If you’re talking about 2 generations from now? Maybe… But that is the bare minimum of time before “smart gun” tech is even remotely close to being acceptable, period.
There is almost no market in it now, so on one will put the money in it that it would take for it to develop faster than that.
But as an aside… I quoted posts from last week, and if we’re currently talking about “smart gun tech” I’m not going to bother scrolling up any further than this lol.
You only think you know. I believe that’s the role of local government in response to what voters want.
Currently collecting eggs for What’s Her Name in Thorne… You know how it goes.
I see. So, in other words, seatbelts never fail, except when they do.
If this is true, why is it mandatory seatbelt-use laws have had to be enacted?
So you’re moving on. If nothing else, this demonstrates, to your credit, your fidelity to your own admonition:
Off the top of my head, I would say the Sandy Town parents.
Nice appeal to emotion. How about you use objective facts rather than trying to paint things in emotional light?
What happened in CT that day was tragic. That a lunatic would stoop to that level of maladaptation to the human condition is beyond the preview or law, regulation or “gun culture”.
What that monster did has nothing to do with “gun culture”…
But for facts instead of feelings. It’s been almost 5 years since then, so lets just use 1,800 days (360x5). Let’s use a conservative estimate of 200m guns in private hands and a liberal estimate of 10k homicides a year involving a gun (as assume each one was with a different firearm.)
So that is 50k homicides since Sandyhook involving a firearm. Or 28 a day.
That means at least 199,999,972 firearms a day are used for nothing more than target practice, sit in a holster or a safe.
If “gun culture” was to blame, don’t you think the number of guns NOT involved in any deaths would be a lot less than 99.999986%?
Isn’t it more reasonable to look to social & economic issues that plague the communities that have the bulk of this violence? (You know, poor people packed into densely populated areas.)
But anyway, while we talking about cars & safety
https://www.cdc.gov/motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html
Seems to me maybe we should have some common sense beer control in this country. Something like 28 people a day die in drunk driving accidents. And annual self reported episodes are 100m plus, with ONLY 1% of them being caught!!!
We should make it harder to not only get a license and car, but anyone who buys more than 12oz of beer should have to pass a background check…
That’s 359,999,949,600 times since then a gun in “gun culture” didn’t actually kill anyone…
And 200m privately owned firearms is a conservative estimate.
I don’t imagine you’d get much opposition from Progressives, regarding these proposals.
Those guns killed the joy I get from seeing my feels forced upon others, so your point is invalid.
You asked “Who the hell cares?” So given that ‘caring’ is an emotional response, it is you who opened this door–not me.
I disagree.
I think you’re making the wrong comparison. The proper comparison is between our rate of gun deaths and our gun culture vs the rate of gun deaths and the gun culture of other, comparable nations.
That is certainly a reasonable thing to look at. But it’s not an either/or situation; ie, it’s not either socioeconomic situations or gun culture that is to blame. No doubt, our gun-violence problem is multifactorial.
Well, if you’re suggesting we should do more about drunk driving, count me in. But there’s a critical difference between beer and guns–that being, beer wasn’t specifically designed to kill people.
Actually, you’re way off here. While guns are the focal point–perhaps even the totem–of gun culture, they are not gun culture in and of themselves.
So, getting back to gun culture: One of the ways it contributes to firearm deaths is that it interferes with the discussion (much less implementation) of reasonable gun-safety measures. So indirectly, gun culture is far more complicit in gun violence than your estimate would suggest.
Like South Africa? Concentrated poverty in slums sprinkled with societal decay. We have 7 times the guns they do, but their murder rate is 5 times higher.
If you really want to compare our homicide rate to that of other countries you have to look for other countries with slums.
From the article:
USA: 88.8 guns/100 people. Murder rate 3.2/100k.
S.A.: 17 guns/100 people. Murder rate 17/100k.
Comparing gun violence in the U.S. and South Africa – Foreign Policy
You consider SA to be comparable to the US?
The racially segregated slums full of hopeless people stuck in an “underclass”? Yes. Those neighborhoods are comparable to areas of Detroit, Chicago, Compton, St. Louis etc…
Yeah, I gotta push back pretty hard on the notion that the US and SA are comparable. I’m thinking more along the lines of Western European nations.
You mean the ones with stable, un-diverse populations? Sorry. Diversity is hard.
Comparing the US to SA is harder.
