It is as selected(only specific or some guns from them all) option.
Minigun also does not usualy miss but both shotgun and minigun are not very practical imho to use cause they are not handy and usualy require close range. Basic handgun user would probably beat shotgun drawer or martial artist will kick it out of hand before you load it and point. Shotguns are effective if they are already pointed at target but so is other weapon.

At this side of the pond, we don't have a written constitution, but we do also have outdated laws which no longer serve a purpose. Laws which might have made sense, 200 hundred or so years ago, but are of little value today.

When the 2nd amendment was envisaged, the idea of an armed citizenry, or militias, overthrowing a federal backed standing army, may have seemed like sound reasoning - from a people who were still very raw from the being under the yoke of European colonial powers. Perhaps none envisaged the possibility of the militias turning on each other and tearing the country apart.

It's debatable, in these modern times, if a Citizenry armed with an assortment of individual firearms could, in an act of rebellion, take on, not only a modern professionally trained mechanised standing army, with sophisticated weaponry, but the navy and air force as well - not to mention an increasingly militarised police presence... while it might be a nice romantic ideal to cling to - in these times, it's not at all realistic.

We have seen how armed citizen militias fare against government backed forces, in numerous conflicts around the world - we've seen in fact that, even with foreign backing, they tend to fail and the death toll is usually very high.

The reality is, that the gun lobby want to keep their guns, the arms dealers want to sell them and the manufacturers want to carry on making them. Everything else, including the usual 2nd amendment references, are just pretexts for all of this.

NO!.....because there is always some nutter that will get hold of one & use it inappropriately!

Spot on!

The NRA even admitted their tactics to a couple of idiots from the "One Nation" party, who honestly thought they could get some funding out of the NRA to change the gun laws here in Oz. So it's pretty clear the only thing the NRA cares about is keeping their guns, and buying as many US politicians as they can to keep the status quo.

And people still fall for their lies...

Amazing.

The problem with "gun laws" is that the crime created by such laws is one of simple possession - contraband. There is no criminal behaviour involved it is just having a thing that is made unlawful. These sorts of laws are impossible to enforce and one only has to look at drug laws to see this is absolutely true. In fact, with weapons, it's even more problematic because weapons can be made from damned near anything. 3D printers are making that even more readily available so what's next? Outlawing 3D printers? I can make a .22 pistol from a automobile antenna in less than an hour. A shotgun takes roughly 3-4 hours with off-the-shelf innocuous materials. You can't stop gun possession if someone wants one so it is a fail before it even begins and that creates a wide-reaching disrespect for Law in general. Regulation of weapons is an ineffective means of preventing crime and in the process erodes respect for the Law. There are other means that work to reduce or remove the motivation to commit crime that maintain respect and loyalty that basically begins with few and fair laws. There is little worse than a government with far too many laws where everyone is potentially a criminal, especially if there exists an "elite" that can easily circumvent law with lawyers, money, and friends in high places.

Gun laws are a cure that doesn't work and is worse than the disease, especially when it, as usual, is merely a band-aid on a cancerous sore.

Spoken like someone who has no experience with weapons; again, don't get your information from YouTube. A minigun misses a LOT, and is near useless for anything but a battlefield. A shotgun is pretty effective out to about 40 yards (36 meters) with shot...and over 100 with a slug. Going to kick it out of my hands at that range??? And you're not going to be loading it..it's ALREADY loaded when you pick it up, if you have it for home defense. And no, a 'martial artist' won't be kicking a pistol out of someones hand too well...again, don't get your information from YouTube or the movies. And you're missing a very obvious point; if you pick up a weapon, you are going to HAVE IT POINTED at someone...otherwise, why bother?

I'm with michaelk and others that echo that sentiment. If you have training and have had a GOOD background check, only THEN should you be allowed to have a weapon. I see far too many people at the gun range who have no business with one...yet there they are. And even most people who can get one aren't going to have the training needed to use them effectively in a pressure situation.

Thinking about this, you make a good point. The shooting proficiency requirements for concealed carry here are not that stringent. They do not factor in tactics either. I have been around firearms for much of my life and am a pretty good shot, but the dynamics of a gunfight are something only seasoned police officers and soldiers ever experience.

I don't agree with the NRA's statement either: they are all or nothing which is not a good position. Has to be compromise at some point.

+100 to this.

Dude chill. Did i upset you somehow? Wasn't my intention. You seem to only reply to me in a way as if i post something that hits your nerves. And it was just example. That is why i wrote "imho". We each are allowed to have our own opinion. I am not claiming or stating anything as already mentioned just asking situation on streets not on TV and expressing my own opinion like others. And you mentioned training - ANY loaded weapon in TRAINED users hands are equaly devastating not just shotgun. And YouTube is fine, im not using other internet source cause it lacks visual and audio presentation. You really are trying to tell me weapon test videos are fake on youtube? Here is about shotgun accuracy test but it is on not moving target. What happens if target moves? It is still valid information. So please more ontopic.

