Guns

[abaduck 123]

The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to own guns, and bans on handgun ownership are unconstitutional. How do people feel about this? Discuss! I'd be particularly interested to hear the views of our LE colleagues.

(For the record, as someone who will shortly be celebrating the first anniversary of his becoming an American citizen, I have a strong attachment to the constitution, and I'm very pleased with the decision. I'm no gun nut, but the meaning of the 2nd amendment is as plain as the proverbial pikestaff and any other decision would have been a weasel-worded disgrace.)

Mike

Edited June 26, 2008 by abaduck

[Guest MVFD334]

This is a long overdue ruling. But I dont think this willl change anything due to the liberal judges on the state level. It sucks when NY state has a full concealment carry permit, but my county dosent recognize it. Our new county judge James Reitz has started taking restrictions off target and hunting permits through special hearings and follow up training. That is a major plus for Putnam County residents.

[Guest]

i have many guns, i love hunting and skeet shooting. i personally am not interested in handguns, i like long guns, but personal protection is every Americans right. people kill people. if someone wants to kill you, they will do so with or without a gun.

Charlton Heston must be proud!

[PC_420 28]

God Bless the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. I don't own any guns but I can read. And no matter what any liberal wants to say, we, the people have the right to bear arms.

[GAW6 66]

As the daughter of a police officer I grew up with guns in the house - no big deal. You wouldn't believe the amount of people who have said to me "oh my God, what was it like growing up with guns in the house"! The thought never crossed my mind to touch my father's guns. It's all about education and discipline. Like said previously, if someone wants to kill someone they're going to find a way no matter what!

When I was a kid we used to play Cowboys and Indians and Cops and Robbers with toy guns all the time - and we didn't grow up murdering people! Nowadays God forbid a kid plays with a toy gun! We also watched "violent" cartoons like Road Runner - again, no one I know killed anybody!!!

[Guest EFFP411]

It seems that the liberal lawmakers forget one important thing when it comes to guns, the people killing, and breaking the law are not the ones with permits!!!! Even if you put more restrictions, and crap for good hearted americans to deal with, the gang bangers and criminals will still have guns whenever and wherever the d@*^ed well please, and nobody can tell me otherwise. I like the fact that if someone knocks on my door with ill intentions, they are in for a big surprise if they decide to head down that road with me.....

[antiquefirelt 994]

It has always amazed me that people have thought many forms of gun control would stop gun violence. Why would a criminal who intends on committing a felony care whether or not he/she is carrying a legal firearm? The though that taking all firearms off the market and out of civilian hands would take away their availability begs for these people to look at how the "war on drugs" is working for us. No shortage of crack, heroin, pot or coke in my area. In fact it's easier to get anyone of these than a firearm.

Firearms are inanimate objects, they have no life, no feelings, are not biased, prejudiced nor do they act on their own. To limit firearms ownership based on their potential in the wrong hands is wrong. Given the logic that some guns are too dangerous for common civilians, most vehicles would be as well. Why should we allow cars that go over the maximum speed limit? Why not require cars measure ETOH to be started? The technology is there, the need is there as well.

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

I believe that everyone should have the right to carry gun. With that being said, I think that if you don't carry a badge you shouldn't carry a gun in full concealment. I don't want to have to say License, Registration, Ins card and GUN PERMIT on every stop. Just my opinion.

I believe that GUN AWARENESS is PARAMOUNT. My son is going to be 3 in Aug and he knows already not to go near it and not to touch it if on the off chance I EVER leave it out. Which I don't. When he gets old enough he is going to know how to shoot as well.

Guns don't kill people, People with guns kill people.

[ex-commish 490]

The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to own guns, and bans on handgun ownership are unconstitutional. How do people feel about this? Discuss! I'd be particularly interested to hear the views of our LE colleagues.

(For the record, as someone who will shortly be celebrating the first anniversary of his becoming an American citizen, I have a strong attachement to the constitution, and I'm very pleased with the decision. I'm no gun nut, but the meaning of the 2nd amendment is as plain as the proverbial pikestaff and any other decision would have been a weasel-worded disgrace.)

