We have the Dangerous Dogs Act in England and it's working quite well for us. Introducing guns to deal with dogs is a completely lunatic notion. We leave that to vets, farmers or police units.

Yes bad things do happen. Introducing projectile weapons into the general population is not a sane answer.

If I want a hobby I'll collect stamps.

I agree with you most of the way. I have nothing against gun owners or people having guns in a responsible way. It seems there's a definition question about what is "a responsible way" though -- I don't think being able to carry weapons in public is a responsible way. Sure, taking them to a gun range in a secure case or firing on your private property (as long as the projectiles don't leave your property when you shoot) is just fine by me. Even in certain areas you should be able to carry it for protection from wild life (this does not mean the bronx..). I'm cool with you having a rifle with you in a place where you could reasonably run into a bear or mountain lion.

If you have a proper permit, you can even be allowed to hunt for deer or some stuff like that.

These are all reasonable to me.

Carrying a pistol concealed or otherwise in a city seems reckless and dangerous to me. If nothing else, you can scare other people into doing things they should not do - since they may not have proper gun training. It's the same reason you don't run around with a broadsword in public - a gun is basically, point, click, dead. That tend to make people antsy.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

What's with your inappropriate sarcasm? It didn't add to the discussion.

It may be semantics in your opinion but it's not like there is any confusion between the word "design" and "use". It's engineering. A firearm is designed to do something - and that something is not killing. We designed it to propel a projectile at high speed. We use it for multiple purposes - but mostly we use it for punching holes in paper or shooting clay pigeons. Yes, it is fantastic at killing animals/humans. We use it for that too. Yes, when it was first designed that was its primary purpose of use. But that does not mean it does not have secondary purposes. I'd guess that more rounds are fired at paper targets and for hunting animals than at people each year in the USA (and probably by several orders of magnitude).

Knives are fantastic at killing. A sword (which is a long knife) does a lot more vascular damage than a 7.62 mm NATO round (i.e. it is better at killing). Knives were superseded because they are not a ranged weapon.

You are suggesting that the tens of millions of sporting firearm users in the USA do not constitute a legitimate use of firearms. That is short sighted.

We accept the premature deaths of car crashs because it is a convenience we are not willing to live without. The collateral damage of people dying in vehicles is a cost we are happy to accept to continue using this convenience (we don't need cars to get around - they just make travelling easier). You'll find that the huge amount of legislation surrounding vehicles is to reduce deaths and the cost that crashes impose on the economy (which is billions).

The same for knives (humankind's most used murder weapon). We aren't giving it up as a kitchen tool just because someone used it for murder.

The same should of course apply to firearms.

America should have better legislation surrounding firearms (something I fully support). That's a no brainer. A full registration scheme for all firearms should be enacted. Firearm safes should be mandatory. Criminal and mental health background checks should be mandatory. For ownership of semi-automatic/automatic military style weapons you should need to be in a firearms club. This would both legitimise its ownership and use - so you can't just own one for the hell of it but it doesn't stop you from owning it in total (preserving the 2nd amendment). It would also force social contact - so other club members will recognise if a person should not be a club member and therefore a non-owner of these firearm types.

America could also implement a nationwide free mental health system. It basically has none. This is probably the most important thing it could do.

What are your suggestions for legislation?

(btw I'm not American - but I've closely followed this topic for years).

No, your right. The destructive uses of a gun can be overlooked when we consider their constructive use as, err, a high powered holepunch? Indeed was it not a happy accident when we discovered that this household tool was also extremely potent as a weapon!

Ok Mr S. Emantics, we give objects purpose through our use of them, but we also design objects for specific purposes. Occasionally it turns out the what we intend something to be used for actually works better as something else. This is not the case with firearms. They are designed to kill, killing is what they are good at. Knives can also kill, but they aren't quite as good as a gun, and i don't see too many people dicing veg on a cutting board with a mac10. So yes, we do accept certain premature deaths more readily than others because we all accept that knives and cars have significant uses beyond killing people. We legislate with this in mind, we don't let people carry long knives in the street, we don't allow people to turn their cars into spiked mad max death buggies, we don't let people pervert the purpose of these tools. So where are the ancillary benefits of firearms. What use is accelerating a projectile that may or may not be designed to penetrate flesh actually give us, because a lot of people have a hard time seeing it.

You know, after 9/11 nobody was talkin about banning planes. There is a reason for that.

No, firearms are not designed to "kill". They are designed to accelerate a projectile in a specified direction. Some projectiles are designed to expand when they hit flesh, other projectiles are designed to cut perfect holes in cardboard or paper. As a comparison example a knife is designed to part molecules and a hammer is designed to collide two masses together.

Their designated use is determined by a human's choice. They may be designated for use as a weapon or for putting holes in paper targets.

Just recently a lady decided to mow down someone who threw some chips at her car. You can use just about anything as a weapon even if it is designed for something else.

In regards to guns vs cars - he has a point. Cars do cause significantly more death each year. It's just not purposeful death, therefore it's a risk we take because it is impersonal - an "accident". I don't know the relative risk but I'd say you're more likely to die in a car accident than to be massacred. Should we accept one sort of premature death more readily than another? (I don't know)

One would think with the resource they have, rather than building a giant robot with overly complicated controlling system, they would build something a lot cheaper and efficient like a fast moving projectile that has good penetration and cause a giant secondary explosion... just a thought.

I'm amused at two assertions: guns are designed to kill people, and that kids think guns are fun to play with.

Children who are not taught properly about firearms are, generally, viewing them as toys to play with. Children who are properly taught about firearm safety, use, etc., are much more likely to view them properly; as very dangerous tools.

SOME firearms—guns—are, indeed, designed to kill people. I would suggest that the projectile is the part that has seen more development for human lethality than the firearm itself. There are parts of the country where carrying a firearm is distinctly in the realm of protection of self and family. No, not from acts of violence by other people, but by animal predators. Lots of places have bears and such wander across the porches of people's houses. Regularly.

I will, however, strongly agree that the lack of obvious gun lockout devices (I only saw one on the first watch of the video) is concerning, but if he doesn't have children himself, and none come to visit, that leaves children accessing his house without his knowledge…

As far as the number of firearms, do we know if he has a wife? Are they all HIS guns, or is that collection of guns owned by multiple people?

And now the space dissection so that we can test projectile vomit in zero gravity.

When I daydream, everything's always exploding. Enormous falling objects are smashing into things with an earth-shaking "boomf", other things are bursting (e.g.: telephone poles hit by high-velocity projectiles), bullet holes are appearing in walls and doors, that sort of thing. When I consider it now, I don't think humans are ever on the receiving end of these daydreams - it's mostly just things.

Who the fuck names their child MITT, anyhow.
Is it oven or catcher's?

Always thought it was strangely ironic as well that "Obama" rhymes with "Osama" and "Barack!" sounds like an onomatopoeia for the sound projectile vomiting makes.