• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Training as Gun Control act

Chillfolks said:
A semi auto has more of a chance to jam, if it gets caught in a shirt you may not get a second shot off...
Click to expand...

Why would a semi-auto have more chance getting caught in your shirt.
There are striker fired semi autos with no hammer.


...if you are unfamiliar with clearing a jamed round that can make it less effective, they have more moving parts meaning more can go wrong...
Click to expand...


I read the US police forces no longer issue revolvers, why is that ?



...limpwristing is a common problem especially with a thinner sub compact that hasn't been properly trained with with a hammerless revolver prevents all of this.
Click to expand...

The grip is the same size, just that semi-autos don't have a fat cylinder full of bullets


The reason most police forces don't issue revolvers is a capacity issue. A semi auto gives you 3x the amount of rounds.
Click to expand...


Despite jamming issues ?

Besides a compact semi-auto has a lower capacity, often not much more than a revolver.
 
Rich2018 said:
Why would a semi-auto have more chance getting caught in your shirt.
There are striker fired semi autos with no hammer.
Click to expand...
It sometimes interferes with the slide operations


I read the US police forces no longer issue revolvers, why is that ?
Click to expand...
Capacity issue would be my first guess then I would say the stopping power of the ammo at the time, but there have been a lot of innovations in that area over the last 30 or so years.

The grip is the same size, just that semi-autos don't have a fat cylinder full of bullets
Click to expand...
Limpwristing is when youre not holding onto a semi firmly enough for the slide to cycle correctly. No slide means no limpwristing issue.


Despite jamming issues ?
Click to expand...
Police are trained to deal with and limit those issues, a new gun owner and carrier may not be. That's why I recommend a revolver to begin with. Once you've got some experience choose whatever is best for you.
Besides a compact semi-auto has a lower capacity, often not much more than a revolver.
Click to expand...
That is more a subcompact single stack, I don't like going that small because they don't fit my hands well. Smaller is not always better it's a personal preference. I have smaller compact Walther that holds 10 to 12 depending on magazine. That's still double a typical revolver.
They way one carries also will influence their choice.
 
Chillfolks said:
It sometimes interferes with the slide operations
Click to expand...

I suppose so but then again the cylinder on a revolver could do that as they're no flush with the grip.


Capacity issue would be my first guess then I would say the stopping power of the ammo at the time, but there have been a lot of innovations in that area over the last 30 or so years.
Click to expand...

I would guess that too, plus semi-autos today aren't as jam-prone as M1911's back in the day


Limpwristing is when youre not holding onto a semi firmly enough for the slide to cycle correctly. No slide means no limpwristing issue.
Click to expand...

Oh you mean to gun isn't cocked correctly

Some instructors (maybe all) suggesting carrying a cocked weapon. This guy says that thinking that women not being able to operate the slide is flawed thinking:


YouTube


Police are trained to deal with and limit those issues, a new gun owner and carrier may not be. That's why I recommend a revolver to begin with. Once you've got some experience choose whatever is best for you.
Click to expand...

Can't argue against police training.


That is more a subcompact single stack, I don't like going that small because they don't fit my hands well. Smaller is not always better it's a personal preference. I have smaller compact Walther that holds 10 to 12 depending on magazine. That's still double a typical revolver.
The way one carries also will influence their choice.
Click to expand...


Also wouldn't a revolver weigh more with its cylinder ?
 
Rich2018 said:
I suppose so but then again the cylinder on a revolver could do that as they're no flush with the grip.
Click to expand...
A lot less lickley. If you get a chance check out a few YouTube videos with people shooting with guns wrapped in towles.

I would guess that too, plus semi-autos today aren't as jam-prone as M1911's back in the day




Oh you mean to gun isn't cocked correctly
Click to expand...
More that it will not cycle correctly after the first shot.
Some instructors (maybe all) suggesting carrying a cocked weapon. This guy says that thinking that women not being able to operate the slide is flawed thinking:


YouTube




Can't argue against police training.





Also wouldn't a revolver weigh more with its cylinder ?
Click to expand...

Yes it would but agian sometimes smaller and lighter may not always be better. If you are a perspn sensative to recoil the revolver may be a better choice.
 
I've never heard an M1911 described as being "jam-prone".
 
My final thoughts on this.

US constitution combined with guns is causing glass-cannon syndrome. Some geeks may know what I mean by that, but I'm going to explain it anyway. How I see this situation is that constitution is maintaining some vulnerability as built-in right is unconditionally ensuring gun ownership for everyone. So there is lot of destructive power and same power is ultimately only mechanism how you control your environment. People trying to solve issues by shooting people, good guys with gun vs bad guys with gun.