Mike

First, congrats on becoming a citizen. I too have a stong attachment to the constitution. The 2nd amendment has been picked apart so many times from the liberals it is disgusting. I am happy of the court's ruling. People do have the right to protect themselves. Not to be repetitive but people kill, not guns. It takes someone to pull the trigger. I have the privelege of carrying off duty and thank God I never have had to use my gun and pray I never have to. It will be interesting to see what the liberals response to this will be.

[antiquefirelt 994]

I believe that everyone should have the right to carry gun. With that being said, I think that if you don't carry a badge you shouldn't carry a gun in full concealment. I don't want to have to say License, Registration, Ins card and GUN PERMIT on every stop. Just my opinion.

I believe that GUN AWARENESS is PARAMOUNT. My son is going to be 3 in Aug and he knows already not to go near it and not to touch it if on the off chance I EVER leave it out. Which I don't. When he gets old enough he is going to know how to shoot as well.

Guns don't kill people, People with guns kill people.

I used to have a concealed permit but let it lapse. I really rarely carried other that during hunting season, and that was really just out of convenience. I would still like the right o carry in full concealment to be available to me as a law abiding citizen that takes firearm ownership seriously. I think part of the permit allowance should require that you keep readily accessible and that you advise any officer that you're carrying right up front. Sure this might be some cause for alarm to some, but in my eyes the "known" is better than the unknown.

[lad12derff 283]

I believe that everyone should have the right to carry gun. With that being said, I think that if you don't carry a badge you shouldn't carry a gun in full concealment.

I am a little confused here. Are you saying that if you have a full carry permit you should wear it unconcealed. I believe the law is concealed for the fact we don't want to look like the wild west. I have a full carry unrestricted permit and have been pulled over by the police while carrying and have always told the officer with permit in hand that I am carrying a gun and awaited his orders. I have never had a problem with them. I don't think I want to carry my sidearm to the bank for everyone to see. Just my 2 cents.

[ONEEYEDMIC 68]

I am a little confused here. Are you saying that if you have a full carry permit you should wear it unconcealed. I believe the law is concealed for the fact we don't want to look like the wild west. I have a full carry unrestricted permit and have been pulled over by the police while carrying and have always told the officer with permit in hand that I am carrying a gun and awaited his orders. I have never had a problem with them. I don't think I want to carry my sidearm to the bank for everyone to see. Just my 2 cents.

It is good that you told the officer and I would hope that I would be told as well. I guess what I was trying to get at is at least I would know who is carrying if the firearm was unconcealed. Like the WILD WEST. Doesn't Texas have a law like that? I bet that muggings, rapes, etc.. would be down if the PERP saw a gun on someones hip. The other problem I see is if I show up and there is a fight in progress and somebody pulls out a gun. I would first Assume it was a COP. But we all know how that backfired in WP. I don't need another thing to worry about. But I guess people carry guns now. Hey it's your right, just don't want to be placed in a tough situation.

[helicopper 1,050]

Actual decision of the court: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getc...07-290#opinion1

[gamewell45 258]

The Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have a right to own guns, and bans on handgun ownership are unconstitutional. How do people feel about this? Discuss! I'd be particularly interested to hear the views of our LE colleagues.

(For the record, as someone who will shortly be celebrating the first anniversary of his becoming an American citizen, I have a strong attachment to the constitution, and I'm very pleased with the decision. I'm no gun nut, but the meaning of the 2nd amendment is as plain as the proverbial pikestaff and any other decision would have been a weasel-worded disgrace.)

Mike

I don't have a problem with an individual packing a weapon as long as the person has the proper training to use it. Too many times i've seen surveilance tapes where a robber will waltz into a store and pull out a pistol or revolver; the owner pulls out his licensed weapon and starts firing away towards the robber irreguardless of who's in the store or in the line of fire. I've even seen some blindly firing out the doors of the store as the robber flees in a panic even though innocent civilians might be walking in front of the store or driving by in a car or bus. This is why law enforcement personnel receive proper training in the use of firearms before being allowed to carry, so they don't walk around making innocent civilans look like swiss cheese.

Proper training also includes securing it in a safe place when your not carrying it including trigger locks. As long as its used responsibly and if the person has the proper training, then i have no problem with it.

[Guest feraldan]

Doesn't Texas have a law like that?

Anyone meeting the Brady restrictions can walk into a gun shop and walk out with a handgun. They can carry them freely in public in plain display. If you want to carry it concealed, you must apply for another permit but it is "shall issue", they can't really deny you without good reason and given the pro-gun atmosphere, they're not going to deny you unless you're a blatant criminal or mental defect.

