That is tragic. If you're going to have a firearms appreciation day (which I support) then you better damn well make sure it has zero mishaps - otherwise you'll get judged by the actions of the minority that don't practice up to date strict gun safety.

I had a *quality laugh over this, thanks

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by kulpims.

Hey it aint no problem that a few people get wounded by them guns, we's made sure y'all have universal healthcare,see, so ya wont lose everything because of hospital bills. Yeeehaa!

"you'll get judged by the actions of the minority that don't practice up to date strict gun safety"

Bullshit. Guns. Are. Dangerous. Period. Yes, I said it. And yes, they are more dangerous if you handle them recklessly, of course, but they are dangerous anyway, thats the whole point. Most gun accidents happens to people who normally DO practice strict gun safety, its just that people make fucking mistakes. ALL THE TIME. Thats the thing. You can, and will, also make mistakes with knifes, hammers and axes, but that probably wont instantly kill you, or someone 50 meters away from you. A gun might. Because they are fucking dangerous.

I think most accidents happen when idiots with guns get complacent. I think it's perfectly possible to own and handle a gun with no accidents, but it DOES require constant vigilance, as you said, they are dangerous. It's designed to kill after all, and you have to treat it that way with simple common sense. It's when you get idiot, entitled gun nuts that organize things like "Gun Appreciation Days". Of course someone was going to get shot at this.

This is why the US needs strict regulations and restrictions (not a ban), and prevent these idiots from owning guns and making sure people that do own them are qualified to do so.

Constant vigilance? Common sense? You know you're talking about humans, right?

If you cannot maintain a sense of non-complacency when operating a lethal weapon, you deserve to get shot... or not have it. One or the other.

Life "hit boxes" need to take a lesson from Call of Duty.

"entitled gun nuts that organize things like "Gun Appreciation Days". Of course someone was going to get shot at this."

Oh, of course!! Makes perfect sense, of course.
No, it may be more likely of course, but of course anything could transpire.

Call us back when someone comes up with the cure for idiocy and let us know how the drug worked?

There already is a cure for idiocy and it has nothing to do with pharmaceuticals, I know you've been conditioned to think only drugs will cure everything, but it's not necessarily true!

The cure is simply using your brain, something a lot of gun obsessed yokels have never done.

So an unloaded firearm with a flag in through the breach into the barrel is dangerous? Even when it's now impossible to have a round in the chamber?

Or a fully cleared firearm being cleaned is dangerous?

Have you ever sat through a firearms safety course?

Yeah you said it - and you're wrong. Period.

Most gun accidents happen to people who do not practice gun safety all the time. Go read the coroner's reports for a few of them. They all break one of the cardinal rules of firearms safety (yes there are a few) either through total ignorance or on purpose. Very rarely is it a competent safety practitioner suddenly forgetting and making a mistake.

As an example the state where I live in has a mandatory firearms safety course. The firearms accidents rate in my state is less than 1 per year. Other states nearby who do not educate in firearms safety have firearms accidents multiple times a year.

Which is what I have where I live - strict regulations. If you were to accidentally harm someone, break someone's property, intentionally or recklessly scare someone with a firearm then you will be charged and you will lose you firearms license and firearms.

A firearm is not designed to kill. It is designed to accelerate a projectile out the barrel. It is used most often (by an order of magnitude) for paper target shooting. It is also used to kill animals. There is an obvious difference between design and use.

Background checks, education, testing, and inspection by your peers. It works by excluding those who don't meet a minimum standard. Yes, my state has this.

Are you being sarcastic? A gun's primary purpose and design is to kill (through means of a explosively propelled projectile), just like a bow and arrow, although a bow and arrow doesn't accidentally go off when simply holding it. The fact the vast majority of people in the States for simple target practice is so utterly irrelevant I'm surprised you brought it up. They are lethal weapons, and people need to handle them with some goddamn respect or it will kill you or others.

A hell of a lot more people died from abortions or doctor's mistakes...no one gives a damn about abortion though.

No sarcasm. I clearly explained the difference between design and use. I'm sorry if you don't get it - it's an engineering thing.

The fact that people use it mainly for paper shooting is totally relevant. It's what people use them for. Dismissing millions of firearms users as being irrelevant because they use it for paper is ridiculous. The onus is on you to show us millions of firearms users who shoot paper and believe it is relevant that it is irrelevant.

Simple comparison: knives are designed to cleave matter. A knife's current most popular use is chopping food. In times previous it was the ultimate killing weapon (for several thousand years). What it is designed for and used for are different concepts. What it is currently used for is important.

Yes they are lethal weapons, and yes people need to treat them with respect - but that's just paraphrasing what I've already written so I don't know why you're trying to write it back to me.

Have you ever sat through a firearms safety course?

I have. And I have fired pistols, and smgs, and A3G3s, and m66s , and M84 , and MG3s. I dare say I have handled more weapons than most people have. I have cleaned and assembled all of these guns over and over.

