1. No chips, electronics, RFID tags. I want my gun to be functional following a nuclear strike, solar flare, airburst meteor, a bath, etc.
2. Zombies rarely travel in herds of 3 or less. I need full magazines.
In all seriousness, if you can make a gun safer by some mechanical means without impacting reliability, I'd probably be for it. I've heard enough stories of people accidentally shooting themselves that I'm cautious to the point of paranoia about clearing the chamber when I clean my glock. I'm also not entirely opposed to electronics on a gun as an option. I'd totally buy an assault rifle with an led display. However, I'm strongly opposed to any electronics required by regulation. I was kinda serious about that whole EMP thing. There should always be a choice. If I had kids in the house, I might consider a chipped gun; but that should be an option to consider, not a mandate from the top. As far as limiting the number of rounds a gun can hold...meh. I'd rather spend time and effort on trying to keep people from shooting up schools at all, rather than worrying about how to limit the number of shots fired when someone does go looney. It's the difference between treating a disease and treating a symptom. Safety is never absolute. To strive for absolute safety would be foolish; diminishing returns and whatnot. Tragedy is a part of living and will never be completely eliminated. We can try to mitigate risk, but in most cases you'll find the safety gained is largely ephemeral, while the freedoms lost will never be regained.