Some people point out how violence is related to mental problems and that may be the case. Still glass-cannon syndrome is there as "hard-wired" factor where we meet well known limits. Interesting thing is how US is like only "island" with old fashioned ways and seems like they are seen as part of advanced society (with all other things). Right carry gun has to be great advantage as it's still so important inalienable feature in folks mindset - like it's something what's giving some shape to what US is about. Even when it's odd nuance for some people like me as I'm outsider and I can't always wrap my mind around your US ways.

I feel like I'm not intellectually capable to understand this fully and that's why I'm not reaching enough knowledge even when I try. So reason why I wrote this is that now you guys know how limited my thinking is and that's kind of end point for me - this glass-cannon syndrome - as I'm assuming it's somewhat part of current state of things. I'm not claiming "I'm right on this one". I'm not even sure if it's possible to debate about this in constructive way, so I'm not making mistake by caring about this. That's it for now, my superficial last words :)
 
Tlrmln said:
Training costs money that some people don't have, and you can't put a price tag on the exercise of a constitutional right.

Besides, why should people require training if they already know whatever they would learn from the training?
Click to expand...
If it's going to be mandatory, why not have be provided by the government for free?
 
RF667799 said:
I've never heard an M1911 described as being "jam-prone".
Click to expand...

That is because they aren't. Even under extreme conditions. The US Army at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, did a little test back in the late 1990s. They buried 12 different semi-automatic pistols in the snow and left them overnight in -60°F temperatures. The next morning only the M1911 was able to fire, the other 11, including the Beretta 92F used by the Army, were frozen solid and couldn't be budged manually.
 
Glitch said:
That is because they aren't. Even under extreme conditions. The US Army at Fort Wainwright, Alaska, did a little test back in the late 1990s. They buried 12 different semi-automatic pistols in the snow and left them overnight in -60°F temperatures. The next morning only the M1911 was able to fire, the other 11, including the Beretta 92F used by the Army, were frozen solid and couldn't be budged manually.
Click to expand...

I'm not surprised. I've inspected, disassembled, assembled, tested and repaired on occasion hundreds and hundreds of them. Literally over a thousand. I carried different examples daily for five years. I've owned several of my own. The only thing I would grant is that some of them can be finicky about feeding certain bullet types- but that can be remedied. "Jam-prone" as a general description is just stupid.
 
FinnFox said:
I'm just hoping training is way to influence in right way, giving some perspective and hands-on knowledge. Also when something bad is happening there is people around who can act and shoot when needed (to prevent more tragedy). For car you need some lessons and practice, so why not with guns too.
Click to expand...
Lursa said:
Again, no one has ever said people shouldnt have training. AFAIK, everyone supports that.

My question to you is...what would it do to prevent gun violence? The bar in the US is high...and it should remain so...to force things unnecessarily on its citizens. So...there needs to be a substantial, valid reason to impose something on people by law (esp. if there's no evidence it will solve the problem). So: what gun violence would training prevent?

And then the next question would be: compared to driving (your example)...how many gun deaths/injuries are caused by 'lack of training?' And then we can compare those to car accidents.
Click to expand...
I didnt see an answer to this. I think it would be significant to see how many gun deaths/injuries from lack of training can be compared to car accidents. There is a parallel there.
 
RF667799 said:
I'm not surprised. I've inspected, disassembled, assembled, tested and repaired on occasion hundreds and hundreds of them. Literally over a thousand. I carried different examples daily for five years. I've owned several of my own. The only thing I would grant is that some of them can be finicky about feeding certain bullet types- but that can be remedied. "Jam-prone" as a general description is just stupid.
Click to expand...

I had to qualify with the M1911 in the Marine Corps during the 1970s, but otherwise my experience with the firearm has been very limited. My preferred side-arm is the Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Mag. Because of its weight I tend to have closer groupings. I also own a Beretta 92F, but only use it for target practice. I've put approximately 5,000 rounds through both firearms and never had a problem with a jamming Beretta either.

In fact, the only firearm where I've had consistent problems with jamming are 12-gauge shotguns that use 3" shells. Using 2-3/4" shells and there are no jams, but as soon as you start using 3" shells the problem arises. I've experienced this issue with Remington, Winchester, Ithica, and to a lesser extent with Mossberg.
 
Glitch said:
I had to qualify with the M1911 in the Marine Corps during the 1970s, but otherwise my experience with the firearm has been very limited. My preferred side-arm is the Ruger Super Redhawk .44 Mag. Because of its weight I tend to have closer groupings. I also own a Beretta 92F, but only use it for target practice. I've put approximately 5,000 rounds through both firearms and never had a problem with a jamming Beretta either.

In fact, the only firearm where I've had consistent problems with jamming are 12-gauge shotguns that use 3" shells. Using 2-3/4" shells and there are no jams, but as soon as you start using 3" shells the problem arises. I've experienced this issue with Remington, Winchester, Ithica, and to a lesser extent with Mossberg.
Click to expand...

