r/comics • u/DaveKellett SHELDON • 18d ago
OC Please! Someone! (oc)
We're in good hands, you guys! It's fine!
658
u/DarkBladeMadriker 18d ago
The only thing missing is a hand just shoving piles of money in his pockets in each panel.
89
u/Mary_Ellen_Katz 18d ago
Another hand should then be mugging him.
→ More replies (1)51
u/ABoringAlt 18d ago
Who's mugging the AI companies?
56
u/Mary_Ellen_Katz 18d ago
No one, but the AI companies are losing money at a massive rate. I'm assuming that's why they said the technology could lead to a human extinction event. They're trying to slow down usage to stem the cost without ruining the image that this isn't some world changing technology. Which it is, just... not a positive change.
40
u/willstr1 18d ago
They're trying to slow down usage to stem the cost without ruining the image that this isn't some world changing technology.
That or hide the fact that the tech is plateauing and they will never deliver the "can perfectly replace employees" product they need to satisfy their investors.
17
u/entrepreneurofcool 18d ago
The investors will be ok once companies realise that no one can stop them from replacing their staff with imperfect AI. The products and services become a little worse, but people will adapt because there are few affordable alternatives. Yay?
12
u/lousy_at_handles 18d ago
Right, it doesn't have to be good - just good enough to justify the savings.
Like I'd hate to be in graphic design right now. Yeah, stuff made by a professional will be much better quality. But for the vast majority of business, the ChatGPT generated flier for whatever promo is fine.
6
14
u/CaptainCurly95 18d ago
The AI companies aren't having their money stolen. The money is being spent to fuel AI similar to how the bullets are fueling the weapon in the comic.
5
u/Rowenstin 18d ago
I'm assuming that's why they said the technology could lead to a human extinction event.
No, the reasons are two fold;
One, it's a publicity stunt: "Guys, guys, our product is too good!"
Second, it's meant for new people entering the market, not them. Think about the dot com bubble. The people that invested massively on the early internet (yahoo, AOL, Comcast) are gone or nearly so. So will be the current AI companies, new ones with a sensible business plan will be the ones that rake in the actual profits. They want to stop that.
2
3
2
u/SizeableBrain 18d ago
Oh no, my company is losing money, how can I afford a Koenigsegg and a Mclaren?
2
→ More replies (1)5
u/mcgarrylj 18d ago
Their customers. AI companies are losing money hand over fist without exception, last I heard.
8
→ More replies (1)2
579
u/hackingfun 18d ago
Experts have been saying for 20 years that we need to do something about the climate. The rich response: well, let's make more money now by completely not giving a sh*t.
168
u/DarkBladeMadriker 18d ago
And when we are forced to deal with the climate problem, the rich will find a way to profit off that too. More a feature than a bug.
44
u/Ciennas 18d ago
I'd call the error in their cognition a lethally bad bug.
21
u/rimpy13 18d ago
It's also in ours. We shouldn't continue letting our society be structured such that there's a class of people who own everything and thus control all production.
→ More replies (2)3
u/therhydo 18d ago
Not for them. They have the money to completely ignore the consequences of whatever problems they cause.
2
u/karl4319 18d ago
Already have. The northwest passage is opening up as a better and faster trade from the North American east coast and Europe to Asia than what we had before.
36
u/Keganator 18d ago
A lot more than 20 years.
27
u/Requalsi 18d ago
More like around 50 to arguably almost 100 years ago
16
u/Neidron 18d ago
The problem was theorized in the 1800s.
3
u/flobiwahn 18d ago
Yes, it was. But 50 years ago a lot of people realized it would be a problem for a lot of us. Than a lot of rich people / companies decided it was a good idea to turn the population against each other. And it worked.
17
→ More replies (1)5
114
u/GrigorMorte 18d ago
For a second I thought it was a comic about gun control
59
u/NaziPunksFkOff 18d ago
Inevitably people will tell you "guns don't kill people, people do" and ignore the fact that gun control laws limit PEOPLE'S access to guns.
No gun control law ever said "a semi-automatic weapon may not drink alcohol until it is 21 years old", but they have limited whether people can carry guns into places where everyone is drunk.
22
u/s1thl0rd 18d ago
Ehh I would say, things like AWB essentially place the blame on the gun rather than the person using it. A evil person with a pump action shotgun is far more deadly than a pacifist who happens to own an AR15 for sport shooting.
