Mississippi River Hydrostatic Model has been added as a related post - related requested by Mekanikal.

No, I don't need to research "properly cleared" firearm. You do.

By definition if it is properly cleared then it has no cartridge in the chamber and is safe.

If a person makes a mistake and assumes a firearm is cleared when it is not - then they have not - by definition - properly cleared the firearm.

If a person is shot by a firearm they assumed was cleared or they did not clear properly then by definition they have not cleared it properly.

"not a single one of them saw the bullet in the barrel" is usually caused by a squib load. It is easily detected both when it happens and visually by looking for light down the chamber end of the barrel (no light = projectile stuck in barrel). If you mean to say that you had a cartridge in the chamber and 30 people familiar with cleaning firearms didn't see it then you have 30 people in need of reeducation.

A self discharing firearm is not common but yes it does happen. That's why we practice muzzle safety at all times with a loaded firearm.

"Now, if you truly believe a firearm was invented for sport, you have seriously deluded yourself."
I don't know where you got this from. I never wrote any sentiment similar to this. I wrote about the difference between design and use. A firearms first use was for killing animals (people included). This is now outnumbered by sports shooters by an order of magnitude.

I think it is pretty obvious I'm familiar with firearms and you don't need to describe a 22lr Hammerli, 22lr Anschutz, etc. sports pistol or rifle to me. These are not nearly as common as other multi-use sporting firearms. Sporting includes all the disciplines in my link a few posts back and hunting game animals.

"if you truly truly deep down in your gun loving heart believe an AR-15 was invented for sport . . . well, there's nothing anyone can ever say to make you see reason."
I never suggested I did.

"If you truly believe hallow point bullets were made for sport, then we live in a very strange world."
I never suggested I did. They're for expansion upon contact with body fluids to help bring about hydrostatic shock and give a larger hole with expansion of the bullet. They may have been intended for hunting (which is a sport) by its designer - I don't know and I doubt it's recorded in the history books.

"If you truly believe a recoiless machine gun that fires 30 rounds per minute was made for sport"
This is getting boring.

Look it's pretty obvious you're confusing "intent of design/invention", with "design", and "purpose of use". They are three different things.

The intent of the original design for firearms was for it to be used as a weapon to kill animals (again people are animals). No two ways about that.

A firearm is designed to accelerate a projectile down the barrel.

A firearm is used for more than it's original intention. So nowadays we use it more for sports using paper, cardboard or clay targets than hunting (which is also a sport) or killing other people.

"Guns, well, you're just in fantasy land there."
Now that you've finished your embarrassing diatribe could you try to be a little nicer and pay attention to what I write - not what you imagine I wrote.

>> ^KnivesOut:

It is... because your imaginary friend said so? Care to extrapolate a bit?>> ^shinyblurry:
Yes it is



I don't believe the Almighty has spoken on the matter, but since it is an arbitrary definition, I will arbitrarily declare that Pluto is indeed a planet. It has three moons, an atmosphere, and 75 years of precedent. I also support the original Draft Resolution 5 for GA-XXVI: Definition of a Planet that was presented at the IAU Planet Definition Committee in August of 2006:

A planet is a celestial body that (a) has sufficient mass for its self-gravity to overcome rigid body forces so that it assumes a hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round) shape, and (b) is in orbit around a star, and is neither a star nor a satellite of a planet.

Pluto qualifies as a planet according to this definition. And if this complicates matter because of bodies like Eris Sedna, Pluto should simply be granted an exemption.

...providing an artificial reef for a couple thousand sea creatures now dead due to hydrostatic shock.

Tyson is wrong about Pluto. It is a planet because unlike most objects in the Kuiper Belt, it is large enough to have pulled itself into a round shape--a condition known as hydrostatic equilibrium. When this happens, objects become geologically differentiated, just like the larger planets and unlike shapeless, inert asteroids and KBOs. An object in hydrostatic equilibrium orbiting a star (and not a star itself) is a planet. If that means we have dozens of planets, then so be it. The universe was not designed for our convenience.

The medical side of ballistics (especially as it relates to stopping power) is, IMO, one of the most poorly-scientifically-supported fields out there. Replace "gelatin" with flesh in OS's question, and ask it to a bunch of ballistics experts, and you'll get a whole truckload of different answers. "Hydrostatic shock", "energy transfer", temporary and permanent cavitation, all that stuff needs to be questioned, and yet nobody really has the answers yet. It's a shame.