I don't like guns.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

But the Supreme Court ruling seems pretty unambiguous.

I am very distressed by the reaction Chicago's city government is having to the ruling.

*Assuming* guns are as much a right as voting what Chicago is doing is disgraceful.

Placing high fees smells the same as a poll tax and it means the rich get guns but the poor are screwed over...again.

How can they limit the number of guns you own? Wouldn't this be the same as saying you can only vote for a certain number of candidates per election even if you didn't get to cast a vote for every office to be held?

Taking classes? I can't imagine people being forced to take a test to vote.

Imagine paying fees or having to take classes to be allowed to print a newspaper or political ad or being allowed to attend church/synagogue/mosque.



I repeat: I don't like guns. I don't like violence and guns and violence are inextricably linked in my mind.

But throwing barriers around people's rights seems a scary practice that no responsible citizen should condone. Maybe watching the other guy's ox get gored can be amusing but your ox will be on the butcher's block soon enough if you're not careful.

[benEzra]

1. Thank you.

If a city can make an end run around McDonald v. Chicago or D.C. v. Heller, they can make an end run around Roe v. Wade or Brown v. Board of Education.

And BTW, while I am a gun owner myself, I respect your opinion, and I do strive to make sure that the guns our family owns will not be misused.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

3. You know...

...I think I've come to a point in my life (at the decrepit old age of 21) where I just don't want to fight with people even though I may not agree with them.

I respect your opinion because I respect YOU as a person and I sense the same coming from you.

Maybe if more people were like you and me you wouldn't need a gun and I wouldn't need to see them as tools of violence. It's how we treat each other that decides what our lives are going to be like. All I can say is: I'm pleased to make your acquaintance.

[benEzra]

6. Thank you for that as well.

I'm pleased to meet you also.

It always reassures me that there is hope for this country when people with differing viewpoints can still disagree civilly and respectfully on those points and find common ground elsewhere.

[virginia mountainman]

21. You know ben..

It is so easy to get jaded in this fight. Posts like hers is so refreshing.

[57_TomCat]

2. I wish more people...

that disliked guns could see it from your point of view.

My mother, all of 78 years old, has a strong dislike of guns but has shot them well for many years, owned several and helped teach me to shoot at a young age. In her retirement without peer pressure she is happy with none in the house and wants none in the future. I can appreciate that.

[Travis Coates]

4. Your commitment to civil liberties

is in direct proportion to your willingness to support others rights to take action that you don't support

[Euromutt]

34. Indeed; or as someone else put it

Freedom is all about letting other people do things that you yourself find reprehensible or disgusting, or just don't see the attraction of, but which does not directly inflict material harm on you.

[virginia mountainman]

5. Thank you for your clarity..

You truly "get" how civil rights work!!

Here at DU, their are significant numbers of posters, who are willing to put all kinds of restrictions on guns, "just because their guns", without even thinking for a moment, if someone used those same arguments against "another civil right"

For example, some say the "Why do you need a gun? How would these same people agree with someone asking "Why do you NEED a computer? {To exercise your free speech right?}

These are the people so dangerously shortsighted, as to not understand the long term consequence of their stances and the legislation they support.

They full well endorse, using "needs" qualifiers on the 2nd Amendment, but would cry "Foul" when a repuke uses their same argument on the rest of the document..

[Nuclear Unicorn]

7. I'm trying to not be hostile anymore

To be honest: the constant anger was exhausting and it damn near cost me the man I love.

You see, he is a "repuke."

Whatever our political differences he has never tried to change me or tell me what to believe. I didn't extend the same courtesy to him. By opening my eyes and learning to respect him as a person even though I disagree with his politics something amazing happened...

...I stopped being angry all the time.

I'm happy with him and I'm happy with life in general.

I'm really trying to apply this to my entire life.

Like I said, I don't like guns because I don't like violence. But the reason I don't like violence is because I like people.

Just because you guys own guns and support gun rights doesn't mean you stop being people. If I can't respect you--disagreements and all--then I'm lying to myself about what I believe and why I believe it.

BTW - please don't call my BF a repuke, even indirectly...he really isn't so bad. He knows lots of good jokes.

[TPaine7]

9. Wow! You're 21? I'm really impressed, and I'm not easily impressed. n/t

[Nuclear Unicorn]

11. Girls mature faster than boys!

:P

[TPaine7]

18. LOL

Be that as it may, you're still impressive. I can think of some women around here who could be your mom (or perhaps grandmother), who could take lessons from you.