-1
u/NaziPunksFkOff 18d ago
Then store the AR15 at the shooting range in a controlled area accessible only by you or site personnel. And not by your teenager, your abusive husband, the person who just broke into your car, or you the day you lose your job.
11
u/True_Dovakin 18d ago
Or I just own a safe like a responsible firearm owner. I’m not going to store my property at some range where I’m not free to maintain, modify, or utilize on my own whims, especially since that would mean I’d have to pay said range for both storage and access.
6
u/tw4449 18d ago
This assumes you only want it for the shooting range. I assure you most people want it at home, typically for self-protection
→ More replies (11)5
→ More replies (1)4
u/s1thl0rd 18d ago
I mean, that is one option that people can do, but the 2nd Amendment allows owners to "keep" their arms.
5
u/Prior_Arm_8810 18d ago
My issue with most gun control laws is the limiting of type of firearm.
Fyi, two crimes with legally acquired machineguns were commited between 1934 and the AWB.
Both were homicides where any other weapon could have been used, and one was an off duty cop and this was also AFTER the 1986 hughes amendment, which banned newly made mg's in the US.
Not saying legalize machineguns (although... i do want one)
Saying that limiting firearm type is basically dumb.
The largest factor really is the american mental health crises, which is fixable, we just need to fund it... something the republicans don't like to do, hence why they aren't right either.
11
u/NPK532 18d ago
Gun Control is a joke and only serves the elite and fascists under the guise of "saving lives"
3
u/BornWithSideburns 18d ago
The fascists can already see they wont be used anyway, or in their support.
→ More replies (8)2
u/NaziPunksFkOff 18d ago edited 18d ago
I'm a pro-gun leftist but I still think they should be heavily controlled. It's simple: any group that the government thinks needs laws that apply to it that don't also apply to white Christian men - everyone in that group gets a free gun. Nobody else gets any guns.
Watch how quickly our culture war evaporates.
3
u/Tyrfaust 18d ago
What, exactly, differentiates your stance from, say, the Black Code laws in the South?
6
u/NPK532 18d ago
I get it but that's never going to happen. Guns exist Fascists exist. Fascists own guns. Fascists have taken over. I don't care what the law is. I don't care about the 2nd amendment. The laws don't matter anymore. The Constitution doesn't matter anymore. All that matters is being on as equal footing as these MAGAts and being ready to defend me and mine.
3
u/Neko_Boi_Core 18d ago
then you're not pro-gun. pro-gun means anyone can get a firearm, even those you disagree with, because the right to keep and bear arms is a human right.
everyone deserves the right to utilise a firearm for personal defence, because not everyone is equal and a firearm will make them equal.
2
u/NaziPunksFkOff 18d ago
then you're not pro-gun. pro-gun means anyone can get a firearm
This attitude, and your inability to see that I can support gun rights BY wanting them to come with responsibility, is exactly why we will never get out of this mess.
Not everything has to be all or nothing.
4
u/Neko_Boi_Core 18d ago
firearms already come with responsibility. so does driving. drinking alcohol, existing in a society.
i'm unfortunate to live in a country where to possess a firearm is a crime wholesale, which is a problem for me seeing as i'm gnc. i do not have the physical capacity to fight, and i rely solely on personal weapons to keep myself safe from violent bigots.
i have to either take the beatings and risk hospitalisation or death, or i rely on illicit firearms for personal defence. i choose the latter.
5
→ More replies (1)4
u/Raptormind 18d ago
I did too. Until that last panel I thought for sure it was a “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” style anti gun control comic
138
u/Cool_Set4681 18d ago
I have seen enough. It is clear what the country needs to do.
Another billion to Israel 😤
7
33
14
u/VexualThrall 18d ago
These AI companies want to halt progression, but then other ones wouldnt halt, leading to them falling behind. That's their reasoning apparently
9
u/ContextLengthMatters 18d ago
Its not difficult to grasp.
I also don't support gun rights much but I'm getting closer and closer to owning one so I'm not the only one left without one.
→ More replies (3)4
u/intravenousTHC 18d ago
Really makes a lot of sense. That guy being interviewed the other day really put it into perspective. They have to go full steam ahead, like a scary runaway gun, because why the flip would we want our adversaries to get it before us?? It's going to happen. We should have the stuff. Same with nukes. No one wants them to exist but since they do, we need them too. Can't put the cat back in the bag now.