So yes, I also know when a gun is dangerous, and when it isnt. When it can and cannot be fired, I understand the difference between a loaded and an empty gun.

You are still missing the point. I was saying people make mistakes. Thats it, thats all you need to know, we have , on tape, a professional police safety instructor, teaching a lesson on gun safety, SHOOTING HIMSELF. How much clearer can the point be made for us?

I'm glad you have - the more the better - I really mean that. I've sat through the same sort of course.

I hope you agree with my point that firearms can be rendered safe for all involved if proper procedure for clearing the firearm is followed (and everyone in the party has a chance to check it). Of course safe muzzle direction rules still apply.

I'm not missing the point that you make. I just think your point is incorrect in that it essentially asserts that the rate of mistakes made cannot be altered because we are human - when it can be altered.

I've seen the video you talk about. Meanwhile, there have been tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of training days and safety demonstrations without incident. Singling out the one incident that anyone knows about does not make everyone else likely to commit the same mistake (in fact it probably lessens the chance of them making the same mistake).

The rate of firearms accidents in the USA has decreased steadily and gradually over time:
http://www.nraila.org/news-issues/fact-sheets/2007/firearm-safety-in-america-2009.aspx (yes that article may be biased but their stats are from the ATF)

This can probably be attributed to better firearms training, safety and general awareness.

BTW - I envy the firearms that you've gotten to fire.

Oh, so you're just being a dick... who also doesn't seem to understand what I'm saying. I've been talking about COMPLACENCY when using a gun the whole time (I don't know how many times this has to be explained to you).
And the fact guns are designed to kill (something you denied, wtf?) and the fact people mainly use guns for target practice is completely irrelevant when it comes to gun safety and complacency (maybe you need to look up the word). I'm sorry you don't get it, it's a simple common sense thing.

It's the kind of idiot good ol' boys who organise a "Gun Appreciation Day" as a knee jerk reaction to people talking about gun control, people who think "Obamer's gurna take ar gurns!" who'd get complacent with their guns.

Paraphrasing you? You replied to me, with you're nonsense about guns not being designed to kill, then I mentioned the lethality of guns

If you still do not understand, tough.

"This can probably be attributed to better firearms training, safety and general awareness."

I have nothing against safety training, of course. And sure, Its even a good thing to be familiar with weapons, if nothing else but to see how dangerous they are. But I'm also favouring gun control. When the ATF can't even say its illegal to sell guns to DRUNK people, I think its been heading in the wrong direction for quite some time. Its fine if you own a gun, but then you should also know how to handle one safely, and be deemed reasonably fit to own a gun. You should be required to store it safely, and so on. There's a lot of things you can do without "taking your weapons".

"BTW - I envy the firearms that you've gotten to fire."

Yeah, this was in the army, I havent touched a gun since., but shooting rockets from the shoulder with the Carl Gustav is pretty fun.(I called it M84 in my previous post, we called it RFK in the army) Also the MG3 because its such a classic (its basically an MG42) And the A3G3 is one mean-ass assault-rifle(I think we calculated that we shot 15000 or was it 30k? rounds each (in my platoon) with that gun during that year.)

"guns" have replaced last year's "bully" as news medias buzz word.

kind of tired of this trend

I still don't see the need for a gun in a civilized society.

where is this civilized society?

No, you're accusing me of being a dick. I'm being polite. I'm being accurate with my words. If I've inadvertently been rude then I apologise. In my opinion you answer aggressively and rudely (without cause or need).

You must be confused in regards to complacency - you were having that discussion with "messenger" - not with me. But your confusion aside - I agree 100%.

Yes I deny guns are "designed to kill". Guns are designed to accelerate projectiles and there are no two ways about that. You can go argue with my engineering professors if you want to redefine what "design" versus "purpose of use" means - I'm not going to bother again.

My apologies - I didn't mean you were paraphrasing about the lethality of weapons - I meant you were paraphrasing the part about respecting the firearm - which may not be clear because I was agreeing with you as a response.

They are not using the paper for "target practice". The shooting of paper is actually a sport across several different disciplines. Here is a list of said sports - almost all of them shoot at paper, cardboard, steel or clay targets:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_sport

Now I've given you the list - are you still going to say these sports are irrelevant?
Keep in mind tens of millions of people participate in these sports. It's pretty obvious who is getting what - I'll leave you to believe what you like though.

I agree 100%. We have all of those requirements here in Australia and I'm not sad about it. I would like the restrictions for the types of firearms we can shoot to be relaxed though. We can't shoot higher than .38 pistols for IPSC or similar. We can't get semi-auto .22LR rifles. You need a license for air-soft.

It's called the M84 in Aus - the recoilless rifle - that would be awesome fun.

Ha. Tons of people shoot themselves when the gun is "properly cleared." That's probably the number one way to shoot yourself, or others. "Oh, it's empty, don't worry."