[Common Sense Party]

10. This deserves to be a stand-alone OP.

There's FAR too much of "the repukes are all evil" mentality around here. I"m surrounded by Republicans, I work with them, live with them, etc. And most of the ones I know are GREAT people. I'd take their company over some of the more enlightened "progressives" I've tangled with here on DU.

The only thing I'd take issue with is you saying that guns and violence are "inextricably linked." That implies you can't have one without the other. I'm not sure that's what you meant to say, since that's obviously false.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

13. Darn! I was doing so good until the end!

:D

I guess what I was trying to say that a culture awash in tools of violence would be predisposed to violence.

I suppose it would be silly to say if someone placed a gun in my pacifist little hands that--assuming I didn't first drop it on my toes--I would magically be transformed into a homicidal maniac. Obviously that would be ludicrous.

But our society seems to have a predisposition to violence from politics to entertainment.

I dunno, maybe taking away guns is easier than changing attitudes about violence.

But since taking guns away is not an option now I guess we need to work on being friends with each other so...

Hi!

[cowman]

28. I 100% agree with you

I work with a bunch of Tea Party people and they are the greatest bunch of guys and gals I have ever met. I would trust them with my life, matter of fact I do every time I'm on shift whether on a structure fire or an accident scene, these people have my back and all politics stop at the scene.

[Common Sense Party]

32. I know there are some nutcakes and jerks in their camp

But the same can be said for ANY subsection of society.

We're all Americans. We may have different ideas about how the country should be run, but we're not as far apart as either extreme would have us believe.

[Caliman73]

23. Anger is only good when it is applied to effect positive change.

This is something I tell my wife and others all the time. You seem to have learned that lesson early. I dislike all of this name calling as well. Whether or not I agree with a person or their point of view, I think that labeling and calling names does nothing to improve anything in this world.

I try not to label people "repuke" or "rethug..." or other names just as I try not to label people who are not in favor of private gun ownership with slurs like "grabber" or others.

I know quite a few Republicans who are wonderful people and some Democrats and progressives who I try to avoid. While U disagree with much of the political ideology, many people tend to join a party for many reasons. My dad was a Republican for many years because he believed that Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam needlessly and that Nixon ended the conflict. It was an emotional reaction to the horrors he saw there, but then he gradually realized that he had very little in common with most Republican philosophy. We tease him about it sometimes but just in fun. "Dad, remember when you were evil?" :rofl:

I also agree with your second statement. I understand passions, and that there are somethings or views that I simply cannot accept, but I find that the most ardent and most hostile people are typically those who are the most afraid.

[oneshooter]

27. I don't like violence either

But my chosen career path, security, seems to be somewhat violent. I spent 20+ years in Africa, the Middle East and South America supplying personal security to my clients. That is where I developed the creed that" I am not a violent person, I want to get it over as quickly as passable, and be the only one left standing" It has worked well for me.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[TPaine7]

8. Rec'd for honesty, clarity and civility. n/t

[rrneck]

12. Well said.

Thanks for a much needed dose of civility and common sense in a place where it is all too often absent.

[provis99]

14. violent ex-felons can vote. Does that mean they should have guns, too?

You sure like absurd strawman arguments.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

17. Actually, lots of states don't allow felons, violent or otherwise, to vote.

So I'm not sure where your argument or its caustic nature are supposed to be going.

[cowman]

29. Show me

where any one of us has ever advocated that, I'll wait.

[HockeyMom]

15. I don't like them either

However, what is wrong with a background check for example. Should those with a criminal record or mental instability history be able to own a gun? I seriously doubt the Founding Fatherz would have wanted an insame person to go around shooting up the town square. This is where the public SAFETY issue comes into play.

Yes, they have the right to own them, with restrictions in place, but it is also our right to have NOTHING whatsoever to do with them.

I have been target shooting with my husband decades ago. I got no "thrill" from that. I have no desire to hunt and kill some poor animal. Not my cup of tea.

Before anyone says that I have never been a victim of a crime, no I haven't because I have defended myself with my wits and whatever "weapons" were around me at the time 3 times while I lived in NYC. Been there, done that.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

16. OK, playing devil's advocate (and not just because I look brilliant in red)

I don't think I've ever heard anyone in the pro-gun contingent endorse guns for psychos.