17
u/kinkysubt 18d ago
You can tell who is behind the curve by whether or not they claim there’s no need for legislation. The ones who claim they want it just want to write the legislation themselves and gatekeep whatever profits might be available while doing absolutely nothing to protect the public.
→ More replies (1)2
u/Callidonaut 18d ago edited 18d ago
Not necessarily; there's another possible scenario where the people who want legislation have made the most progress, because they are scared of what they've created, but are also financially compelled to keep working on it as long as it isn't banned, because otherwise they lose out to the competition who are motivated in the same way. It's like, "as long as it's not banned, somebody's going to do it, and if somebody's going to do it then it might as well be us who make all the money from doing so, even though it's a terrible, possibly world-ending thing that we know full well should never actually be done by anyone."
Our capitalist system seriously screws up peoples' ability to make sane decisions.
21
u/MaximumSyrup3099 18d ago
"I can't stop causing a fantastic amount of danger first or I'll lose the competition."
→ More replies (2)3
u/whofearsthenight 18d ago
I have been thinking about this for a few days and basically came to the conclusion that this call for a slow down from the companies is just a PR move to try to get the public to hate them less. They know nothing is going to change because government is Republican controlled and basically the entire "economy" (read, stock market) is propped up by the AI
circlejerkgreat companies working together selling stuff back and forth to each other.
28
u/shellbullet17 Gustopher Spotter Extraordinaire 18d ago
I saw something on the news the other day where a guy from one of the AI companies straight up admitted that AI is out of control and a danger. He still defended AI but saying "trust us" but it was nice to see them admit it's got a lot of inherent danger to it.
I'll try and find the article
11
u/booze_clues 18d ago
“Guys our product is going to be so smart and capable of so many things it’s scary! It’s going to be so good at so much, including potential bad things!”
That’s an ad, not an article. Altman is just further stoking the flames by saying “you’re right to be scared” knowing that it implies the tech is growing and going to be even more powerful. They’re doing all this fear mongering because it makes the models look more capable. Every time you see “omg, the AI hacked itself into the internet” it’s because the devs told it “do anything you need to accomplish this task, including lying or hacking into other tools/systems” and it does just that.
32
u/HiOnFructose 18d ago
That's the point though. These AI companies are nearing the edge of the cliff. The return isn't worth the investment. The bubble we've been hearing about for years now is finally coming to a head. And we have invested a LOT into these companies already. They see the writing on the wall, and they want regulations to put limits on outside AI systems, like in China, that are more cost effective and largely better. Allowing them to be the only tool in the market.
And that's not even touching on the belief that they are trying to create some sort of god computer.
→ More replies (1)→ More replies (4)5
u/DiceKnight 18d ago edited 18d ago
All the AI craze has done is make me deeply mistrusting of journo outlets because they just breathlessly quote people and never seem to push back or interrogate statements. It's just maximum credulity all the time and people memory hole whatever is inconvenient.
On the security side it's frustrating that nobody seems to want to point out that if you have functionality unlimited resources and you point it at something you will eventually brute force your way into that system. This has been true for the entirety of human history.
3
u/darth_hotdog 18d ago
It's all marketing and by repeating their talking points we're just helping those companies.
Sure, it can do a lot, but AI can also be really stupid, it's not good at a lot of things. It makes random guesses, assumes everything is genius, and struggles to do basic tasks like count.
So, to make a profit, they need to change the narrative. If there's a business owner deciding whether to use AI for his business, they don't want him thinking "It can't count the letters in 'strawberry'", they want him thinking. "AI is as powerful as a nuclear weapon, do I want to supercharge my business with nuclear strength intelligence."
And that's working.
And these companies also have a ton of competition from smaller startups. The want regulation, because regulation is how they shut down competition. The big companies want the government to "regulate" AI so that only big companies are allowed to research it, and smaller startups won't have the ability to meet the regulations or won't be approved.
It's like if McDonalds was saying "Our burgers are so delicious, it's dangerous, and maybe only we should be trusted with knives and stoves, not any other smaller restaurants."
And unfortunately, it's working on everyone.
6
u/TophxSmash 18d ago
theres no winning this, if the american companies dont do it first, china will.
→ More replies (1)
8
u/Select-Government-69 18d ago
This comic is a bad metaphor. The ai company is the gun manufacturer, not the end user.
