Makes me wish I had my spreadsheet handy. Still...
$20k Camry vs $30k Tesla BlueStar.
Price difference: $10k.

Assumptions: $4 gasoline, $.10 kwh, 15k miles/year, .3 kwh per mile(Leaf, Roadster, and Model S are all close to this). I'm also assuming the routine maintenance difference(~$600/year for oil/filters/brakes/belts/plugs/etc...) is balanced out by maybe needing to replace the battery.

The Camry is listed as 25/35. If you drive mostly highway and would get 35 with the Camery, you'll use 429 gallons a year, and the EV would save you $1,264 a year in fuel costs alone. More if you can get free charging somewhere, like at work. Still, you're looking at just shy of 8 years to break even(car is expected to last twice that, but odds of needing a new battery go up) If you're a nasty city driver, you're closer to $2k, and you should 'break even' just after 5 years.

If gasoline goes to $5/gallon, you break even at 6 and 4 years, respectively.

One of the 'tricks' with electric cars that make them 'better' suited for the luxury market is that more powerful motors tend to be more efficient - despite being far heavier and more powerful, the shorter ranged model S effectively uses the same amount of electricity per mile. In other words, put in an engine powerful enough for luxury sedans and you also get great efficiency. You also have the potential for smooth acceleration, no shudder, no gas fumes, no needing to pull into smelly stations for a fillup, etc... It's cheaper(and more profitable) at this time to 'finish' dolling the vehicles up and sell them to rich people. That helps pay a startup to continue developing a truly economical vehicle.

Consider how much effort goes into a luxury sedan to make sure the engine's vibrations and noise(beyond a carefully selected amount) don't make it to the passengers. No real need with an EV, so there's some money saved to allow it to compete with the expensive vehicles. They don't worry about it that much with a Camry level vehicle.

The Model S is normally cheaper than the luxury competitors it's placed up against, IE Mercedes S Classes, BMW 7 Series, and Audi A8s.

That doesn't mean that you can't find a gasoline vehicle with a lower TCO with the same driving patterns, but you're going to sacrifice 'luxury' for it.

Yeah, it's crazy, I mean, I haven't filled my 30 gun safe yet. Most handgun safes hold at least 2-3 weapons. Why force me to buy a lock I'm not going to use because I have a perfectly functional safe at home?

Some of the dealerships I'm at have 'free' cable/trigger locks in a basket. It's up to you whether you take one or not. BTW, I know one guy who uses the cable lock that came with his gun on his gym locker...

Mine's a milspec, no holes. A google search of 37 images for "1911" that is actually of a 1911 with the trigger exposed gave me 20 with holes, 17 without. Almost even. Even then, I wouldn't rate all of the holes as suitable for either putting a padlock through, or even if you can get a padlock into the hole, that it would restrain the trigger enough to prevent discharge.

For example, this image has the holes rather far forward...

The lock is for pure child safety. I prefer a safe.

That's exactly what they want. Add $200 to the price of the gun. 20% to the price of ammo. $20 annual registration fee. Make it expensive and a pain to keep legal.

Back in the day there were laws mandating metals with higher melting points and such in order to try to keep 'saturday night specials' off the streets. To be fair, those are actually the weapons most often used in crimes - $2k AR-15s are used in crime extremely rarely. The most common are cheap revolvers/semis in .22 to around .380.

In my life they always seem to go after the wrong guns- The brady bill, the original AWB, targeted rifles in the name of a man harmed by a .22lr six shot revolver. The only things that would have made a difference was that he couldn't have used the gimmicky 'exploding' bullets that don't actually explode, he'd have had to settle for plain lead today*, and from what I've heard he probably would still have passed the background check.

Spree shooter uses a rifle? Ban handguns! Uses a hand gun? Ban scary rifles!

*And butterflies being what they are, hard to say whether that would result in more or less damage.

His did. It's one of the 'features' of High Deductible Insurance Plans. It might of been watered down since then, but back in the day that was the deal - $5k deductible, certain preventative procedures were paid before that deductible was hit, but after that it was covered 100%.

What other 'gates' are you talking about?

The dirty secret is that 'Police Officer' doesn't even make the listings for dangerous jobs; it's not the safest job out there, but it's a lot safer than many. Air Crews, fire fighters, loggers, cabbies, etc... Are all more dangerous.

And that's the thing. Police officers are VASTLY more likely to be shot immediately* with their own weapon in a conflict, and it's STILL insignificant. The real reason behind wanting 'smart guns' is the same as the racist 'Saturday night special' bans on cheap guns back in the day. Make firearms more expensive, less useful, discourage people from buying them.

*As I consider it likely that if a 'protected' gun is stolen, the criminals can unlock/bypass/reprogram the firearm given sufficient time.

1. Even old car brakes are more complicated mechanically than trigger assemblies.
2. Said devices you mention are not only far more complicated, but are far larger - enough to contain multiple redundant systems.
3. Said devices don't have to sustain sharp sudden shocks like you get in firearms.
4. Modern trigger assemblies actually tends towards more simple than the old ones, one of the benefits of being able to make complicated shapes easily. We use a 'complicated' part to reduce mechanical complexity(IE fewer moving parts).

Plenty of gyms out there that should be able to settle the liability concerns for not much money.

It'd be a balance, I know. I'm willing to bet that the healthcare savings would exceed the facility insurance for a non-extreme gym.

It's not always possible. See the 1911 with the flush trigger. Still, on my 686 a proper rod behind the trigger could even prevent it from being cocked. But I'd be extremely careful when mounting the trigger lock on - place it too far forward initially and you could end up tripping the trigger.

Oh, and I checked with my S&W 686 - with the hammer cocked it does indeed lock the cylinder in place.

Quick fix is to offer bottled water as well. As in "Can I offer you a water or soda?"

Then you start offering the perk of an in-house gym, and/or healthy drinks. Heck, your health insurance might cut the business a break for having cardio facilities on location.

What don't I know? Educate me. I'd rate it higher that you failed to understand my point.

Oh yeah, and your turning down jobs because of healthcare premium increase being more than the increase in salary is an example of being locked into your current job, which is a bad thing.

Of course, in a market where you obtain your own healthcare you'd probably find that said businesses pay less anyways...

That's what I was talking about with "the system as set up now would be unsuitable"

I understand that there would need to be heavy reforms in the way we do insurance, but I believe that it would be beneficial in the long run.

You know, my first thought on this was rather than throwing the gun down was that he pistol whips her, before proceeding to do whatever he was wanting to do before? He assaulted her without a weapon of his own, he has hers, so now she's weaponless, might as well get down with business.

Another option is that he keeps hold of the gun(don't want her shooting him in the back), takes it home to jailbreak it, now he has a working gun next time he goes to mug/rape somebody. Of course, most criminals aren't as logical as me.

The tricky part is making it work 99.999% of the time, even through gloves and such.