There's all the usual suspects: attacking the messenger ("you liberals hate guns! And the Constitution!"), the slippery slope argument ("if they ban assault weapons, next they'll ban all guns!"), and on and on.
Most of them are pretty easy to combat, if you know what you're talking about. And let's be real: if you are required to accept "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" without any limitations, then the Second Amendment isn't restricted to guns, either. Nuclear weapons are "arms," and therefore all citizens should be allowed to own them.
Since even the most conservative member of the Supreme Court says that there can, in fact, be limitations on gun ownership, maybe it's time for somebody to put a muzzle on Wayne LaPierre and let the adults talk.
But on that subject -- knowing what you're talking about -- there is one little thing that bothers me. In blogs and on talk shows, I keep hearing people making obvious, blatant mistakes that occasionally get them in trouble. So let's put a little reality into our side of the argument. Here's some little facts relevant to the gun debate that you should probably know.
Guns aren't difficult to understand, nor are they difficult to use. Literally any idiot can learn to use one, and most of them can learn to use them very well. (Here's where I want to follow up with "...for example, look at the Marines," but my son is a Marine now, and I've promised to be good.) However, just like any other hobby enthusiast, there is a certain amount of specialized knowledge involved.
To put it another way, gun nuts are like LARPers or comic book geeks: they have specific terminology, and a knowledge of trivia that is unique to their hobby, and if you get any of it wrong, they'll scream like little bitches and try to say that you don't know anything about the subject.
Trust me: having carried one for 21 years, I'm reasonably familiar with the subject, and it isn't rocket science. So here's the least you need to know.
Always be sure that you're using the right terminology. We want an "assault weapons ban," not a ban on assault rifles.
There's are important reasons for this, and most of them have to do with the legal definitions of these two terms. See, an "assault weapon" is a generic term, and can be expanded or contracted to cover a multitude of sins.
An assault rifle, on the other hand, has a very specific definition (and yes, I'm using Wikipedia here - it's the most accessible source I found, and it is at least getting this part of the debate right):
An assault rifle is a selective fire (selective between automatic, semi-automatic, and burst fire) rifle that uses an intermediate cartridge and a detachable magazine....I could go on about the difference between the full-auto sear (a little metal piece on the inside of the M-16 that allows it to keep firing until you run out of ammo), and the burst-fire sear (which I thought was an awesome innovation when it came out), but all you really need to know is that replacing a sear isn't difficult.
Assault rifles are categorized in terms of using an intermediate cartridge power that is between light machine guns firing full power cartridges, which are intended more for sustained automatic fire in a light support role, and submachine guns, which fire a lower powered pistol cartridge rather than a rifle cartridge.
Fully automatic fire refers to an ability for a rifle to fire continuously until the magazine is empty and no rounds remain; "burst-capable" fire refers to an ability of a rifle to fire a small yet fixed multiple number of rounds with but one press of the trigger; in contrast, semi-automatic refers to an ability to fire one round per press of a trigger.
More than that, though, there are conversion kits that make it even easier. So don't let anybody try to tell you that it takes some kind of mystic metalwork to convert a civilian AR-15, which is an assault weapon, into a functional assault rifle. A couple of pliers, a small punch (I usually ended up using a small screwdriver) - there are specialized tools that make working on an M-16 easier (like a barrel wrench), but damned few of them are required.
There are other terms that drive the gun hobbyists crazy: the bullet is the metal bit that flies out of the gun. The whole thing, including the casing, the powder and everything, is a shell, a round, or a cartridge. Never call it a bullet.
For some reason, this makes them crazy (or "crazier, maybe).
Also, don't say "clip," say "magazine." This is another of those stupid pedantic things that make spittle fly across the room. A clip can feed ammo into a magazine - a magazine feeds ammo into a weapon. If you really care enough to read about it, go here - but otherwise, just avoid it.
They also can get really cranky about the word "gun" - it's a very generic term that covers everything from handguns to Howitzers. Just so you know.
(Overall, I find the whole thing funny - it's like listening to comic nerds screaming "You don't even know the relationship between the Golden Age and Silver Age Superman! Why should we listen to you about anything?" But I find a lot of things funny, even when nobody else does.)
__________
(If you want to get even farther into the argument, here's a piece I ran across in gathering links for this post. I tend to avoid DailyKos just out of habit, but the writer gets into a lot of the tactics and terminology that might come in handy for somebody.)
"So don't let anybody try to tell you that it takes some kind of mystic metalwork to convert a civilian AR-15, which is an assault weapon, into a functional assault rifle"
ReplyDeleteI have a CD going through the procedure for AK's and others and it doesn't seem all that easy to me, but 10 years and $250,000.00 -- that's what you get for doing it without a special license. All in all, that's been pretty effective and perhaps a tax works better than a ban -- a tactic that has a rather abysmal record of making more trouble than it cures, if I might be excused for grossly understating the obvious.
We really don't have a problem with a lot of automatic rifles or SMGs. We have a much bigger problem with handguns, albeit one that's improving significantly but although I hate to suggest it, it may be that with many things from pornography to prostitution to the demon rum, first comes the urge to ban and then comes the reasons for it. If we could somehow make the handguns go away, it would slash the murder rate and if we could make the background check system work, force police departments and health care people to do what they're legally obligated to do, it would have a salubrious effect, but forgive me for suspecting that we don't want the effect, we want an "assault rifle ban."
Perhaps I'm a little bitch for being annoyed at people who really don't know and absolutely won't be told that "weapons of War" that "spray high caliber, armor piercing bullets" aren't being sold at Wal-Mart for 50 cents to anyone who wants them, and I may be a stupid pedant, but I suspect that as with all orthodox believers, maintaining the belief is more important than solving a problem. Words do matter and in an effort to frame a problem in the most horrifying terms so as to override reason with panic, we Liberals are doing just what our traditional opponents do, for instance, in calling a fertilized egg a "baby" or like the bozos in Stuart Florida over the weekend told Obama he supported "sodomy." Words matter and as more than half the banners I have talked to firmly believe they're selling machine guns to the public and as half the rest of us aren't really trying to tell them they're wrong and the ones who are are being excommunicated for their efforts, I have to remain very cynical about our collective objectivity. Yes, the NRA is a belfry full of bats, but that doesn't make us wise or anything else like it.
Are we being a bit like the NRA in stifling discussion about what gun controls work and don't work? I'm hearing a lot of banitbanitbanit! and not a lot of analysis of what is and isn't happening, what is on the increase and what's decreasing. See above about orthodoxy. Why else do I get trashed for bringing up statistics, for supporting gun control that has a chance of working?
The Constitution is not sacred but it is the law, the foundation of the law and we have to act within it or change it legally as it was designed to be changed. We lose the right to be whining, shrill little bitches about freedom of speech and probable cause and all that when we ignore laws we just don't like -- in my opinion.
I just try to be the first to say they hate America. You can't reason with people who think Ted Nugent is an intelligent American hero.
ReplyDeleteNo you can't! Food writer Anthony Bourdain did an episode on his show No Reservations a while back where he joined Nugent at his ranch for a barbeque. What sort of amazed me was that in most respects he seemed so normal. Not that he is. I think he's a national embarrassment and his rhetoric borders on incitement to treason.
ReplyDeleteA scary guy at the least and I hate it when he's used as a stereotype to malign the many people who own guns but are in no way like him.
The AR-15 (civilian M-16) is just stunningly easy to work on. It has a few fiddly bits - tiny little pins and stuff - that you have to keep track of, but you can break it down entirely (way past the point where you break it down for standard cleaning) in 20 minutes or so.
ReplyDeleteI've never worked on an AK (and only fired one once), but I'm told it's a lot less user-friendly.
That being said, the military defines the maximum effective rate of fire for the M-16 as 45 rounds per minute semi-auto (12-15 sustained). And if you're firing into a crowd instead of picking out target, you don't have to worry about the sustained rate too much. That's a lot of rounds going downrange. And it's got good penetration - enough to go through most ballistic vests without the ceramic/metal inserts. So, in effect, you could count it as "armor-piercing" if the term had any meaning any more.
Interesting, but since we don't have a crisis with full-auto weapons being in private hands nor a significant number involved in murders, why are we making this the focus of every discussion about gun control?
ReplyDeleteBack in the 80's we did have Uzis and Mac 10's being smuggled in from South America and some street gangs are using semi-auto rifles, but drive by shootings and drug wars seem to be better controlled with drug policies. Those people are not concerned with the law or bans and get their weapons illegally.
Most murders are done with handguns and if we could eliminate all autoloading rifles and shotguns, it wouldn't have much effect, if any. It certainly would not affect those rare individuals bound to go out in a slaughter of the innocents - not significantly anyway and it's incidents like that that prompted all these inapposite arguments. I can't accept that 21 kids dead is acceptable as an alternative to 22, if that's the argument.
Actually I don't see what the argument is. I thought the thing was to reduce murders and I don't think one approach, affecting one very small factor is the answer. Once again it seems like a pet solution seeking a problem and once again, our gun related death rate continues to fall and is back to where it was 60 years ago. We are doing something right with gun control and we don't want to talk about what it is or to improve it and if we are, I can't hear it through the same tired harangue about "assault weapons" and bans and apocalyptic prophecies.
This is the second attempt to leave this comment, so, since it's not a cut and paste it may differ from the original if it's sitting in moderation.
ReplyDelete"I'm hearing a lot of banitbanitbanit!"
From who? You have some citations to support that? I'm hearing a lot of "We need some sort of regulation" and I am hearing that the "assault weapons ban" needs to be reinstated (it was so watered down the first time that it couldn't possibly have worked). I am not hearing "banitbanitbanit" from anyone in a position of authority, major political party or the WH. The noise you might be hearing from a bunch of pissed off folks is local. The noise I'm hearing, from the NRA, is national, loud, well funded and bullshit.
You seem to think that there is some sort of parity/equivalence between a bunch of people who are not well funded and PAID to shill for the gun and ammo sellers and manufacturers and a splintered, basically unfunded, non-professional opposition. There is no equivalence.
Jesus, yes I do. My mailbox has been flooded from the very day of the Sandy Hook shooting with demands and petitions to sign about banning "assault weapons" All have been from Democratic organizations and familiar voices. I certainly have not attributed them to you and have only been advocating that we all look at all factors objectively. That we stop obsessing about certain weapons, using hyperbolic language, and see that we have a gun violence problem unrelated to the appearance of the weapons in question.
DeleteLook, you've been calling me names, not the other way around. I deny your insinuation that trying to define terms is a silly enterprise and a distraction. and I think your thesis that automatic weapons are widespread and easy to build or obtain is false. That "Kit" you're talking about isn't a kit and requires that you Illegally procure other ILLEGAL parts. Again it's 10 years and a quarter million dollars fine and it sure as hell is enforced. And of course it's fine to keep saying "assault rifle" as though there aren't tactical shotguns and as though any weapon used in an assault weren't an assault weapon. Beyond criticism.
Sorry and once again words matter and it looks more like you're saying that terminology only matters to nerds and hysterical people and nitwits like me. We don't have a problem with automatic weapons - at least not within orders of magnitude of the real problem weapons: handguns -- revolvers, pistols. I'm tired of the distraction and the obsession.
So, OK you're hearing that the fake ban needs to be reinstated and not "banitbanit" and that's not chicanery or hair splitting at all.
Locally? I live in a place where everyone and his grandmother owns guns and all the cops I know suggest we all have one.
Why do I have to pass the NRA hate test to be taken seriously? I can't do a damned thing about them and my hope is to get us away from more of the same, from our fixed ideas and repetitious rhetoric and self-serving stereotypes. I fear we are often as far from objectivity as they are, similar in our fear mongering, tactical terminology and rigidity and that's why we can't get anything done and never will. Now that we don't have George to kick around any more, we go for each others' throats.
I have little knowledge of weapons, so I'll defer to more expert opinion. I do not own a gun, in part, because a cephalopod is born well armed and, in part, because I am inky, slimy and too temperamental to trust myself with one.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I have some pretty nasty things to say about a culture that seems to foster violence. In our public life – verbal bullying, dissembling, hyperbole, incivility, political hostage taking, abuses of public trust, excesses without forethought or restraint, and a callous disregard for people – it drives people mad.
Even cephalopods go mad …
Why is it legal to shoot a duck but not a Republican? A duck never filibustered anything. Or tried to rig an election.
Octo:
ReplyDeleteObviously, it isn't illegal to shoot a Republican, or Cheney would have served out the end of his Vice Presidency from a jail cell. But I'm not willing to test that theory, because I'm not a rich white guy (2/3 of the way there, but don't see that last bit panning out in the near future).
Cap'n:
I'm with Demo - I'm not hearing a lot of people calling for bans. What I am hearing is call for reasonable regulation.
The assault weapons ban is one of those reasonable regulations, because many of the more powerful, flexible weapons, allowing for the highest kill ratio, fall into that category. Fully automatic weapons and high-capacity magazines are both dangerous in the hands of a murderer.
The sad truth is that the NRA has neutered law enforcement, and of the few gun laws that remain, even fewer are enforced. Are you aware that the CDC is not even allowed to collect data on gun deaths? One of the 15 most common causes of death in the United States, and they can't even gather the data, because their findings might look bad for the "gun culture."
The reality is that countries, and, in fact, states, with stricter gun laws and more enforcement have less gun deaths, per capita. Period.
Personally, I believe that there needs to be stricter controls on handguns, which are involved in more of these gun deaths. But I'm also a realist.
I regularly delete the e-mails from the various Democratic sources that have my address. I've had countless requests to sign petitions for AW bans and like you, I can't understand why we can't address the major problem first. Sad to say, it's handguns.
ReplyDeleteOops, I had a premature post there. I wonder how you see that states with the most strict regulations have lower gun death rates. Currently Chicago is at the top of the list and it has what may be the strictest regulation. Miami used to be the murder capital, now it's not. Gun laws are less strict than when it was.
ReplyDeleteAm I aware of how the CDC can't collect data? Of course and I've been bitching about it. It's worse than that. In Florida a doctor can't ask a patient if he owns a gun - it's a felony, no lists may be kept of gun owners by government and no county or municipality may enact gun laws.
Yet Chicago is much more dangerous. I may be ill informed but I just don't see it. Why can't we discuss the effect of other things -- like gang warfare and social factors when talking about reducing gun crime? I'm simply trying a holistic approach.
Yes, the NRA is an impediment and so is public sentiment and that's more important, but that the opposition is wrong is not enough to make us right.
The problem is that Chicago has laws. Other places don't.
ReplyDelete"More than a quarter of the firearms seized on the streets here by the Chicago Police Department over the past five years were bought just outside city limits in Cook County suburbs, according to an analysis by the University of Chicago Crime Lab. Others came from stores around Illinois and from other states, like Indiana, less than an hour’s drive away. Since 2008, more than 1,300 of the confiscated guns, the analysis showed, were bought from just one store, Chuck’s Gun Shop in Riverdale, Ill., within a few miles of Chicago’s city limits."
Do gun laws affect gun violence? Well, Australia thinks so.
Yes, we need handgun regulations. But until people realize that gun laws are an option, that isn't going to happen. Incremental changes.
"Jesus, yes I do. My mailbox has been flooded from the very day of the Sandy Hook shooting with demands and petitions to sign about banning "assault weapons" All have been from Democratic organizations and familiar voices."
ReplyDeleteStart saving them and let us know who they're from.
I live in one of the more restrictive gun laws states in the country. I have yet to receive anything from anyone on either side of the argument.
Anecdotal evidence is not evidence.
Always fun to be called a liar. I believe Moveon.org was one of them, but I'm not obliged to make you believe anything or to give a damn whether you believe it or not.
DeleteRevolvers, hunting rifles and standard pump shotguns have not figured in the choices of weapons for recent mass killings. Semi-automatic or illegally fully automatic weapons have. Simple.
ReplyDeleteCapt. Fogg you speak of dealing with problems by starting with handguns. That proposal would never get INTO committee, let alone get out of committee for a vote by the full house or senate.
That's true, up to a point, but then mass shooting sprees are relatively rare events but with high emotional content. I think more kids get killed in drive-by shootings and in the crossfire but we don't make a media circus out of it, particularly when they're not middle class white kids. I think we have more than one problem with guns and killers and we shouldn't treat it all alike.
DeleteI can't think of one single shooting spree involving full auto weapons other than cross border drug wars in the Southwest. They are very hard to come by and very, very expensive and the licensing requirements are lengthy and expensive and require random visits from ATF to inspect your weapons, just for starters. I think we do a fine job of controlling them.
"I can't think of one single shooting spree involving full auto weapons other than cross border drug wars in the Southwest."
ReplyDeleteWhy do you continue to pretend that you want to have a discussion? Okay, no, as far as we know "FULLY AUTOMATIC WEAPONS". Every fucking mass shooting resulting in death or injury to more than four people, in this country, every FUCKING ONE, in recent years has been done by someone using some combination of semi-auto weapons. Not revolvers. Not shotguns that have 3 round plugs. Not bolt action rifles. Period.
You claim that the Rambowannabes with their various civilian versions of AK-47's, M-16's and other weapons styled on military weaponry aren't the problem. Well, I gotta guess that Mr. Weenie LaPutrid who said this:
This:
"Mr. CANADY. Okay. Well, thank you for your comments on that.
Mr. LaPierre, let me ask you a couple questions related to your testimony. Do you believe that it is unreasonable to make gun show instant checks just like gun store instant checks are required now?
Mr. LAPIERRE. No, I don't. We support that, in fact. What we don't support, though, for the honest folks is the phone-book volumes of red tape that the Lautenberg bill would put on the honest people and the unlimited authority of the Federal Government to issue new regulations under that bill on the honest people."
is from here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20000816191207/http://www.house.gov/judiciary/cr0527.htm
Wayne LaPierre, being the smug, arrogant, sociopathic piece-of-shit that he is built that statement with weasel words--his specialty.
He's the guy who's running the show. He is not reasonable. He is not honest. He is only interested in doing the bidding of his paymasters. That's all.
The NRA, well heeled, well trained and absolutely committed to telling every fucking lie that they can think of IS the voice of the people who insist that guns are NOT a part of the problem. That fantasy is absolute nonsense.
We spend many billions of dollars a year on LE agencies' budgets to bring criminals to heal. We spend many billions of dollars a year treating the victims of GSW. Those monies are the "externals" of unregulated firearms ownership. The gun industry doesn't pay that bill--you and I do and I am fucking well fed up with being told that it's a necessary cost of my U.S. residents' freedom and security. That is bullshit.
Jesus - I AM NOT WAYNE NOR AM I THE NRA NOR DO I SUPPORT THEM. So stop quoting him to argue with me and stop trying to stereotype me.
ReplyDeleteI am talking about the diversionary tactic of those who are steering every discussion of gun control to "assault weapons" which is largely a term chosen to falsely imply that every purchaser or owner of a .22 target pistol is a potential murderer with the desire to "assault." If it can't be used to assault someone, it's not a weapon. Are all Hummer owners "assault vehicle" owners? As to 3 round plugs -- maybe that's an answer or a partial one because that's the only difference other than appearance.
If you want to rank weapons by their lethality, you're going to have to do much better and as to most weapons "styled" like the military, I asked again. Are SUV owners more likely to drive through crowds of people? What about people who wear camo? For what it's worth, the favorite weapon of Mossad assassins is a .22 revolver and as far as I know every president shot was shot with a muzzle loader, a bolt action antique or a revolver. And you're only excused for not mentioning the Texas Tower guy by having said "recent years." As weaponry available to civilians hasn't changed in recent years, I may suspect that you're marshaling facts to support the opinion - or at least wearing blinders.
You're going to have to tell me why a hunting rifle firing .223 makes it's owner more or less of a threat if he puts a military looking stock on it? And I'd appreciate knowing that someone is deadly or not according to such irresponsible and self serving stereotyping.
So let's say you're right that mass shooting spree perpetrators prefer outoloaders. Does it follow that we will have many fewer shootings if you made them disappear? Maybe, but I don't think so. 10 victims instead of 20 isn't a solution to me. I'm only arguing for less simplistic gun control and reiterating that we HAVE gun control and that the murder rate is steadily declining.
Go ahead and make them all disappear and maybe you'll cut the murder rate by what 10%? You and I know that all guns are deadly in deadly hands and I think it's a damn sight better and easier to keep those hands off ALL guns. Why is that like not having a discussion. I'm effing begging for a discussion.
" I am fucking well fed up with being told that it's a necessary cost of my U.S. residents' freedom and security. "
Whatever -- you weren't told that by me. Are you trying to have a discussion?
Part of the problem is not the same as the problem and as for shooting sprees, what part of the tens of thousands of shooting deaths every year to they make up?
So if trying to look at the whole spectrum indicates to you that I'm not rational, hurling around vulgarity and specious accusations sounds like discussion to you -- well then. . .
"Are all Hummer owners "assault vehicle" owners?"
ReplyDeleteNo, they are mostly all suckers who were conned out of their money by manufacturers exploiting their juvenile macho fantasies. This applies particularly to anyone who ever bought an H2 or H3.