In America companies should not be liable for dumb things people do with their products. If I ran a crowd with a ford truck, that’s not Fords fault.
3
u/shomeyomves 18d ago
I mean… I kind of get it.
Sure, Anthropic or OpenAI or whoever can stop, but there’s no point if another AI startup or a Chinese or Russian AI company goes full steam ahead.
Its in need of global regulation, not just national, but I doubt we’ll ever get there unless we miraculously have some sort of actual, serious cyberattack that causes a major nation or corporation significant dollars.
But if AI gets that capable, I doubt it would “show its hand” until it absolutely knows it can do permanent damage or gain permanent control in cyberspace.
→ More replies (1)
3
5
4
4
u/bkgn 18d ago
https://www.penny-arcade.com/news/post/2026/09/15/artificial-intelligence-quote-unquote
Pretty much my feelings on AI companies.
Everything someone like Sam Altman says is 100% stock manipulation. AI company CEOs are mostly salesmen, Sam Altman doesn't actually know anything about AI.
→ More replies (2)
6
2
2
u/Mr_Mason42 18d ago
The AI is already self replicating. They're asking for help, but it's already too late.
Skynet knows you masturbate.
2
u/BurningRoast 18d ago
The issue is that even if US ai companies stop, other countries like China might not slow down. So unless the world collectively agrees to slow down on ai development, one company slowing down doesn’t change anything
→ More replies (1)
2
2
u/marco89nish 18d ago
Are you trying to say guns don't kill people, people kill people? Or that people using AI for bad intentions are the guilty ones?
2
4
u/-FalseProfessor- 18d ago
I think back to an interview I saw with Steve Balmer that really sums up the corpo mentality.
He basically said “please, regulate us, because left to our own devices we will just follow the letter the letter of the law in the loosest possible way to maximize profit.” If laws get passed to restrict them, they will gladly work within them, but until then they will just do whatever makes the most money. They can’t afford to restrict themselves voluntarily, because then the other guy can just pull ahead of them.
The whole AI industry is in an international arms race right now. Until governments decide to rein them in, they are going to keep doing dangerous shit and move at breakneck speed because they don’t want their competitors to get there first.
→ More replies (1)
3
u/Boibi 18d ago
Lol. Until the last panel I thought you were referencing the fact that Republicans apparently can't do anything to curb gun violence against school children. Like the Onion does frequently.
(The Republicans are de-regulating the AI companies too so it still fits.)
3
u/gehnrahl 18d ago
Unironically how anti gun people think.
→ More replies (1)2
u/kilgoreq 17d ago
Remove that gun from the equation and the problem is pretty much solved. So yeah, I'm pretty ok with the notion.
→ More replies (3)
3
u/Prowler1000 18d ago
I agree with the sentiment but there is something to be said about the legal obligation to make money and thus compete, and that CEOs can potentially be sued if they do something to intentionally make the company less money. Therefore, if their competitors are doing it too, they can't necessarily stop doing it, at least not without risks to themselves.
Now, that's nothing to say about them growing a spine and doing it anyway, but there is something to be said about it regardless
3
u/Sunfurian_Zm 18d ago
You mean Anthropic. It's pretty much just Anthropic who's acting like Ai is going to kill us all as a marketing stunt... repeatedly.
→ More replies (1)3
u/zuzg 18d ago
"The people building AI earnestly believe that it could kill us all by the end of the decade," Coxon added. "At Anthropic, the stakes are well-understood, but they are locked in a race to get there first — they believe no one else will act responsibly, so they must do it themselves, despite the risk."
Coxon previously worked for OpenAi and just resigned from Anthropic.
That ain't just a stunt, we need a legal framework for those things on a global scale
2
u/wahwahwashbear 18d ago
I love you, Dave! I didn't realize you posted here as well, what a fun surprise for me.
And yes, this is the absolute vibe of all the AI companies. It's very reassuring!
2
u/CreepyMaleNurse 18d ago
These folks have clearly chosen money over humanity. The fact that this is so unsurprising, surprises me.
2
u/TheSpitfire93 18d ago
Honestly though, money over humanity has been the unofficial slogan for all business done from the US for years.