Autoloading shotguns? Are they usually failures to extract, eject or what?
 
Lursa said:
What gun violence does training prevent?

And I have never ever heard or read any gun/2A supporter claim that training was a bad idea. We always encourage it.
Click to expand...

I think training and practice are great ideas and strongly encourage both. However, it shouldn’t be used by the government as an obstacle to exercising a constitutional right.
 
RF667799 said:
Autoloading shotguns? Are they usually failures to extract, eject or what?
Click to expand...

The Ithica was semi-auto, but the Remington Model 570, the Winchester Model 1912, and the Mossberg Model 500 were all pump-action shotguns. They all get caught up in the ejection port after firing when attempting to cycle a round. Not every time, but often enough to become an annoyance and a concern. It was one of the reasons why I replaced my Mossberg Model 500 with an AR12 in 2018. The main reason why I replaced the firearm, however, was because it had been my "camp gun" for the last 28 years and was showing signs of wear. My AR12 is my new primary "camp gun" and I cannot afford to have it jam. I've tested out the AR12 and had no problems using the 3" shell. I still have it loaded with just 2-3/4" slugs just to be on the safe side, but so far I've fired a couple of hundred 3" slugs without it jamming.
 
Glitch said:
The Ithica was semi-auto, but the Remington Model 570, the Winchester Model 1912, and the Mossberg Model 500 were all pump-action shotguns. They all get caught up in the ejection port after firing when attempting to cycle a round. Not every time, but often enough to become an annoyance and a concern. It was one of the reasons why I replaced my Mossberg Model 500 with an AR12 in 2018. The main reason why I replaced the firearm, however, was because it had been my "camp gun" for the last 28 years and was showing signs of wear. My AR12 is my new primary "camp gun" and I cannot afford to have it jam. I've tested out the AR12 and had no problems using the 3" shell. I still have it loaded with just 2-3/4" slugs just to be on the safe side, but so far I've fired a couple of hundred 3" slugs without it jamming.
Click to expand...

modern semi auto shotguns are far better at going from 2-3/4 inch shells with 2.75 drams of powder (a normal quail or trap load) to 3" hot high brass goose loads or buckshot. The best on the market are the FnH SLP-1 and the Reminton Versa-Max. My son runs the latter in 3G competitions, and I the former. The benelli inertia action semi autos are legendary for being able to do that but they kick a bit more than the gas rigs like the SLP. The Mossberg Semi auto is really good for being half the money of the SLP or the Versamax-I have one of the 3G competition versions endorsed by Jerry Miculeck and I shot a really high Sporting clays score with it even though it got some funny looks from the guys I beat who were packing 7000 dollar K-80s and Beretta D-11s
 
TurtleDude said:
modern semi auto shotguns are far better at going from 2-3/4 inch shells with 2.75 drams of powder (a normal quail or trap load) to 3" hot high brass goose loads or buckshot. The best on the market are the FnH SLP-1 and the Reminton Versa-Max. My son runs the latter in 3G competitions, and I the former. The benelli inertia action semi autos are legendary for being able to do that but they kick a bit more than the gas rigs like the SLP. The Mossberg Semi auto is really good for being half the money of the SLP or the Versamax-I have one of the 3G competition versions endorsed by Jerry Miculeck and I shot a really high Sporting clays score with it even though it got some funny looks from the guys I beat who were packing 7000 dollar K-80s and Beretta D-11s
Click to expand...
Benelli is what my father used, and liked very much. Unfortunately, I don't remember the model. I use my Remington Model 570 on grouse and ptarmigan, so 2-3/4" shells using 6-shot is all I really need. I remember when I only needed 8-shot for quail, dove and other small birds, but those were the days of lead shot and they are long gone now. My Mossberg is now "retired" and I've had one full salmon season with the AR12. Already I prefer it over the Mossberg for its accuracy. However, it does have a slightly longer barrel at 20", that will make a difference.

I don't compete, but I do practice with clay pigeons. I rent a portable thrower from the range and will go threw a couple of boxes of clays in a session. Usually in July, just before grouse season begins in August. Unlike duck or geese, grouse tend to fly in short bursts very low to the ground. So you need to be quick and accurate. Which makes shooting clays the perfect practice.
 
Last edited:
Chillfolks said:
Yes it would but agian sometimes smaller and lighter may not always be better. If you are a perspn sensative to recoil the revolver may be a better choice.
Click to expand...

As a back up, you'd really want a lighter gun....probably with a smaller caliber.
 
RF667799 said:
I've never heard an M1911 described as being "jam-prone".
Click to expand...

There's a firearms instructor called James Yaeger who posts a lot on YouTube.
He had one video called "911's suck" and he was a huge fan of the Glock 9mm gun.