I would imagine that since many states take away a convicted felon's right to own a gun...and even vote...such things would apply here as well. I assume such laws were upheld since "due process" was part of the--um--process. Persistent DUI cases also lose the right to own a car.

So I guess the precedents are there.

[one-eyed fat man]

30. You have hit the problem squarely.

In a free society we are surrounded by things that can be used for good or evil. We, unfortunately, also must share the planet with those who care little for laws, rules or society.

Like the persistent DUI, how are we to know the idiot can't keep himself from driving drunk until he does it more than once? Nobody wants to share the road with that clown but you don't solve the problem by taking the car keys away from sober people.

The laws as they stand now prohibiting felons and mental defectives from owning guns are prudent. Background checks work. There is a problem when an individual fails a check despite the fact they have committed a Federal felony, the Attorney General has assured us that law was never intended to be used to arrest the felons who try to buy a gun and the check catches them!

Murder goes back a long way. Adam and Eve is the first story in the Bible; Cain and Abel is the second. We go from Creation to murder, and just that quick. I suspect there will be criminals and murderers around long into the future. I have pretty much used up my allotted "three-score and ten" but I feel better about the freedoms my great grandchildren will have when I hear some like you see the need to protect all our civil rights and defend them so eloquently.

[gravity556]

37. Federal law

revokes a felon's 2nd ammendment rights-and while there is a department in .gov where they can petition for a restoral of rights, it's pretty much unfunded. I'm on the fence on it. Self defense is an inherent right-it's built into us by evolution. Poke a bear with a stick and you're going to end up a head shorter. Since we hairless apes lack claws and fangs, tools take their place.

Given that more and more laws are becoming felonies, (some states, a single pot seed in your car is a felony)I think that there needs to be a way to restore rights to someone who did something stupid but not violent. Violent felons can go fuck themselves. Sorry, their actions are malum in se-robbery, assault, rape, carjacking, hurling rocks from overpasses-and there should be serious and permanent reprecussions for those actions. You know that it's wrong to do those things, you knew what the penalty would be, and you failed to control yourself.

The thing is, criminals break the law. It's what they do. Tying my hands with ridiculous restrictions and hoops to jump through doesn't do anything but make it easier for Johnny Mugger-if it's against the law for me to carry a gun, Johnny knows that I'm not going to be able to do much about his demand for my wallet/car/an entertaining evening of random violence.

Fortunately, I don't live in a place like NYC/DC/Chicago.

Sorry-rambling a bit-must need more caffeine.

[Statistical]

41. That is exactly it. Due Process.

Supreme Court has ruled that rights can only be suppressed via Due Process.

For example Americans have right (un-enumerated) right of free movement (travel) however we confine criminals (sometimes for their entire life). How can this right and suppression be reconciled?

Due Process. Now what is lawful suppression and what is infringement well that is a fine line but there is a line.

A criminal doesn't lose RKBA until conviction. Upon conviction due process has been satisfied.

A gun ban deprives an entire city of their rights without due process. Theoretically it affects the law abiding and criminal alike however the reality is it only affects the law abiding.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

42. I'm not a big fan of guns

But I'm a big fan of due process.

[Statistical]

43. Good enough for me.

True sign of civil rights advocate is someone who supports rights even when it is difficult or contrary to their beliefs.

Not a big fan of some forms of speech, for example that Church that protests funerals of soldiers saying God killed them because of Gays in the US. Still I realize that the 1st amendment protects their right to speech & assembly.

I don't have to like how they use it to still believe any violation of 1st amendment is a reason for concern.

[virginia mountainman]

20. I, as a strong gun rights supporter....

However, what is wrong with a background check for example. Should those with a criminal record or mental instability history be able to own a gun? I seriously doubt the Founding Fatherz would have wanted an insame person to go around shooting up the town square. This is where the public SAFETY issue comes into play.

I, as a strong gun RIGHTS supporter...Agrees with you.... Background checks on purchases from a gun dealer, no VIOLENT felons, or folks with significant mental issues. A path to get the right back for folks who have become productive members of society and not re offended in many years.

