Perhaps you've never heard the phrase "jammed gun"?

Good argument for having no lock on it at all. The holster is negligible unless you've concocted a situation of the intruder already in the room and pointing his at you, in which case even having the gun in your lap won't help much.

Yours is a valid question. What would your view be if said failure rate is high?

Criticizing a device that can fail in rain, with dirt, with gloves or simply too sweaty hands is not arguing against "something better".

Unfortunately, fringes always seem to get the most air and print time. Just this Friday, the NY Times admitted that "assault weapon" was a media fabrication initiated by gun control advocates - a fringe. As anybody and everybody who hits news gets "eviscerated" by some fringe loon, this is not a big deal. What is a big deal is when normally level-headed people believe that "the fringe" is restricted to only the side they disagree with.

A common argumentative fallacy - quoting raw numbers. Try putting the numbers in terms of ratio to human population and the view is very different.

One can follow a false premise to a false conclusion, as you demonstrated.

If you claim that the existence of god or gods is a truth, it is incumbent on you to show that it is indeed a truth. Otherwise, you're just blowing smoke. Assertions are simply opinions.

As an atheist of some fifty years I can tell you - bullshit - to each of your points.

Exactly. I get so tired of being asked "Then what *do* you believe?" with the emphasis on the do. My usual response is "Concerning what?" And there the questioner typically falters because they simply cannot wrap their minds around divorcing that question from some supernatural belief.

By all means, not all religious people are like that. My ex's father was a prof emeritus with five friggin' degrees in theological studies and we got along and understood each other just fine. He was, however, exceptional.

Try it from across the room and you don't know what the conversation is about. Do it at a bar looking for people using pick up lines and you'll get false positives. As for context, try to figure out how to inject that into the reading algorithms.

They did it as a humorous example, but there are many words which have negligible or synonymous lip movements. And as someone pointed out, ventriloquism is easily learned and *will* be as soon as authorities start using lip reading software.

For 100K, he could insulate the houses of a small neighborhood, doing more than what his Tesla would (because as greenies point out, you must include manufacture). He would also have greater cred as a goodwill ambassador for green. He could not, however, pull his cred up to the club at night and have everyone watch the valet drive the it off.

Was there a reason you omitted nuclear?

What is the "less expensive" way to store & protect your anthrax, or other dangerous pathogen that you'd like to muck with?

You should have picked a better example. Remember just a while ago where a very well funded organization (CDC) with everything you mentioned misplaced some damned smallpox in a friggin' cardboard box?