Controversial Topic: Gun Control in the US

Post Reply New Topic

So, after attempting (and failing) basic training, I have been thinking about what I personally believe in. And I have some ideas:
1. I believe all people who are interested in firearms should be required to get training BEFORE they are allowed to purchase.
2. I believe the current age-laws are acceptable, being 16 and over to get a rifle, and 21 and over to get a handgun.
3. I believe that the term 'guns' is almost derogatory, with how much it's been throw around recently. Hence why I either name the specific type, or use firearm. Similarly, I don't like 'assault weapon'. There are assault rifles, which makes it a little confusing. And technically, ALL weapons are used for assaulting. Hence the term 'weapons'.
4. I believe in background checks, and obviously, that 'mental illness' should be checked with the DSM, as Autism is currently identified as a Pervasive Developmental Disorder. (This, also, extends to government in general)
5. I believe that weapons of any kind should be transported either dismantled, or unloaded, and in a locked box.

My break is over so I'll stop there. Also, I wanted to add that 'background checks' are a flawed system. The federal government has a database of every criminal, as well as crimes, and all details thereof. Sellers of firearms should be able to access this database, because many people charged with crimes are later found innocent. Or are charged with felonies or misdemeanors that are in no way related to firearms. It would be terrible to be denied ownership because of a record of traffic accidents or overdue speeding tickets.

Many states already require such training for firearms, but many don't. Is there a difference between the statistical evidences to suggest that states which don't require training have more accidental discharges? I haven't heard of any such difference either way.

Your self description suggests a lack of experience in shooting firearms. Most states' laws allow you to rent firearms at shooting ranges. This provision helps those businesses and individuals who are providing and enrolling in firearm-safety classes so that hands-on experience is affordable with the least amount of interference by law. Most states even let you join an uncle, niece or neighbor to learn the basics of firearms and shooting.

I have instructed several family members and friends who, while not wanting to buy, own or possess a firearm themselves, want to get over their fear of firearms and shooting, or at least add to their life experiences by knowing how.

You might consider enrolling in such a class or asking someone you know to give you the basics at a nearby shooting range when it is convenient for both of you. You might discover what most people discover after firing their very first shot: That their only fear was in their minds and that shooting a firearm is fundamentally simple and easy. They usually react with asking the hypothetical question "THAT is what I was so worried about?" They find it fun, exhilarating and ... empowering" not because they want to rush out and shoot down innocent people, but that they could defend themselves all by themselves if they chose to do so. After such an experience, few need more instruction unless they want specific competition, hunting or tactical knowledge.

Just a suggestion. Think about it.

So, I sided with the National Rifle Association, thinking they would 'protect my rights'. However, when I received a pamphlet from them, I was quite disillusioned. They are pretty much what everyone thinks they are, unfortunately. At least from the pamphlet, they wanted some fairly standard demands, namely firearms NOT being summarily banned. But they also wanted to lift age-restraints, as well as let known criminals purchase them. And that is not what I wanted.

1. I believe all people who are interested in firearms should be required to get training BEFORE they are allowed to purchase.

2. I believe the current age-laws are acceptable, being 16 and over to get a rifle, and 21 and over to get a handgun.

3. I believe that the term 'guns' is almost derogatory, with how much it's been throw around recently. Hence why I either name the specific type, or use firearm. Similarly, I don't like 'assault weapon'. There are assault rifles, which makes it a little confusing. And technically, ALL weapons are used for assaulting. Hence the term 'weapons'.

4. I believe in background checks, and obviously, that 'mental illness' should be checked with the DSM, as Autism is currently identified as a Pervasive Developmental Disorder. (This, also, extends to government in general.

5. I believe that weapons of any kind should be transported either dismantled, or unloaded, and in a locked box.

The NRA isn't tailored for anyone's liking.
I belong to it because:
1. It is still the largest pro-gun lobbying entity....