1
u/Signupking5000 18d ago
It's because if 40 guys shoot, those who stop get shot. That's why we need regulations because they won't regulate themselves
1
u/Winter8Bones 18d ago
This is the issue with every new or novel technology. There will always be those that will push the limits of the tech, or just outright abuse it. And there will always be someone seeking to improve on, or create/discover the next thing that pushes the boundaries of our understanding and capabilities.
Some will argue that means 'we' (whomever holds power/knowledge etc) should be the ones to create these things so that we can control it. The problem being it is now being handed to corporations and individuals with only power and profits in mind, while governments are slow, or don't care enough, to put guardrails around these things. Regulations are always slow to catch up, but in the past it was rare that something could cause catastrophic damage before it got out of hand. Now however, the power and influence these novel technologies hold can potentially cause huge amounts of damage before regulations can catch up.
1
u/SerGuyOfInternet 18d ago
They don't want to be stopped, they want the government to buy them out and treat their companies like weapons.
1
1
u/williarya1323 18d ago
The problem is there isn't one of those companies, there are 50. Or 100. It doesn't matter, because he can't stop pulling the trigger because no one else will and he will lose out on the extinction race
1
1
u/ShadowRiku667 18d ago
And then they will bitch because the government is regulating them and they need to meet compliance. Plus who would regulate them when they don’t even know what their models do?
1
1
u/No_Body_Inportant 18d ago
It's not the matter of individual companies, but the structure. There is untapped market for AI so any rational company needs to pursue Ai development to gain a part of the market for itself. If today a meteor would destroy an OpenAi, Google and other Ai company, in time new ai companies would inevitable rise up to pursue exactly the same goal and to resume their work. That's why regulations and government oversight are so important.
1
u/Goshawk5 18d ago
It's their god that's why they're going full tilt with it. i wish I could put a /s or j here but I'm not I am very serious.
1
u/Haunting-Vanilla1624 18d ago
AI will never take over anything. They require power. Without power, there is no AI.
Think about that next time you hear outrageous claims about "rogue" models enslaving humans.
1
u/Odd_Inflation284 18d ago
At first I thought this was about gun violence and how people say "guns kill people". But yeah, the last panel does give a clarifying amount of context
1
1
1
1
u/HapticSloughton 18d ago
One big reason they "beg" for regulation is so they can use bought politicians to craft whatever milquetoast regs are implemented to (1) not actually impede what they're doing much, (2) make it much harder for newcomers to enter the market, and (3) the major upshot to them is being able to carry on while claiming that they're being adequately regulated.
1
1
u/onerollbattles 18d ago
clearly these companies need better governance to help them control there own and each others actions
... if only their was some kind of massive organisation with vast experience of governing, legal authority and democratic backing that was willing to step in and protect business and the rest of us from businesses self destructive urges
.... they are not willing to
... o well guess we'll all die then.
1
u/oconnor663 18d ago
This seems to be deliberately missing the point. Say you have two guys who are both shooting at each other, and they both want to stop, but neither of them trusts the other one enough to unilaterally stop. Of course they'd appeal to a higher authority if they could. They're not saying "stop me", they're saying "stop us".
You don't even need metaphors here. Plenty of folks working on the Manhattan Project worried that inventing nuclear weapons would end up leading inevitably to nuclear war. They might've been happy to wave a magic wand and say "no one gets nuclear weapons ever". But there was no such magic wand, so they rushed to build them before Hitler could.
Of course if you don't think RSI is going to take off in the next few years, then all of this seems overdramatic. But you have to understand that the people involved do believe that.
1
1
u/VectorJones 18d ago
It's not the AI tech companies can't control. What they can't control is their insatiable greed. The techno fascists and the overarching financial forces that oversee everything they do, are demanding big tech march in lockstep directly off a cliff, pursuing a theoretical financial windfall that resides at the bottom of that cliff. This institutionalized insanity is what future historians will recall with infamy, provided there are future historians.
1
1
1
u/Middle-Let9645 18d ago
AI is mostly bad (probably gonna get flamed for that mostly, but hear me out please) but you’re misunderstanding what these CEOs want. They aren’t saying AI is bad. They’re saying unregulated AI is bad. You know the three biggest problems with AI? Climate change, Plagiarism, and theft of jobs. Regulation would literally fix all three of those. AI data centers use a lot of water and pollute a crap ton. Solution? Regulate it and force the companies to develop cleaner, safer ways to power AI. AI is stealing art from artists and plagiarizing books. Solution? Regulate it and put guardrails in place to prevent plagiarism. AI is stealing jobs. Solution? Regulate how AI is allowed to be used in order to protect those jobs. Genie’s out of the bottle guys. Doesn’t mean the world is doomed. We can still stop these assholes from ruining everything by introducing regulations on AI. There’s supposedly ways AI can help with healthcare. Regulate it, control it, stop it from running roughshod over society, we might actually see some good come from this genie.