[TXCHIEF 9]

Anyone meeting the Brady restrictions can walk into a gun shop and walk out with a handgun. They can carry them freely in public in plain display. If you want to carry it concealed, you must apply for another permit but it is "shall issue", they can't really deny you without good reason and given the pro-gun atmosphere, they're not going to deny you unless you're a blatant criminal or mental defect.

In the state of Texas you cannot carry a handgun freely in plain display. For concealed, there are certain requirements including attendance and certification in a class by a DPS certified instructor. A number of factors may make you ineligble for a concealed handgun license, felony conviction, most misdomeanor convictions that are less than 5 yrs old, pending criminal charges, chemical or alcohol dependency, certain psychiatric diagnosis, protective or restraining orders, or defaults on taxes or governmental fees , student loans or child support. States of AZ and WY you can carry in public display and I think there are also a few more.

[SgtGumby311 0]

It's time for this country to stop being afraid of people who legally carry firearms. The anti-gun lobby scares the public into believing that guns, and the people who carry them, are bad. NYS has some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the nation and in my opinion, if you're found to be qualified to obtain a license, you should be able to carry unrestricted. Instead of trying to enact laws whenever there is a highly publicized case involving a firearm, enforce the laws that are already on the books. The comparison is always made between guns and cars. You need a license for both, there can be accidents with both, and neither can be considered dangerous, unless someone is operating them. The one difference between the two is that one is a right, the other is a priveledge.

[ny10570 745]

I'm in an odd minority in that while I am in favor of citizens rights to gun ownership, I also believe the second amendment does not protect the rights of citizens to bear arms in todays society. This should have been recognized and legislation to address this problem should have been enacted. The supreme court in an effort to avoid the hassle that legislating gun rights would have presented chose to go with the spirit of the written word rather than the written word. Thats fine for religious interpretation but dilutes the power that our constitution holds. The authors of the constitution and our bill of rights went through great lengths to convey a specific message and even acknowledged the realities of change in an evolving society and included a process for modification. The 2nd amendment is written to ensure the protection of a struggling nation from outside forces and from one person or group of people from usurping the power and rights of the people. The need for a well regulated militia is no more and so with it goes the 2nd amendment.

[helicopper 1,050]

I'm in an odd minority in that while I am in favor of citizens rights to gun ownership, I also believe the second amendment does not protect the rights of citizens to bear arms in todays society. This should have been recognized and legislation to address this problem should have been enacted. The supreme court in an effort to avoid the hassle that legislating gun rights would have presented chose to go with the spirit of the written word rather than the written word. Thats fine for religious interpretation but dilutes the power that our constitution holds. The authors of the constitution and our bill of rights went through great lengths to convey a specific message and even acknowledged the realities of change in an evolving society and included a process for modification. The 2nd amendment is written to ensure the protection of a struggling nation from outside forces and from one person or group of people from usurping the power and rights of the people. The need for a well regulated militia is no more and so with it goes the 2nd amendment.

Excellent post! Agree or disagree, I like the way you presented your position!!!

[jayhalsey 6]

I'm in an odd minority in that while I am in favor of citizens rights to gun ownership, I also believe the second amendment does not protect the rights of citizens to bear arms in todays society. This should have been recognized and legislation to address this problem should have been enacted. The supreme court in an effort to avoid the hassle that legislating gun rights would have presented chose to go with the spirit of the written word rather than the written word. Thats fine for religious interpretation but dilutes the power that our constitution holds. The authors of the constitution and our bill of rights went through great lengths to convey a specific message and even acknowledged the realities of change in an evolving society and included a process for modification. The 2nd amendment is written to ensure the protection of a struggling nation from outside forces and from one person or group of people from usurping the power and rights of the people. The need for a well regulated militia is no more and so with it goes the 2nd amendment.

As with any document, things are always open to interpretation. The ammendment specifically says "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Seems pretty clear to me. I realize that directly preceding that is a line about militias, but I think the weight of the statement is in the second line. Just differing interpretations of the same document. Just like we see on the supreme court.

[TXCHIEF 9]

I'm in an odd minority in that while I am in favor of citizens rights to gun ownership, I also believe the second amendment does not protect the rights of citizens to bear arms in todays society. This should have been recognized and legislation to address this problem should have been enacted. The supreme court in an effort to avoid the hassle that legislating gun rights would have presented chose to go with the spirit of the written word rather than the written word. Thats fine for religious interpretation but dilutes the power that our constitution holds. The authors of the constitution and our bill of rights went through great lengths to convey a specific message and even acknowledged the realities of change in an evolving society and included a process for modification. The 2nd amendment is written to ensure the protection of a struggling nation from outside forces and from one person or group of people from usurping the power and rights of the people. The need for a well regulated militia is no more and so with it goes the 2nd amendment.

good arguement, although I have to disagree with you that in both the majority and dissenting opinions in this particular case they not only looked at the spirit but also the meanings of the written words in the 2nd Amendment and the phrasing,as well as numerous other historical, legal and legislative interpretations. I have to disagree with your statement that the decision by the court was a effort to avoid a hassle about legislating gun rights, thats not the courts role. Also when you state that a well regulated militia is no more, than I might suggest you take a look at Title 10 of the US Code , as the Organized and Unorganized Militia of the United States is clearly defined...

[AFS1970 504]

Anytime we start talking about changing the constitution to meet "Today's Society" we are treading dangerous waters. If we applied the same limitations to other constitutional amendments that often gets applied to the Second, would we be as happy?

Perhaps freedom of the press should only apply to the printed word (as we had in when our country was started) and all Radio, Television and Internet news outlets should have to submit potential stories to strict government regulators who will filter out the ideas that might hurt people.

Maybe freedom of religion should only apply to those churches that had a presence in this country when it was founded. All other religious organizations will be required to get a permit to preach, and all members will have to register their affiliation with the government.

Those are just two examples and they sound so ridiculous that I would bet you can't find anyone who would agree with them.

Of course the actual case that the Supreme Court decided on was on the ban on personal firearm ownership in Washington, DC. This ban was enacted in an effort to decrease violent crime, and make the city safer. Since the ban went into effect, DC has become one of the most violent cities in our country and usually tops the nation in number of murders. So I guess we can see how well that ban did for the citizens there. I also found it interesting that the original suit was filed by an armed security officer, who the city had already said was authorized to use a gun to protect other people, but could not keep it in his own home for the purpose of defending himself. Where is the sense in that?

[ny10570 745]

good arguement, although I have to disagree with you that in both the majority and dissenting opinions in this particular case they not only looked at the spirit but also the meanings of the written words in the 2nd Amendment and the phrasing,as well as numerous other historical, legal and legislative interpretations. I have to disagree with your statement that the decision by the court was a effort to avoid a hassle about legislating gun rights, thats not the courts role. Also when you state that a well regulated militia is no more, than I might suggest you take a look at Title 10 of the US Code , as the Organized and Unorganized Militia of the United States is clearly defined...

The majority and minority decisions we're both focused on gun legislation. This decision wasn't about the 2nd amendment. The majority wanted to ensure gun rights while the minority is afraid that this decision could roll back any advances in gun control over the last 2o years.

There are many laws that are still on the books everywhere that are pointless and some down right silly but they're still there. The idea of the president getting on TV one day and calling on the citizens of this country to take up arms and form up militias is absurd. There are many differences between Americans now and then that push this idea even further towards impossible. First and foremost then the average citizen carried a weapon of near military capability if not the same rifle the military used and they knew how to use them. Today we're talking about handguns. Not exactly the best primary weapon for combat.

Anytime we start talking about changing the constitution to meet "Today's Society" we are treading dangerous waters. If we applied the same limitations to other constitutional amendments that often gets applied to the Second, would we be as happy?

Perhaps freedom of the press should only apply to the printed word (as we had in when our country was started) and all Radio, Television and Internet news outlets should have to submit potential stories to strict government regulators who will filter out the ideas that might hurt people.

Maybe freedom of religion should only apply to those churches that had a presence in this country when it was founded. All other religious organizations will be required to get a permit to preach, and all members will have to register their affiliation with the government.

Those are just two examples and they sound so ridiculous that I would bet you can't find anyone who would agree with them.