Yes; your comments about "I'm not a racist, BUT" and crap like that SHOULD upset people. You start a debate about a topic you know nothing about, in a country you've never been to, stereotyping a race of people in the process. And posting YouTube video links to support your opinions doesn't lend you any credibility. You are missing any points I've tried to make to you, either intentionally or not; either way, get out from behind your screen and go out into the world and learn.
You say you're not asking about TV...but post a YouTube link?? Again, you are getting 'opinions' from TV and movies...not really the best places. Try forming opinions based on FACTS, not what you see on TV.
And because it is 'visual and audio presentation', it's somehow factual?? Again; get out into the real world and find out for yourself.
I am on topic, but it is you that isn't. You are lacking actual, genuine information about a subject you're debating. Your entire argument is based on YouTube videos. Try actually THINKING for yourself; those 'tests'....conducted by whom? Under what conditions? For what purpose?? Are they to get YouTube views, or to actually present information? Does the presenter get $$$/equipment from those vendors for a good test?

I can tell you from VERY personal experience that a shotgun is pretty effective against moving targets, just like ANY weapon is if the person using it can use it effectively.

While you do have a good point there enorbet, it's not just about actually "stopping" people from doing x, y or z (whatever act it is). It's also about the "deterrent effect", as while yes, some will still break whatever law it is you can think of anyway, let's pick an easy example like murder; in a civilised society, you simply can't have people going around murdering others with absolute impunity - as society wouldn't function if that was allowed. So the only viable option is to have a law that says you can't do that, but of course some will still do that anyway. So where a reasonable argument can be made that [some act] can be considered a serious risk to others [innocent people], then having a law against it/regulating it, it can be justified. Without trying to go off-topic, as far as drugs are concerned, then yes, I would absolutely agree with you that it's a health matter if anything, and there is no need for it to be a criminal matter. But guns can and do pose a risk to others in the wrong hands. But yes, you can't simply ban 3D printers, which does complicate things, agreed.

This sums it up nicely.

@ jsbjsb001 - My point is possession of any contraband (an inert object) cannot be enforced and actually shouldn't be attempted based on it's level of public threat. If you are my neighbor my owning and possessing a firearm in no way threatens you unless some person aims it at you, since any responsible gun owner guards against accidental discharge with trigger locks, storing unloaded, etc. Training includes not pointing a gun at someone unless you fully intend to kill them. Using firearms to scare someone rarely ends well and almost always escalates which is just one reason training involves establishing how serious weapons are. They are no joking matter and require respect and care.

OTOH, ordinary citizens should not be allowed to possess say a weaponized virus or large quantities of radioactive isotopes in their homes because a simple leak could threaten many in addition to the obvious point there is zero value in keeping such a thing since there is no way to deploy it to defend one's home (or any other proper service) as it is subject to the vagaries of things like the wind and/or water. In fact I think that the regulations on governments possessing such things should be far more stringent if anything, but good luck enforcing that. Similarly it really isn't acceptable for individuals to own say an RPG or a 50 Cal. machine gun as there is no right and proper use except long distance mass murder. They and items like them are not practical for home defense. I can't however see any justification for disallowing shorter range weapons that threaten nobody by their mere existence.

I don't think I would have a problem if some community required checkups, in addition to proper registration to mentally sound individuals, to verify that firearms are stored safely so they don't discharge accidentally or are easily accessible by anyone but the owner(s), but beyond that I don't see how it is anybody's business but the individuals. It's never going to be perfect since it would be just as possible to jack up regulations over time so that nobody (or nobody but those of a "certain persuasion") can ever qualify as it is to be far too lax. I think we either expect citizens to behave like responsible adults or we treat everyone like irresponsible children. Which would you prefer?

Some interesting facts to back up your comment:


Approx. 610,000 people die from heart disease in the USA each year
Approx. 609,640 people die from cancer in the USA each year
Approx. 480,000 people die from smoking tobacco in the USA each year
Approx. 250,000 people die from Medical mistakes in the USA each year
Approx. 88,000 people die from alcohol in the USA each year
Approx. 80,000 people die from diabetes in the USA each year
Over 70,000 people die from drug overdose in the USA each year
Just under 40,000 people died from guns in 2018
37,133 died from car accidents in 2017 in the USA
2,458 deaths identified between 1999-2010 from allergic reactions (half of them being drug allergies)

That's right folks in the USA you are more likely to die from heart disease, cancer, smoking/tobacco, medical mistakes, alcohol, diabetes and drug overdose then gun violence....Perhaps we should focus our attention on those top seven killers! Almost as many deaths from car accidents and gun violence, perhaps we should ban cars/driving as well. Oh wait, some EU cities are talking about doing that.

Ref:
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/diabetes.htm
https://www.drugabuse.gov/related-to...se-death-rates
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/12/18/us/gun-deaths.html
https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-...medical-errors
http://einstein.yu.edu/news/releases...-main-culprit/
https://www.niaaa.nih.gov/alcohol-he...and-statistics
https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_sta...acts/index.htm
https://www.cancer.gov/about-cancer/...ing/statistics

This is interesting, not sure how accurate but interesting none the less.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...ita_by_country

So the USA has almost 400 million guns, not counting military weapons, and yet less than 40,000 people die per year from gun violence. That means that 99.999% of guns are lawful and not killing people and 0.0001% are. Yup, I can see why people are so anti gun, that .0001% is frightening.