This is the most intellectual dishonest thing I’ve read on this board… Well since the last time I was on this board, lol.
you mean, cherry pick countries so it fits your agenda…
Neither are guns. A firearm is designed to hold a cartridge (in some cases auto load a cartridge) until it is chamber, and then once chambered it is designed to ignite a primer, which ignites power, which creates pressure, which forces a projectile forward. The next stage of the firearm design is to guide the projectile forward in a way that keeps the projectile on it’s intended tract for as long a physically possible. Then the next portion of the design is to make sure the pressure is vented in a way that doesn’t hurt the individual holding the firearm, sometimes using this to auto load the next cartridge.
Aside from all that, the “specifically designed to kill” is another appeal to emotion fallacy… Which is hilarious because you admit the product “isn’t designed to kill anyone” yet is a major factor in just as many deaths as something “designed to kill” but poo poo this because it wasn’t “designed” to do it…
lol
I’ve never seen you suggest a single measure I’d consider reasonable… Has nothing to do with my culture.
Right like I said, you won’t actually use facts and figures… Just mystical boogie man buzzwords that are immeasurable.
Let me rephrase for those reading along at home:
“I have to limit my comparisons because otherwise I wouldn’t be able to cherry pick my data.”
You said it, not me.
I think it’s fair to say that, on most social-cultural issues, the US gets compared to western European nations. I for one have never heard it suggested that SA is an apt comparison for the US on this score. But if you want to stand on that side of this street (‘The nation most comparable to the US is SA’), it’s all yours (and @Basement_Gainz, I suppose). I’ll continue to claim western European nations represent the most apt comparitors. People can decide which they think is right.
This is, frankly, pretty silly. It’s like saying a car wasn’t specifically designed for driving, followed by going into a detailed slog about fuel injection, cylinders, spark plugs, drive trains, and the like.
So if you wish to actually claim that functionality is not the design-goal of consumer technology–say, that toasters were not specifically designed to toast bread, but rather were designed to heat up to a certain temperature for a certain period of time–you are welcome to that position. As before, I’ll be on the other side of the street.
Sure it does. You just don’t know it. You’re like a fish who denies the existence of the water.
While difficult to quantify, culture exists nonetheless. If you wish to claim it doesn’t…well, that’s just another street along which we’ll be residing on opposite sides.
ANd it’s all cherry picked.
You ether compare the US to all nations, or you’re cherry picking. It’s pretty simple concept really. I never said anything about SA specifically, so build that strawman somewhere else. I said you’ll cherry pick which nations you compare the US to in order to fit your biases.
Everyone does it. You aren’t special. Just stop acting so smug and above your high horse about it.
It wasn’t. It was designed to transport things and people using an internal combustion engine. Just so happens you “drive” a car. You can “drive” a lot of things.
I never said that. In fact I claimed that function is in fact the design goal.
Why thank you for permission to be 100% correct. Where would I be without my moral and intellectual superiors to tell me I’m welcome to be correct?
But you just told me I was correct. Now I’m confused.
Please use your superior intellect and knowledge into my life, norms, belief systems and day to day living and tell me what my culture is more so I can be an enlightened as you.
Right, and the first part of that is why you cling to it while ignoring quantifiable factors.
So now you’re blatantly trolling.
Here is the quote you took out of context.
"The cases where a person is trapped in a burning car or drowns are the 0.1% that I referred to, and I’m being very generous when I give it 0.1%.
On the rare occasions when people are trapped in burning or submerged vehicles it was far more likely that they couldn’t get out or be gotten out because their legs were pinned under the dash board, or the driver’s side door was too deformed to open and the lay person just doesn’t know how to breach auto glass. These are relatively common occurrences in general (entrapments, not fire or drownings), and require an extended extrication. Not because their seatbelt held them in. Any witnesses to an actual case of someone dying in a car fire who blamed the seatbelt didn’t know what they were talking about. That is more urban myth than anything."
And you respond with “I see. So, in other words, seatbelts never fail, except when they do.” Which is blatant intellectual dishonesty.
I very rarely post here, and only occasionally skim the threads, I’m not sure why intelligent postersengage with you at all, unless it is to de-bunk utter bullshit, like your comments about seatbelts. Which is incredibly easy. Also, because some idiot might actually read your nonsense, and decide to not buckle up, I’ll probably continue to occasionally take the troll bait and respond.
I agree with you 100%, it’s something I would look into, if as has been stated the police were using it, it might be good to go. But it’s more likely that I would be a never adopter. Sort of like micro chips in the brain. Sure, they might be a faster and more efficient means of communication and accessing information than the iPhone 34, but no one’s putting a chip in my brain. I’ll be fine with my primitive smartphone thanks.
What my grandchildren chose to do will be up to them.