Many on DU, throw lots of mud on us Democrats, that support the whole Bill of Rights,


...Here is a handy list of recent "attacks" in here on gun rights supporters and the 2nd Amendment in general., kept by DU Member "X-Digger"

"all gun owners must be required to join the militia, like the constitution says nt"
"all gun owners should be required to join the militia, as the constitution says nt"
"gun owners should be required to join the militia - "A well regulated militia being necessary..." nt"
"all gun owners must be required to join the militia, like the constitution says nt"
"are you in the militia as required by the second amendment? nt"
"you only have a right to a gun if you're in the militia per 2nd amendment nt"
"if you're in the militia you have the right to bear arms nt"


"fear of a black president nt"
"gun sales soar as first BLACK president is sworn in - gee wonder who's rushing the gun stores? nt"
" having a black president has way jackkked up gun sales. hmm wonder why? nt"
"fear of a black president + right wing media hysteria egging things on nt"
"racist gun wingnuts and fear of a black president - great for business eh gun shops? nt"
"gun whackos run amok using fear of a black president nt"
" fear of a black president run amok nt"
"fear of a black president by a group which is full of racists lol nt"
"lol sales are way up amongst the fear of a black president crowd...WAY up amongst racists nt"
"fear of a black president is doing wonders for the gun industry nt"
"did they tell you a BLACK man is now president n u should run out n buy guns? nt"
"fear of black president - go out and buy lots more guns nt"
"fear of a black president is swelling your ranks for the most part imo nt"
"driven by fear of a black president, gun sales have soared in the USA nt"


"the toddler was just excercising his 2nd amendment rights IF he was in the militia nt"
"nuclear weapons are "arms". every 6 year old should have some nt"
"should be legal for 5 yr olds to carry at day care centers, after all, the constitution"
"constitutution does not prohibit 5 yr olds from owning guns. free guns for all apt. kids nt"
"guns for everyone, serial killers, 5 years olds, nut cases - constitutional rights ya know nt"
"children have a right to own and shoot guns anytime they wish. no bidg deal really nt"
"students have a constitutional right to carry guns at school...there is no age listed in the"
"all kids should be allowed to carry to school - 2nd amendment does NOT probhibit this nt"
"kids at elementary school should be allowed to carry guns, 2nd amnd. doesnt say adults only nt"
"yes the 2nd amendment allows 6 year olds to take guns to school so lets allow that too nt"
"2nd amendment does not prohibit gun ownership by 8 year olds anywhere they go nt"

"crazies n nuts have a constitutional right to own and use guns too nt"
" legalize al weapons - convicted felons have a constitutional right to guns ya know nt"
"parolees, probationers, nuts, serial killers - everyone has the right to own guns . "
" the constitution does NOT bar serial killers from owning guns...or 4 year olds either nt"
"2nd amendment does NOT prohibit guns on airplanes or in the hands of criminals nt"
"2nd amendment does NOT prohibit felons or 5 year olds from owning guns nt"
"criminals have a constitutional right to carry guns on airplanes - not prevented by 2nd amendment nt"
"terrorists have a right to carry guns on planes, not prohibited by 2nd amendment. nt"
"terrorists have a 2nd amnd. right to carry guns on planes - not prohibited ya know nt"
"terroristsRKBA rights are denied when they cannot open carry on airliners nt"
"terrorists & serial killers have 2nd amendment rights too ya know. nt"
"prohibiting guns on airplanes and in schools = anti-RKBA bigotry right? nt"
"unlimited protection = terrorist RKBA rights to take guns on airplanes nt"
"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed for any reason at all ever lol nt"

"no righteous killing to get off on in this one? nt"
"let all those gangbangers shoot a bunch of kids - its their righteous killing rights nt"
"so will the resident gun lovers call this another "righteous killing"? stay tuned ..... nt"
"is this another "righteous killing" for the gun crowd to celebrate? nt"
" "another righteous shoot" ..... jesus loves u anyway nt"
"another "righteous killing" for sure - after all that's what guns are FOR nt"
"oh this one is not righteous enough for u lololol. nt"
"the righteous killings are wonderful if a gun is used crowd disagree with you nt"
"another righteous killing in gun land...oh wait, the kid didnt die....yet nt"

It is staggering just how many ignorent close minded people their are in here.

[MinneapolisMatt]

19. I agree with you 100%, Nuclear Unicorn.

Very well said.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

22. I'm watching the rec count bounce up and down

and it makes me laugh.