In it he said 911's are unreliable and he recalled a pistol class he was running where one guy had a 911. He asked the guy if it worked well to which the 911 owner said it did. To which Yaeger replied that a 911 that made it to the end of his class without a stoppage was as rare as a Glock that didn't.


He seems to have taken the video down now.
 
Rich2018 said:
There's a firearms instructor called James Yaeger who posts a lot on YouTube.
He had one video called "911's suck" and he was a huge fan of the Glock 9mm gun.

In it he said 911's are unreliable and he recalled a pistol class he was running where one guy had a 911. He asked the guy if it worked well to which the 911 owner said it did. To which Yaeger replied that a 911 that made it to the end of his class without a stoppage was as rare as a Glock that didn't.


He seems to have taken the video down now.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I've run into those guys too.
 
FinnFox said:
Is there any reason to despise training when it comes to guns?

I'm pretty sure that with extensive training program you can reduce some gun violence, but it's working only when training is mandatory (so you need training to own/use gun, it can be similar to driving licence).

So I'm interested in possible reasoning why training would be bad idea. There should be one as most of gun owners - if I'm right - are without proper training. So.. argument against training is alive as there isn't need to organize training for gun owners (and make it mandatory). I like to know that argument and then we can throw this whole idea about training to trashcan. As people are better off without training and things can keep going like they are just now.
Click to expand...

I think firearm safety and basic range competence should be a required high school course.
 
Hamish Howl said:
I think firearm safety and basic range competence should be a required high school course.
Click to expand...

We have indoor gun ranges built into our high schools specifically for that purpose in Alaska. Although, it is an elective course, not mandatory. Many already have firearm safety and proficiency with one or more firearms before they get to high school, so it would not be appropriate to make it a required course.
 
Glitch said:
We have indoor gun ranges built into our high schools specifically for that purpose in Alaska. Although, it is an elective course, not mandatory. Many already have firearm safety and proficiency with one or more firearms before they get to high school, so it would not be appropriate to make it a required course.
Click to expand...

My father's high school in Canada had a range in the basement for the sea cadets, but everyone was encouraged to take classes.

I think it should be a required course here in the states, simply because weapons are so much a part of culture and everyday life.
 
Hamish Howl said:
My father's high school in Canada had a range in the basement for the sea cadets, but everyone was encouraged to take classes.

I think it should be a required course here in the states, simply because weapons are so much a part of culture and everyday life.
Click to expand...

My father began my firearm education when I was 6 years old. After a hunt he would allow me to help him clean his firearm. By the time I was 8 years old my father allowed me to start hunting with him using one of his firearms. On my 10th birthday my father bought me a Winchester Model 1912 pump-action 12-guage shotgun. By the time I reached high school age I was already proficient with multiple firearms and well-versed in firearm safety.

In fact, when I was attending high school we brought our shotguns to school with us so that we could go hunting after classes. This was in Fremont, Nebraska, during the 1960s and hunting is was what everyone did.

Because the gun culture is very much part of American culture and everyday life I think you will find children in that environment are already educated about firearms and firearm safety. It is where firearms are not part of the everyday culture, like in most major cities, where firearm training is needed most. It is only in the major cities where you find hoplophobes and those who are completely ignorant about firearms.

Since nobody is required to own a firearm, you cannot make classes mandatory.
 
Glitch said:
My father began my firearm education when I was 6 years old. After a hunt he would allow me to help him clean his firearm. By the time I was 8 years old my father allowed me to start hunting with him using one of his firearms. On my 10th birthday my father bought me a Winchester Model 1912 pump-action 12-guage shotgun. By the time I reached high school age I was already proficient with multiple firearms and well-versed in firearm safety.

In fact, when I was attending high school we brought our shotguns to school with us so that we could go hunting after classes. This was in Fremont, Nebraska, during the 1960s and hunting is was what everyone did.

Because the gun culture is very much part of American culture and everyday life I think you will find children in that environment are already educated about firearms and firearm safety. It is where firearms are not part of the everyday culture, like in most major cities, where firearm training is needed most. It is only in the major cities where you find hoplophobes and those who are completely ignorant about firearms.

Since nobody is required to own a firearm, you cannot make classes mandatory.
Click to expand...

For me, I never touched a firearm until I was in the army. Then I learned all about cleaning them. Like nonstop. After a while, it became a fairly comfortable routine.

Thing about the infantry, it will suck all the mystery (and a good deal of the fun) out of firearms. They're just one more thing that needs taking care of.

Which is just another argument in favor of making it a mandatory class.

(Also, when I was a kid in the 80s, people still brought their rifles to school. That stopped right about junior year, when the insurance geeks realized it was happening.)

Edit to add: Not everyone owns a firearm, but everyone will at some point or another be around them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom