Not necessarily, Raveeeeni-Sensible people with concealed carry (what you'd have to have to legally carry a pistol into a public place) would detain them at gunpoint, pistol-whip them maybe.

Even if you assaulted them without a gun you'd be in trouble with the law considering how retarded laws are concerning such matters.

...someone from Delaware or New Hampshire might start shooting though, if they could find the "on" button on their pistol.

You should read about Ian Thompsons ordeal. Riveting stuff. Imagine you are 21 minutes away from a police response you call them while 4 guys throw molotovs onto your house and dog kennel. You go and get a pistol, run out (even though they could be heard saying you're gona die) and shoot OVER their heads. Not to kill them but scare them away.

You get charged, 10's of thousands of legal costs, only to be aquited in the end. The 4 guys who firebombed his house barely got any time in jail for attemped murder.

It's obscene.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'bill, burr, shotgun, pistol, statistics' to 'bill burr, shotgun, pistol, statistics, shark attack' - edited by xxovercastxx

First off, the treadmill is healthy for the dog, and burns off energy, making the easier to control let alone giving him "something to do". Some people just don't have the time to exercise their dog for the hour or so every day like every dog NEEDS to, no matter what the breed. You have 7 acres of squirrels? Good for you! There's a lot of people who live in condos and apartments where taking the dog for a walk is more dangerous to this dog AND handler than this pit probably is to anyone else.

Your statistics aren't complete...

There are more "vicious" attacks on people by Shepherds worldwide then there are actual pitbull dogs. THAT'S a statistic too.

Dogs can be looked at like guns.

Chihuahua = Ether gas BB gun
Jack Russell = .22 target pistol
Shepherd = .308 bolt action hunting rifle
Pitbull - AK47

If the gun is taken care of, and used properly, it won't suddenly take off and kill a seeing eye dog any more than a properly cared for pitbull.

You can do your own research if you really want to find the answer. From the research I've done, I've already established that the availability of guns does not guarantee a significant reduction in violent crime. If that were the case, DC's violent crime rate would be significantly lower than it is because they have very strict gun laws. I've also established that a ban on assault rifles would not have a significant impact on gun-related crime because the vast majority of gun-related crime is committed using pistols, not fully-automatic weapons. I've also established that the majority of guns used in gun-related crimes are obtained illegally, either stolen or obtained through unofficial means. The facts simply don't support the idea that banning assault rifles (or even all guns) would significantly reduce violent crime.

The current fixation on gun control is a purely reactionary response to recent shooting sprees (which comprise a negligible percentage of all gun violence). The only reason people care now is because these shooting sprees generally take place in middle and upper-class areas. Nobody cares when people get killed in poor areas, where the bulk of violent crime occurs.

I'm in no way a gun nut (I don't own nor plan to ever own any guns) but I'm not going to let my opinion of guns get in the way of facts. People who blindly believe that banning guns will solve all problems are just as bad as the NRA. Do your own research and don't ignore facts that contradict your own position. The FBI website is a great place to start, as they provide annual statistics on all crime in the U.S. and they don't have any reason to skew the numbers.

Sure. Alcohol, for example, clearly does more harm than it does good if alcohol-related death statistics are accurate. The question is whether or not guns actually do more harm than good and that's a difficult question to answer. There are certainly other countries with strict gun laws but those are different countries with different populations, different economies and different cultures. In an ideal world, banning guns would solve all our problems. Crime rates would decrease and nobody would have anything to fear. Unfortunately, I don't think that would happen in reality. Criminals would still get guns (because they don't care about laws) and there would still be gun-related deaths (albeit fewer), in addition to all the unrelated violent crimes. I'd be surprised if overall crime didn't increase to compensate for the lack of guns and the inability for civilians to protect themselves.

It just seems to me that the recent uproar about gun laws is a reactionary response to the occasional shooting spree. The vast majority of gun-related crimes are committed using pistols (such as the one used in this story), yet everyone is focused on assault rifles which are almost never used. Then everyone is ignoring the fact that smoking and alcohol cause significantly more deaths than guns do. Why is no one trying to ban those? Oh, right, we've tried that already and it failed. Banning liquor during the prohibition only resulted in criminals getting the upper hand, just as banning guns would do today.

A good way to judge the effectiveness of gun laws is by comparing Florida to Washington D.C. Floria basically has no gun laws. You can buy assault rifles in garage sales. No licenses or registrations required. It's essentially the Wild West. Conversely, D.C. has strict gun laws. No assault rifles, no automatic weapons, no concealed carry, no open carry, an extensive registration and permit process, etc. However, despite all this, D.C. had more than double the violent crime rate of Florida in 2011 and more than triple the murder rate.

Source: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-5

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.

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.

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.

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?

machine guns are classified differently that assault rifles. just sayin. it appears that it is pretty difficult to own a machine gun.
a machine gun is fully auto, large capacity.
submachine gun - same, but shoots pistol bullets.
a quick glance through the web indicates:

to own a machine gun in the states, generally:
1. You must live in a State that will allow you to own a machine gun.
2. You must pass the backgound check.
3. You must find a pre-1986 machine gun and an owner willing to part with it.
4. You must pay the asking price: $5,000 to $50,000.
5. $200. tax.
6. you MUST have an endorsement letter from the local Chief-of-Police or County Sheriff saying that it is 'okay' for you to own a machine gun.

i'm not bothering to verify this info. i'm not a gun nut. but that's what's out there. at least start to get the language correct. an assault rifle IS NOT classified as a "machine gun".

He was most-likely trying to kill the guy at close range, with a blank gun..(Wait!?? Is that a blank gun?? Looks like a 25-auto to me)
I'd hasten to guess that it's relatively easy for someone determined, with the premeditation required for a act like a public assassination, to obtain a proper tool for the job in Bulgaria.

What you are witnessing here is a bunch of pissed-off cunts in suits kicking the ever-loving shit out of a disturbed retard (look in the guy's eyes)....Nah, watching again it looks like simple surprise at the misfire of his GAS PISTOL? Geez!


Camerman @ 1:01 - "Here, help gramps up there so he can stamp on the guy's face, I'll hold his leg!!"

Actually it's even more bizarre. As radx mentioned it wasn't a gun, but a gas pistol; a replica which can only fire tear gas rounds or blanks.

Blanks can be fatal at very close range, but it's far from a sure thing. I can't really guess what he was trying to accomplish. Possibly just crazy and inept.

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

http://www.chron.com/news/world/article/Gas-pistol-pointed-at-Bulgaria-party-leader-4207697.php

Lucky for Ahmet, the crappy little pistol he was using jammed (or had the safety on and didn't know it.)

Like the text indicated, that's the MRF conference in Sofia, not Istanbul.

That bloke carried two knives along with his gas pistol, by the way.