I suspect that most of the owners of "assault rifles" are very similar types, except that the Hummer owners are not prey to a large cadre of politicians constantly encouraging them to think that running people down with their cars is the answer to their problems.
"No, they are mostly all suckers who were conned out of their money by manufacturers exploiting their juvenile macho fantasies"
DeleteWell, yeah. I do think America feels emasculated and needs to wear camo and neck tatoos and drive monster trucks. The men too. We hate authority all the while we're being led around by the machine that sells us the toys to play rebel with.
Are you sure there's nobody telling them to run people down?
But seriously I think you're right about that fantasy. As the population gets denser and we get further from personal space and personal independence, we build bunkers and fantasize about being independent.
Acronym for 'HUMMER:'
Delete"Huge Ugly Monster - Mainly Eats Resources"
You're not quoting Weenie LaPutrid.
ReplyDeleteBut he's driving the discussion from the "I want no limitations on my gunz.".
And, your call to limit the ownership of handgunz in ANY way is doomed to failure--and you know it.
You keep saying that I don't want to have a discussion. You keep saying that the anti's, the antis' that you claim are driving the conversation from the opposite side, are just as bad. That is horseshit. You know it's horseshit. You do not want to do anything except justify YOUR ownership of gunz. End of conversation.
You do not want to do anything except justify YOUR ownership of gunz. End of conversation.
DeleteWell that may or may not be horseshit. I suspect it's more like bullshit, but it stinks.
Seriously, you're stepping in your own argument. I'm not against gun control and I keep trying to say that I'm not against considering any proposal that's legal and that has a chance of working without dire unintended consequences.
I don't like the emotional rhetoric that depends on vague, inaccurate and inflammatory language. Why do you spell guns with a Z if there isn't some need to depart from reason?
Why can't we effectively restrict access to handguns or to any other type of weapon? We already do for automatic weapons and explosive devices and that system works well. A tax, an annually renewable license with vision and safety tests. Real bona fide background checks -- there are many possibilities. It's having a salutary effect in South Africa. Most of all, gun murders have declined dramatically For a quarter century here so why the hell can't we talk about ALL the factors behind that FACT?
But of course pointing out that anyone really wanting to reduce murder has to look at all handguns means I'm the NRA, right? Makes perfect sense if you're hysterical and not too fastidious with facts or spelling. Or perhaps the facts get in the way of the hysteria necessary to support certain perennial proposals?
Look, there are assumptions behind any argument and I'm questioning those behind the tediously traditional approach to gun control. For one thing we're NOT having an increase in gun crimes. It's not more dangerous to live in America than it was ten, twenty or thirty years ago or six months ago. Quite the opposite. Yes, we have an increase in gun ownership and in gun prices and in the defensiveness of gun owners of most types, but some of that is the direct result of past gun control mistakes.
Once again I'M NOT AGAINST GUN CONTROL, I'm against laws that create more problems than they solve, laws that aren't enforced or enforceable -- laws that use sloppy and deliberately misleading language and I'm repeating that bans and threats of bans cause demand and promote entrenched, unreasonable defenses. Bans inflate the demand for banned weapons dramatically. I'm against laws that incorporate flawed definitions, deceptive terminology and we've had decades of that. Law is all about accurate language.
I'm wary of all "ACT NOW" sales pitches and that's mostly what
I'm hearing. I suspect that one needs to make it seem like some crisis of apocalyptic proportions is at hand, and I would like to be able to have a discussion without being shouted down and being accused of attitudes I don't have but you need me to have in order to save your argument.
WHAT I'M SAYING OVER AND OVER IS THAT WE NEED TO BE BETTER AT LIMITING ACCESS TO ANY GUNS TO PEOPLE WE CAN TRUST and I'm getting lambasted, misquoted and insulted because I'm not parroting the babble about "weapons of war on the streets" I'm not doing that because it's untrue and stupid and if you won't see that then maybe it's because you don't want to have a discussion because you know you're wrong.
I want to limit access to a number of kinds of weapons. You are singling out a few. I want to include handguns, you think that's ridiculous. So who in the hell is the least reasonable here?
And really, I'm not afraid anyone's going to grab any firearm I own. The flintlocks, the Civil War guns, nor even the 20 gauge my parents used to shoot clay pigeons with on our farm. The one I use most often is a Crossman BB gun - because I like to shoot targets (whoooooo - scary.)