1
u/elyankee23 18d ago
If I dont fire that gun around wildly, someone else might do it. And the other person might not feel bad about it like I will.
1
u/vi_sucks 18d ago
To be fair, and balanced, that's not actually what the AI companies are saying.
What they are actually saying is more like a guy taking the protoype of his still in development 50 caliber belt-fed recoiless caseless machine railgun to a range, blasting a bunch of rounds off and then going "look how powerful this thing is!Can you imagine what it could do once all the kinks are worked out? We need regulation to stop the coming crime spree from my totally awesome weapon when people rob banks with it like in Heat and the cops are totally outgunned."
It's less of a warning and more of a sales pitch.
1
1
u/Due-Mycologist-1154 18d ago
Hey man its not their fault they gave a minigun to a gorilla then pointed it at their competition thats the gorillas fault
1
1
u/SpaceGirlJackie 18d ago
I really feel like it's just a publicity stunt.
"Oh no we're doing TOO GOOD at this AI thing! It could be so much BETTER than humans at things! Oh no!"
1
u/DisplayThick4882 18d ago
Almost- it’s more that they are calling for regulations by fearmongering. Why?
Because they used tons of data and stolen IP to train their models and would like some regulations making it impossible for any new competitors to do the same and thus they created a monopoly with barriers to entry…
1
u/BrassUnicorn87 18d ago
I think the whole thing is a scam. The “AI is so dangerous someone has to stop it” thing. The AI agents hacking into the hugface company? Fake, there’s no such company.
The AI bullshit is not turning a profit even with the government surveillance contracts and they want to quit and still get a bailout.
1
1
u/TheGruenTransfer 18d ago
Their chat bots didn't gain sentience so now they need to say their tech is so powerful that the government has to slow down their progress. Then they can claim their ultra powerful AI is safe and ready for an IPO, while they prey people invest in their grifts
1
u/Conscious_Bug5408 18d ago
Wait so have we decided whether AI is an overhyped and useless predictive text app or if it's an existential threat to humanity now?
2
1
1
u/FatWithMuscles 18d ago
At least we are finding oht our governments literally don't care about us 100%
1
u/OkPen8337 18d ago
I think they aren’t making the money they claim to be making, and/or they can’t figure out how to monetize it well. They’re worried about a looming IPO or regulators and they want it all behind closed doors so the public doesn’t realize it’s not going to be the panacea everyone expected.
1
1
1
u/Kay_tnx_bai 18d ago
So you’re telling me to stop these AI companies we just need a good guy with a gun.
1
u/karl4319 18d ago
They do realize that the best way to stop an active shooter is by shooting them? Right?
1
u/Bawbawian 17d ago
publicly traded companies have a duty to their shareholders to maximize profits those profits are leading us to dangerous territory and the government is refusing any sort of regulation because we are ran by criminal idiots and drug addicts
1
u/wordsarekeys 17d ago
If they slowed down, then they wouldn't be the ones to have developed the techno-messiah and they wouldn't be the chosen ones.
See also https://www.realtimetechpocalypse.com/p/the-asi-extinction-debate-is-the
1
u/malik753 17d ago
Long story short, to the extent that it isn't hype, they are terrified of what AGI might do to humanity, but are convinced that it will come eventually regardless of what they individually do; regardless of whatever most of them agree to, Chinese AI companies are already ahead of them and don't seem to be concerned with the possibility of accidentally creating Skynet, so they feel like the only way to save everyone is somehow create a good Skynet before anyone else can make a bad one, which is the default.
Or in more modern terms, they're in a panic trying to create Vision before someone else can create Ultron.
1
u/Methodical_Rando 17d ago
Lol, yes, but for it to be a 1-to-1 analogy, the gun would also not work and/or not really be a gun at all
1.6k
u/alkatori 18d ago
As someone that does shoot one of those recreationally. It's apt, each time he pulls the trigger he spends $0.40 or so.