Personally, I'm at a loss to see how trying to be respectful of other people is unrec'able.

[Caliman73]

24. Recommended

Some people are so entrenched in their beliefs that they see any attempt at discussion, learning, or tolerance as a betrayal.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

25. I don't wish to be hash to those unreccing

They're entitled to their opinion.

But close-mindedness and an unwillingness to treat people with respect seems a betrayal of progressive virtues.

[X_Digger]

26. Here are some other court cases to look at..

Harper v Virginia Board of Elections
Cantwell v Connecticut
Talley v California

All those are examples of other 'fundamental' rights being 'licensed' / 'fee'd / 'registered', and all the laws at issue were struck down.

As you note, you don't have to like a particular right, but if you believe in the concept of our government, you have to take the bad with the good. (Just as the first amendment protects speech that I find objectionable; that is the 'cost' for it protecting speech that I like.)

[beevul]

31. Well said, NU.

Recced.

[spin]

33. An excellent open minded post. Thanks. K&R (n/t)

[jazzhound]

35. As so many have said........thank you for your

respectful post Nuclear Unicorn.

I don't like violence and guns and violence are inextricably linked in my mind.

Some people change their perception on this point when they discover that defensive gun uses outnumber offensive uses by roughly 3 or 4 to 1 -- and in those cases where firearms are used for defense they are actually fired less than 10% of the time.

Considering this fact, guns and self-preservation and the protection/preservation of my loved ones are inextricably linked in my mind.

[mvccd1000]

36. Imagine how different this forum could be...

... if all of us could emulate this enlightened attitude.

Great post!

[Nuclear Unicorn]

38. I don't know about me being "enlightened", I'll settle for amicable/respectful

And I've been treated pretty respectfully too.

I can sort of see some grousers moving in the background unrecc'ing. They're more than free to disagree but since this thread is about being respectful, understanding each other and not hiding behind false assumptions I wish they would--politely--step forward and discuss.

I'm not too intimidating?

Am I?

[TPaine7]

39. It's not you, trust me...

The problem is that "being respectful, understanding each other and not hiding behind false assumptions" is intimidating to some. Either that or extremely distasteful. They much prefer fear and loathing to comprehension. Hiding behind false assumptions is the only way they know to deal with this issue.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

40. I don't want to assign motives to them

or say they're cowardly or anything like that.

That would just be mean and uncalled for.

I know why I prefer to see things change. I'll confess: since the MacDonald decision I think I'm more interested in changing our culture than restricting law-abiding gun owners. But I'm still deeply sympathetic to gun control arguments.

But I don't want my opinion based on accusing people who are pro-gun of just being "nuts."

How is THAT supposed to help?

Likewise, calling people who are pro-gun control "fascist gun-grabbers" doesn't help.

In all my gun control supporting days never once have I ever sat there rubbing my hands together cackling that once I had locked up all the guns I could put my plans for world domination into effect.

Dude, I can't even get my roommate's cat to stop peeing on my couch! How am I supposed to dominate the world, the US or even my own apartment?

[TPaine7]

44. That's exactly how I pictured you!

never once have I ever sat there rubbing my hands together cackling that once I had locked up all the guns I could put my plans for world domination into effect.

That's exactly how I pictured you! You've changed my whole conception of you. :evilgrin:

Dude, I can't even get my roommate's cat to stop peeing on my couch! How am I supposed to dominate the world, the US or even my own apartment?

I once had a dog that wouldn't stay out of a forbidden area. I sprinkled cayenne pepper on the floor in the area, and she lost interest in going there. You might sprinkle some around the couch or in the are where the cat stands to pee. You can vacuum the powder up after the new behavior pattern is learned.

(Forgive me, I'm a guy. I have to try to come up with a solution.)

[Spoonman]

45. You are a pillar of THE DEMOCRAT PARTY!

It is insight such as this that needs to radiate throughout the party.

We are the party of RIGHTS, PERIOD.

Way to many that post here LOVE to cherry pick those rights, and wish to impose their version of the BOR upon a MAJORITY.

THANK YOU for giving me renewed faith!

[Callisto32]

46. Be careful!

This kind of thinking may lead you to libertarianism!

[KansasVoter]

47. Wow......totally off base........

so preventing threatening speech is throwing barriers around the 1st amendment? You don't get it do you? Ridiculous!!!

