Apparently the US military and CIA disagree with you:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FP-45_Liberator
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deer_gun

And I'm pretty sure a whole bunch of Iraqis and Afghans disagree with you too. Don't let facts get in the way of your opinion though, carry on.

If that's the issue it's like saying it's legal until (too many of) you start doing it. Can a right only be allowed until people start exercising it?

Yet who supports small business owners? I often see a false dichotomy that power must go either to big business or big government, not many want to empower the individual. I'd relax taxation and record keeping on non-incorporated individuals. I'd like it to be a lot easier for an employee to make the transition to self-employment.

The obvious reason being that you are ashamed of such stupidity. It is obvious to most people that the world isn't divided into soldiers, cops and psychotic fantasists, nor is there any reason to think that anyone who is interested in firearms is psychotic. Firearms are many times been used for self defense, you are quite right to acknowledge that classifying such people as psychotic fantasists is an emotional response because it certainly isn't a logical one. Perhaps you should consider counseling.

Your previous post is still nonsense. If it had been deliberate nonsense, we might have called it humor. There is probably a word to describe nonsense that was intended to serious.

Yeah, I noticed that after I posted. Water was boiling for my first cup of coffee, I should have waited.

Hence the statement that such behaviour gives fuel to the anti-gun crowd.

No, he doesn't, that's the point, the MTBF of a spring and lever is far higher than normal use making failure very unlikely which is not the case with consumer grade electronic components. They say there are no stupid questions but I think you've come pretty close. Do you have an emotional response to firearms that makes thinking difficult for you?

It's not just that, churchgoers are already trained to respond to authority. They were probably more compliant with the researchers. Being in an environment where they were being told what to think would no doubt be familiar and comfortable for them. This could make them seem better (it was short term treatment) but it could be said that such submissiveness is a mental problem of it's own.

June 2000 - Childers Palace fire.

Some of us aren't restricting our activities to what robbers will "allow". Some of us won't allow this robbers to do stuff.

Obviously you would be carrying the weapon before the robbery took place and staying alert. Robbers are not magical. They do not "appear out of nowhere". They must approach you or lie in wait so if you are aware of your surroundings it is very difficult for a robber to surprise you. To say that weapons are not effective for self defense flies in the face of thousands of years experience. Why do police have them if they are so ineffective? It is true that nothing can protect you if you walk around oblivious but that isn't something we should encourage, IMO.

It still doesn't make any sense. If the telco needs to lock the phone so the customers stay with them for long enough to pay for the phone, what purpose does signing the contract serve? If the contract makes sure you pay for your phone (and it does) then the phone locking is unjustified.

or a married male, apparently.

No, if he didn't pull the trigger it wouldn't have happened. If he hadn't decided to operate an unfamiliar weapon while aiming it at a child it wouldn't have happened. In any case he decided to take the safety off and should have been aware that when you take the safety off the gun can fire, especially if you pull the trigger. Would you let this guy handle firearms around your children if the safety design was changed? Not me.

If he hadn't aimed it at the kid and pulled the trigger this would have been no problem.

Handguns are designed as lethal weapons. They are not safe by definition. They can be handled safely or unsafely but can not be made safe and perform their intended purpose. The safety is there to reduce the likelihood of accidental discharge, no amount of engineering can prevent negligent discharge. If a gun fires because the trigger is pulled it isn't an accident it's negligence. If you are holding it in your hand, pointed at a person and pull the trigger it is not a design error when that person dies, it's a feature. The main feature. The pistol can't judge your intention.