The safest gun is also the most useless gun. You have seconds to respond to an armed shooter, so having to take out the flag, take out the barrel lock, take off the trigger lock, unlock the ammo, load the ammo and shoot . . . . A useful gun is not a safe gun. A object designed solely to kill humans more efficiently is never "safe."

Nobody has ever been shot with a properly cleared firearm. Lots of people have been shot with an improperly cleared firearm. That's the point of saying "properly cleared" versus "improperly/badly cleared". One makes it safe, the other doesn't.

The point isn't that a cleared firearm is useless - the point is that a firearm can be rendered safe. All firearms can and must be made unsafe by loading a round in them to be able to shoot with them.

A firearm is not designed to "solely kill humans". It is designed to accelerate a projectile. It's purpose of use is mainly for sports (see the list I posted above). Yes, it is also used for killing animals (people are animals) but that is no longer its primary use. There is a definitive difference between design and purpose of use. Go look it up if you're interested.

I'd suggest you do some research on "properly cleared" gun shootings. The whole reason people get shot with a "properly cleared" firearm is because humans make mistakes. Also, the use of quotations is to illustrate a point, which I apparently need to spell out. People get shot when they THINK the gun is cleared. I've sat there and asked 30 people in a room, most familiar with cleaning and the whole 9 yards, and not a single one of them saw the bullet in the barrel. Every single person said the gun was clear, and was completely safe. Now, repeat that several times a week and the numbers really add up.

There have also been cases off firearms discharging on their own. I believe Colt was being sued due to the number of rifles that were discharging without a trigger pull. People died.

Now, if you truly believe a firearm was invented for sport, you have seriously deluded yourself. A firearm is NOT intended for sport. A sporting rifle, yes. They're usually a 22cal, well, sporting rifle/pistol. They look a little funnier, they don't have high capacity magazines, and they fire a small bullet.

However, 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. If you truly believe hallow point bullets were made for sport, then we live in a very strange world. If you truly believe a recoiless machine gun that fires 30 rounds per minute was made for sport, then the military needs to step up it's game. They really should be using weapons designed to kill their enemy, not shoot little paper targets at a gun range.

I hear napalm was really invented to cure toe fungus, not kill large swaths of enemy soldiers. Swords were made to butter bread. Tanks were made for picking up groceries.

BTW, historical fun fact, black powder is one of the few items originally designed for recreation that was later used for war (Chinese fireworks.) Things like forks, scissors etc were originally designed to kill people, until later other uses were discovered. Like rockets. Our government didn't care that people wanted to go to space, they wanted a rocket that COULD make it to space, but half way there would make a sudden turn and go kaboom. So I guess rockets are 50/50. Guns, well, you're just in fantasy land there.

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.

Sorry, I stopped reading when I realized you missed the quotations again. There's a reason I used them.

I'm pretty sure you read all of it - hence the cliche dismissal "I stopped reading".

My original words were "fully cleared" and you quoted with "properly cleared" which is a synonymous paraphrasing of my words (i.e. they mean the same thing). Not the best way to quote - but allowable.

If you meant something other than properly cleared, i.e. like improperly cleared, then why wouldn't you write that? If you are trying to convey some other sort of meaning with your quotation marks then you're not using quotation marks correctly and people will miss your intended meaning. So, for my sake, please just write what you mean.

Oddly enough, I did write what I meant: I stopped reading. There was no need to read any further.

Quotes are quite a fun concept. You can literally transcribe what someone said, as in; Paul said, "I went to the mall." Or, you can use them as people would in actual dialogue between people. At that point they're referred to as "air quotes." For instance: "I told her I'd "help" her out." It requires an understanding of context. For instance, when I say "properly cleared" I very explicitly mean the person clearing the gun thinks they have done it properly, and would testify to said statement, but in reality they have done something wrong.

The person may honestly believe they have done everything correctly, or they may take shortcuts believing they are still in the right. Most people would refer to using quotes in this sense as being "ironic." Of course, that is technically an improper use of the word, however, it is colloquially correct.

In this case, my quotes would indicated that the gun owner believes they have properly cleared the gun, but in fact, has not. However, the gun owner would claim they "properly cleared" the gun before they shot themselves in the face. Of course, the use of quotes is also to illustrate that those of us who understand that most gun accidents similar to this stems from a lack of respect for the proper mechanics of clearing a firearm for safety.

For the sake of brevity I will say that the major cause of accidents is the owner believes they have "properly cleared" the firearm. Or, if you'd like, you can read the above 3 paragraphs. The point of the written word and the years and years of English education is so we can communicate succinctly, not write novels in a medium where anything longer than 2 paragraphs is dismissed as "too long." (In this case, the quotes are to indicate that the definition of "too long" can obviously be interpreted differently and thus giving a set value would be a gross misrepresentation.)

Harlequinn kicking some debate ass, IMO.

And as previous poster said, but in other words:
I see no place for killing devices such as gun in the Society that we currently have.

They can be cleared and cleaned all you fucking want, that dosn't change the fact that the only reason to have them is... yes?.. fun.
And that fun you all need so much kills alot of people.