Of course the actual case that the Supreme Court decided on was on the ban on personal firearm ownership in Washington, DC. This ban was enacted in an effort to decrease violent crime, and make the city safer. Since the ban went into effect, DC has become one of the most violent cities in our country and usually tops the nation in number of murders. So I guess we can see how well that ban did for the citizens there. I also found it interesting that the original suit was filed by an armed security officer, who the city had already said was authorized to use a gun to protect other people, but could not keep it in his own home for the purpose of defending himself. Where is the sense in that?

In the examples you cited there is clear delineation of intent to protect certain freedoms. As with the second amendment it is clear that the founding fathers wanted to protect the ability of the citizens to take up their own defense if necessary. I guess the whole point of my argument is that we no longer have the need for a "well regulated militia" and with it the right to bear arms for that purpose.

[CFD320 35]

I have a Carry permit and have carried a sidearm on only a handful of occasions while not hunting. There are weapons strategically placed in my home and my wife has been instructed on their operation and use.

I am of the opinion that if more individuals carried weapons on a regular basis that criminals would think twice because they may end up out manned and out gunned.

There a two sayings that ring very true with my feelings on the subject:

"guns don't kill people people kill people"

"From my cold dead hands"

Also, our gun laws that highly regulate handgun ownership and sales and almost ignore long-guns completely is a joke. Even a decent marksman with good optics can be deadly at 300-500yards (record confirmed sniper kill is almost 1.5 miles with a TAC-50), most people who rarely if ever fire a handgun cant hit a human silhouette at 30 feet!!!!

[AFS1970 504]

The main reason for personal gun ownership is to prevent the government from becoming a dictatorship. The militias were originaly envisioned in the very same way they were utilized in 1776, to fight against oppression. The very fact that it is unlikely for the citizens to be called up into militia service is a testament to how well our nation of laws works, in that despite any complaints we may have from time to time, it does not need to be over thrown every few years. The ironic thing is that part of that well working government is the very ammendment that allows it to be replaced.

Also there are still active militias in I believe every state. I know in CT the regulated state militia is the national guard and the air guard, as well as the Governors horse and foot guards. The unregulated militia is all able bodied men up to I think it is age 65 (it has been a while since I read that specific law). The state law allows for the governor to institute a state draft and for the unregulated militia into regular companies should our state troop levels fall below a given level. Interestingly enough this could happen because of out of state deployment of various guard units, although it is unlikely that so many troops would come from a single state for any given mission.

[PC_420 28]

I'm in an odd minority in that while I am in favor of citizens rights to gun ownership, I also believe the second amendment does not protect the rights of citizens to bear arms in todays society. This should have been recognized and legislation to address this problem should have been enacted. The supreme court in an effort to avoid the hassle that legislating gun rights would have presented chose to go with the spirit of the written word rather than the written word. Thats fine for religious interpretation but dilutes the power that our constitution holds. The authors of the constitution and our bill of rights went through great lengths to convey a specific message and even acknowledged the realities of change in an evolving society and included a process for modification. The 2nd amendment is written to ensure the protection of a struggling nation from outside forces and from one person or group of people from usurping the power and rights of the people. The need for a well regulated militia is no more and so with it goes the 2nd amendment.

The purpose of the United States Supreme Court is not to create law or change the constitution but to rather interpret the law as it was meant to be read as. The Second Amendment was written and ratified by the States in the 1780's. It is a member of the Bill of Rights, which I would believe should convey a little more respect then saying it should go out with the times. Next, you may be saying freedom of speech or the right to trial by jury should go out the window because it was written so long ago. Such, rights were written because they were felt necessary to the function of a secure and prosperous democracy. In my opinion the Second Amendment is a still highly viable law because of nothing than two reasons. This nation can still be invaded and we must stand as the unorganized militia against any attack.

But more importantly, and all the law enforcement officers on here please do not jump to conclusions with my next statement.

The people should not be afraid of the police, the police should be afraid of the people. This is a common statement in political theory of how democracies can survive. It is a known fact that those with power will abuse that power. And it is much harder for a government to impose undemocratic laws, and abuse their positions when the people they attempt to oppress are armed with the ability to defend their liberties.

[Guest feraldan]

In the state of Texas you cannot carry a handgun freely in plain display. For concealed, there are certain requirements including attendance and certification in a class by a DPS certified instructor. A number of factors may make you ineligble for a concealed handgun license, felony conviction, most misdomeanor convictions that are less than 5 yrs old, pending criminal charges, chemical or alcohol dependency, certain psychiatric diagnosis, protective or restraining orders, or defaults on taxes or governmental fees , student loans or child support. States of AZ and WY you can carry in public display and I think there are also a few more.