It does stellar work as a political-action committee by giving campaign cash to friendly candidates, but I doubt the influence it has to influence some congressional votes. More broadly, the advocacy group that has demonstrably changed the landscape of firearm politics in the United States has been the Second Amendment Foundation ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Am ... Foundation ) since it succeeded in the U.S. Supreme Court opinions about the matters of District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), and McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010). In Heller, the NRA had to go, hat-in-hand, begging the Court to allow it to weasel in on a matter that the NRA had dismissed and denigrated before it saw that landmark law was about to be made with or without it.

One of the things that helps the NRA, it's size, also hurts them in that it is somewhat of a bureaucratic whorehouse lacking in focus and direction.

Are we in the middle of some sort of silenced assault gatling shotgun crime wave that I'm unaware of?

mini gun is in 308. i think

as for the mob and terrorist they already get those things despite them being illegal.

The fact that anytime the topic of gun ownership and gun control comes up, the pro-gun lobby goes on a smear campaign against the opposition, no matter how benign the comment that was made.

I made the comment if you own a gun, training in proper use and care should be a prerequisite to owning a gun. For example, would you rather have your appendix removed by a board-certified surgeon or a back alley hack? Gun ownership should be viewed in the same manner.

Uhhhhhhh.....Dillon Aero charges well over $100,000.00 for a minigun. And do you have any evidence of the M134 minigun being sold to terrorists and mobsters in foreign countries? Another thing about the minigun is that it uses and electric motor which requires a 1.2 kW power supply to operate which makes them rather impractical for the kind of uses you're describing. The Russian GShG-7.62 minigun is self-powered and that might make it to the black market.

Modern gatling guns are not hand cranked like the original gatling gun. They either are driven by an electric motor or use the recoil force to rotate the barrel and fire the gun continuously. But do not underestimate the devastating destructive power of these weapons! They are by far the deadliest fire-powered guns in existence.

Dillon Aero isn't the only manufacture of mingun. and apparently a mini gun can be had from 20k -300k highly doubt the government would pay 100k per mini gun when they could get a s**t ton of m240 s for the same price.
you swap the battery out, terrorist arn't cave men, they have laptops, power, tvs, etc. they get them from governments we sell to who then "lose" them or get over run and actually lose them.

nope people still make the old styled hand cranked gatling guns. they fall under any other weapon i believe so are easier to get.

also when i said those things I meant all the things you listed, full auto, rpg, grenades, etc. the mingun is rather impractical for anyone besides being a scare tactic. sure it kills but it wastes so much ammo in the process.

really the deadliest so more deadly than a tank gun? or artillery? both guns just big ones. i'd think they more deadly
personally I wouldn't want full auto guns except for select fire. full auto is fun for bit but such a waste of ammo and costly to use. unless you are giving support with suppressive fire to advancing units its not that useful except for maybe room clearing.

Oh, ya! Every NRA member I know wishes that it would trim back to the original training and instruction group that it once was and include the highly successfully PAC as its only division (like the NRA-ILA already is). But, lobbying and legal work seems to step in it as often as their membership fulfillment divisions. I really wish I could like the NRA, but, oh well....

The minigun has a much higher firing rate than the M240 and it can do a SH*TLOAD more damage. The minigun is still in use and is mounted on armored vehicles and helicopters. You are correct that Dillon Aero is not the only manufacturer of the minigun(originally designed and produced by General Electric). Even so, the other defense contractors that manufacture them do not sell them to civilians. Even with a class III firearms license!

helicopters till also use 50 cals, if german taught us one thing from ww2 a machine gun with a high rate of rie isn't the best. its scary but it waste a lot of rounds on one target where one .50 or few rounds from m240 would kill.

only cause they can't sell new machine guns duh. if you remove that law they'd be selling them to civilians, you can buy ones made pre 1968 why. cause they were just fine selling them. there's actually some civilian with connections that do have the new ones, they just can't sell them . only the law is preventing the sale not some companies morals, if the law was gone the company would make civilian tactical models cause civilians money is just as good if not better than the militaries.