No, the 1% refers to failure rates in the technology, not to deaths at all.
I know this is complicated. Perhaps you should just read along for a bit.
Version 1 will be expensive but more or less work.
Verions 2 will be owned by Microsoft, and come up with BSODs at the worst possible times.
Version 3 will have a GPS chip so the government can track them when they decide to seize all the guns.
Semi-automatic pistols have been around for a long time and yet revolvers still have a very loyal following. In fact very old revolvers can be worth a lot of money, even if they don’t work.
How much do you figure a commodore 64 is worth?
great I can see the ebay listing now.
is your glock 7 gunnammer not working. replace it with this NOS gunnammer 1.3.09. This your chance to pick up these rare gunnammers as they have been out production for 15 years. Note this version will only work with glock 7’s with serials in between 1003993 and 1006677 as the firmware revision of 2025 changes some things. Please make sure you use a qualified gunsmith programmer to install this as faulty installation will render the unit inoperable.Check carefully as there are no refunds.
My gun is now a paperweight and costs to fix it are more than the gun is worth. Thanks I’ll stick to old style versions that can still shoot 50 years from now.
When it comes to things becoming antiques vs. things becoming junk, your guess is as good as mine. All I’m saying is that almost everything old eventually gets replaced by the new, sometimes even if the old still does the job. Whether the new is actually an improvement on the old is always a matter of opinion.
That’s all well and good, but certainly you can understand why people who have a lot of money tied up in property, don’t want that property of theirs to be made illegal and/or destroyed.
Though I think it is a good strategy for you anti-gunners to pursue as it enables you to effectively confiscate older weapons. You know, first assault rifles, then normal capacity handguns, then guns without computer chips, then all guns… You’ll have a good excuse every step of the way as you try and incrementally destroy the 2nd amendment. Believe me, I get it.
After this post I don’t believe you get much of anything. I never mentioned making things illegal and/or destroyed, and I’ve always pushed for a clarified 2nd Amendment that eliminated that pesky beginning phrase that bothers others. If you can come up with a cite from me that is unmistakeably anti-gun, I’d like to see it.
While I don’t think we really need more gun control regulation (more just enforcement of what we have and closing of a loophole here and there), I do have a question for the gun-rights crowd.
Let’s say that MiracleTech develops a smart gun device. It costs $5, installation is free at any gun range and takes 5 minutes, it has a 0% failure rate, it works off of bioelectric rhythm so you don’t need any keys or rings, attuning it to someone else (like your spouse) simply requires their presence, your presence, and 60 seconds (de-attunement take 60 seconds as well and does not require the other person, say if you divorce your spouse), and it can be retrofitted into any gun made since the American Revolution. It has no tracking device for the government.
Please note that it is made by MiracleTech and as such is obviously unrealistic at the current time (although who knows 20 years from now).
A) Would you voluntarily install this on your guns, knowing it prevents a bad guy from using it or your kid from accidentally shooting himself?
B) Would you be ok with a requirement that all new guns manufactured have this technology? (Please not there is no requirement to add it to guns already owned.)
What I’m trying to tease out with this hypothetical is if the resistance to the idea is about the implementation (ie, cost, reliability, etc) or if the idea itself is intolerable.
OK, so you think the “smart” gun technology should only be an option and never a requirement?
And yes, I am well aware that you try to hide the fact that you are “unmistakeably” anti-gun. However, I’m of the impression that if it walks, and walks and walks, and talks, and talks, and talks like a duck. I’m going to think it’s a duck. However if it gives you joy to make you think you are fooling anyone then carry on in your delusion.
You’re the one seeing ducks under your bed, not me.
And, yes-I think it ought to be an option, once the technology is perfected to people’s satisfaction.
So you don’t think it should ever be a requirement?
I believe that if the gun stops working, and it’s compared to a gun without the technology that’s still working… The vast majority of “opinions” will be in favor of the working gun.
Is internet deafness an actual disease? Either take me at my word here, or call me a liar in The BBQ Pit, o.k.?
Perhaps you think of yourself as pro-Second Amendment rights, in the same way a moderate liberal may think himself conservative if he’s in Berkeley.
But from my standpoint, you are not someone I want carrying the banner for Second Amendment rights. If you truly believe you’re pro-Second Amendment, then I’d implore you to shut up, because you are doing more harm than good to the position.
I don’t know why you used quote marks on that word, but you might be right-not all modernizations are successful. Just look at the Segway.
I’ll keep giving my personal opinions on matters, if you don’t mind. Or even if you do.
I gotta agree Czarcasm you always like “hey I’m just asking” but I’ve read enough threads and I was gonna post the duck thing but was beaten to it.
as for the Miracle Tech yeah I would have no problem with that. But to think I will see it within my lifetime is a stretch. I hope I am wrong because that would be awesome tech wise not just guns.
See, you didn’t answer my question. The way you worded your prior answer I get the impression that you think it ought to be an option yes, and perhaps later on a requirement. I’m asking you about the requirement part. So would you be opposed to ever making the “smart” gun technology a requirement?
Me too!
It should be an option. The little dot after the word “option” is called a “period”, and it means that you have reached the end of the sentence. Anything that you personally see after that period is as real as the ducks under your bed. If you have problems with the way I worded my prior answer take it up with with your grade school English teacher, because it certainly wasn’t that hard to understand.
edited to add: having trouble finding that cite that proves I’m, as you call it, “anti-gun”?