply buy a new gun already outfitted with the smart gun technology than to retrofit an older firearm.
($350 to retrofit a Ruger? That’s probably close to the original cost of the gun!)
It would certainly drive up the cost of a new gun. You still need custom electronics, battery space and mechanicals to fit each different model of gun.
HOLY SHIT!!! Thats a lot of money for a magnet latch. Your ring is literally just a magnet. Anyone with one of these rings can fire any other gun that has one of these devices. Anyone with a magnet could fire your gun.
Not what I had in mind and the price is almost double what I had in mind. The price of the modification cost more than a lot of guns.
what happens if the technology get worked out,but you have an older model chipset or something and it breaks. How easy will it be to find replacement parts. Kinda how it is hard to find parts for old computers.
A quick Google search shows I can readily buy a M1917 rear sight for $24.00
Search for a dial lamp for 1960s Fisher recievers and you get page after page of people wondering how to get one.
That’s how progress works in general-the new making the old obsolete.