"Gun-toting advocates" make the headlines

[PavePusher]

62. Here's the issue:

It used to be quite common to carry a defensive long-gun in public. The origonal long-guns were very long indeed, and a pain in many places to carry. Eventually, in the form of various shotguns of shorter length, and lever-action carbines, easier to handle than a normal length rifle, more reliable and effective than the early multi-shot pistols.

However, as anyone with more than 60 seconds of rifle experience knows very well, any long-gun is far more of a pain in the ass to carry than almost any hand-gun. (My experience comes from occasional tours in combat zones. Carrying an M16 sucks. The alternative, however, sucks worse.) As hand-guns became more reliable, easier to use and more powerful, they gradually became more likely to be the preferred defensive-carry gun. Since almost no-one carries a rifle in public it anymore, outside of hunting or a few organised sporting events, the unfamiliarity makes those unfamiliar with the process uneasy.

Many "long-guns" are still very effective defensive weapons, and carrying them in public can make sense with a bit of thought. AR carbines, double-barrel shotguns and shorter lever-action carbines have excellent stopping power, are moderately easy to carry, the repeating arms can have excellent magazine capacity (though tube-mag lever-guns can be a pain to reload...). They can deal with threats beyond efficient/effective hand-gun range (rare, but not unknown).

In short, just because they make some people nervous, this is not areasonable reason to ban the practice, or even sneer at it.

the number of people who would carry this way in town is too low, and the number of people who would shoot up the town is too high.

I think you've made a claim with no statistical evideence to back it up. That's the other sides job.

Thanks for the interesting debate. My apologies if I came across as a bit snippy, was busy getting caught up at work from my vacation.