I stand corrected. When I lived in TX, I clearly remember walking into restaurants and stores and seeing guys with firearms in clear display. Is there an open carry permit then?

[Guest paramedico987]

Anytime we start talking about changing the constitution to meet "Today's Society" we are treading dangerous waters. If we applied the same limitations to other constitutional amendments that often gets applied to the Second, would we be as happy?

Perhaps freedom of the press should only apply to the printed word (as we had in when our country was started) and all Radio, Television and Internet news outlets should have to submit potential stories to strict government regulators who will filter out the ideas that might hurt people.

Maybe freedom of religion should only apply to those churches that had a presence in this country when it was founded. All other religious organizations will be required to get a permit to preach, and all members will have to register their affiliation with the government.

Those are just two examples and they sound so ridiculous that I would bet you can't find anyone who would agree with them.

Of course the actual case that the Supreme Court decided on was on the ban on personal firearm ownership in Washington, DC. This ban was enacted in an effort to decrease violent crime, and make the city safer. Since the ban went into effect, DC has become one of the most violent cities in our country and usually tops the nation in number of murders. So I guess we can see how well that ban did for the citizens there. I also found it interesting that the original suit was filed by an armed security officer, who the city had already said was authorized to use a gun to protect other people, but could not keep it in his own home for the purpose of defending himself. Where is the sense in that?

OUTSTANDING!

I respectfully disagree 10570. I think these hypothetical scenarios are EXACTLY the same as the grossly unconstitutional gun laws perpetrated throughout the several States. I find it particularly interesting that you make mention of a reversal of firearm legislation over the last 20 years as a bad thing. I personally would like to see firearm legislation taken down to something more like registering a car. And if one wan't to carry/use a gun they need to pass a licensing exam too. Besides, it would be wholly unwise to go around shooting people on a whim, given that so many guns [and all new one's] have ballistics reports on file with the authorities.

It boggles the mind that we've gotten to a point where Westchester County is only willing to issue restricted permits to LEOs. Let's not forget that a firearms ban was a key point in the rise of the Nazi Party under Hitler.

People are all too afraid of guns because they can kill people, but so can a car and we still let people unfit to operate a garden hose drive around all day in a 3 ton missile.

Finally, I'll use your own argument against you... the constitution DOES change somewhat over time, now as a member of the militia [by legal definition I am] I require modern tools to defend myself, my family, and my countrymen from some thug instead of King George or the French [although that seems funny now]. Both are self-serving murderers, just one had a bit more couth. And my abilty to pass a rigorous firearms exam certainly demonstrates my ability to regulate myself well.

If they'd let me, I'd carry at work; perhaps then we wouldn't have to wait so long for triage at the ER.

REMEMBER... CRIMINALS PREFER UNARMED VICTIMS!

[ex-commish 490]

Also there are still active militias in I believe every state. I know in CT the regulated state militia is the national guard and the air guard, as well as the Governors horse and foot guards. The unregulated militia is all able bodied men up to I think it is age 65 (it has been a while since I read that specific law). The state law allows for the governor to institute a state draft and for the unregulated militia into regular companies should our state troop levels fall below a given level. Interestingly enough this could happen because of out of state deployment of various guard units, although it is unlikely that so many troops would come from a single state for any given mission.

NY has a militia called the NY Guard. They are a force under the NY Division of Military and Naval Affairs. They mission is to back up the National Guard as well as to assist SEMO in times of emergencies.

[helicopper 1,050]

Also, our gun laws that highly regulate handgun ownership and sales and almost ignore long-guns completely is a joke. Even a decent marksman with good optics can be deadly at 300-500yards (record confirmed sniper kill is almost 1.5 miles with a TAC-50), most people who rarely if ever fire a handgun cant hit a human silhouette at 30 feet!!!!

Most gun laws focus on handguns because they are so easily concealed. Long guns, though there are some exceptions, are not readily concealed making them less of a safety issue.

As for marksmanship, that's another reason for handgun regulation (I'm not suggesting restriction, merely regulation)! To make sure that we don't get killed when someone a block away tries to shoot the person mugging them and misses!