[SteveM]

49. Yep, because she's safe at home. Where did she imply:

"...preventing threatening speech is throwing barriers around the 1st amendment?"

She gets it.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

51. Threatening?

One person saying they will harm another is threatening.

Pointing a gun at someone without cause is threatening.

We have laws against threatening speech and we have laws against threatening people with guns. I support both types of laws.

But if people have rights then putting exorbitant fees around those rights takes away those rights, especially from the poor.

I support licensing, background checks etc and we already have those things with driver licenses.

You sound very angry. As I said I am, intrinsically anti-gun. I don't know if you resent the thought of losing an ally. You haven't, but your apparent anger does nothing to make me want to race to your side of the divide.

[SteveM]

48. Your remarks are the essence of tolerance. I appreciate that. nt

[aikoaiko]

50. Nuclear Unicorn -- you get it!

We should have an award for someone like you.

:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

[GreenStormCloud]

52. I appreciate you coming down to the gungeon.

You have said that you are anti-gun, yet you have shown respect for civil discussion and for civil rights, and tolerance of views different from yours. I wish all who post here could be as civil as you.

[jazzhound]

53. Hey NU......if I might make a humble suggestion ---

If you are interested in learning more on this subject, there is a strong book written by a celebrated Liberal/Dem criminologist (Gary Kleck) with Liberal/Libertarian (?) Don Kates which is an easy read. (shorter and less technically oriented than some)

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Dstripbooks&field-keywords=armed+new+perspectives+on+gun+control&x=13&y=19

Not trying to change your mind re. your dislike of guns, and the fact that you equate them with violence.......but as Virginia Mountainman has recently pointed out the media has only told one side of the firearm story --- and a rather distorted one at that!

I sincerely believe that the distaste that so many folks have for guns is directly tied to the dishonest presentation of this issue by the media. You seem like a person who is level-headed and seeks the truth.

[HockeyMom]

54. A rifle in your home won't protect you?

Why does it have to be a handgun?

[pipoman]

55. From a defensive standpoint

a rifle is a poor choice...especially in a small house. Rifles by their nature will penetrate walls and neighbors more easily than a handgun. Rifles reduce the distance between two people making it easier for an intruder to get a hold of the gun. Further, the threshold is, 'in common use for lawful purposes'...there is no arguing that handguns have in fact been in common use for lawful purposes for 300+ years. Now I ask you, why not handguns?

[Pavulon]

57. A rifle is unsafe to fire in most homes.

rifles fire a projectile with far more energy than a handgun. They penetrate wall board, appliances, and are not well suited for the job of home defense. Meaning if you fire in your bedroom it will punch a hole in the person and continue with lethal energy through interior walls. Now if you live way out on a farm and dont have others in the house to hit it would be fine.

A handgun can be operated with one hand to allow you to use a phone or flashlight with the other. That is one reason why most police officers do not carry long guns while responding to general calls.

In most applications a rifle is an offensive not defensive tool.

[Euromutt]

58. Long guns have a number of drawbacks in home defense situations

There are several reasons why writers like Massad Ayoob advise that, if you're going to own just one gun for home defense, it should be a handgun.

Long guns are very unwieldy in the confines of a building; they take longer to bring to bear, and are easier to seize and wrest from the person carrying them because, due to their length, they're always going to be sticking out in some direction.

It's also difficult to impossible to be discreet with a long gun. That is, if you're going to answer a knock on the door at eleven at night, it's possible to do so with a handgun kept out of sight behind your body, or the door; with a long gun, you're going to be holding a yard of gun that, if it turns out to be the neighbor needing a jump-start for his car, say, will freak him out needlessly.

Long guns have a higher tendency than handguns to overpenetrate building materials, thereby presenting additional risk to other residents of the neighborhood. One exception to this is .223 rounds with 55 grain bullet weight, which is part of why police are increasingly issuing AR-15 variants both to SWAT teams and as "patrol rifles," but of course, a "patrol rifle" in the hands of a private citizen magically becomes an "assault weapon."

You can use a telephone with one hand, while keeping a handgun usable in your other. Wielding a long gun one-handed is an iffy proposition indeed.

Handguns are easier to store securely than long guns. Quick-access lock boxes for handguns are readily available for under $200 even for the high-end models.

[pipoman]

56. 'I like the way you talk..'