How could anyone think everyone having weapons would be safer. I don't trust people enough as it is and if they want to kill me I'd rather they use their hands so I can run away.

It would be nicer if there was some kind of test or class before firearm ownership and more strict tracking and regulation.

If people want to buy a gun they should get an airsoft gun. I wish that was more popular in the US. My friends in high school used to play once in a while and it was so fun.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
I'd been waiting to see this for a few weeks, but they showed storm coverage around here last Friday night instead of 20/20. I finally watched it yesterday (available online. Free episodes -> 20/20).

I'm not a big fan of ABC news (or TV at all), but I figured alot of people would be talking about this so I bit the bullet (heheh) and watched it.

I saw a few minutes of it while surfing during the commercials of another show I was watching. I don't think ABC news is very good either. Their coverage of the recent floods in North Dakota was horrible. They went for the human interest stories first to the detriment of the fact based stories. That is, before reporting on the situation with the flood waters and the efforts of the people there to hold them back, they started off with people in a church praying for deliverance. NBC covered the church angle too, but only after covering the facts of the flood and the sand bagging efforts. I'm comparing Sunday evening newscasts from two (or three) weeks back. And at any rate, this is all off topic.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
- None of the students actually had any real firearms training. That is, shooting at moving targets, moving while shooting, etc.

I don't see the relevance in that. The absence of "real" firearms training, as you put it, reflects the likely situation if firearms were allowed on college campuses.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
- The shooter was a trained police instructor. When was the last time someone with practically any firearms experience, let alone extensive training, went on a school rampage in the US? The last guy I can think of is Charles Whitman, a marine. Please correct me if I missed something here.

That's an easily correctable flaw in the study. I think it only accounts for the accuracy of the shooting. Consider if the shooter had been one of the students, or a student from another class in the program. The shooter would have the advantage of having his gun drawn as well as the surprise. He probably wouldn't have the accuracy.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
- The one where the shooter had an accomplice in the classroom? I just laughed. Not really practical from a school shooting standpoint. Really.

Columbine? The accomplice angle isn't that far fetched, not any more far fetched than the notion that a school shooter is thinking practically and rationally.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
They should have at least reversed the roles, that is, have the police instructor be a 'student with a firearm' and one of the newbies be the shooter. I bet it'd be a bit different.

Definitely a scenario they should have looked at.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
They never really considered other scenarios like, maybe the shooters kill a classroom full of people, but other students (with firearms) in the building get a heads up from the gunshots and can prevent the shooter(s) from 'spreading.'

The "spreading" scenario is rare isn't it? And isn't the notion that in that situation the students who got the heads up should leave the building and let the professionals deal with the shooter(s)?

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
It also never covers the problem of most mass shootings taking place in places that firearms are generally prohibited. It's probably because there is a good chance nobody is going to shoot back if you go on a rampage. So it'd probably act as a pretty good deterrent. When was the last time someone went on a rampage at a gun show? Anyone?

Firearms are prohibited at McDonald's? They're prohibited at courthouses, but there have been shootouts there just the same. Are you saying that the entire country should become a gun show?

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
The FoF segment seemed to be 'set up' for the desired results.

It probably was. They probably didn't want journalism to interfere with television.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
I do hope that it shows people you can't just buy a firearm and instantly be protected. That'd be like buying a parachute and being set for jumping out of an airplane. I've never advised people to buy a firearm for protection unless they are willing to receive training and practice regularly. When a student was murdered here last year, I overheard lots of females talking about buying firearms like it was some sort of magical protection device. Pretty stupid, eh?

Yes, pretty stupid. That gets at the laziness angle, the desire for a quick fix and the interest of gun makers and sellers to sell more guns.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
I don't have much to comment about the 'Obama Kid'. I actually fast-forwarded that part as I'd already read a few articles on him a month or so ago. All I have to say: Sorry kid, Obama's not going to risk tanking his ratings any more by pursuing a hot issue like that atm.

I missed that part, but today's newspaper had a front page story saying Obama isn't going to push to reinstate the assault weapons ban. Instead, he's going to clampdown on exporting guns to Mexico. It's not so much about his ratings, but the inability of Congress to get such legislation passed. That cat's out of the bag.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Oh and for you CA people (I'm looking at you LessBread). Don't worry, your state doesn't have a gun show 'loophole' (except for immediate family members).

I'm not worried. I do think you were unfairly harsh on the guy who lost his sister at VA Tech. At least you didn't make fun of the woman who was shot in the face.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
This also completely fails to provide any real proof that criminals buy firearms at gun shows. I wouldn't be surprised if they did, but it's really not easy to track either.

Yes, it's not easy to track, why do you think that's the case?

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
The segment on the teenage 'movers' being retarded around firearms. Well, I have an idea: DON'T LEAVE YOUR FREAKING FIREARMS IN A DRAWER IN YOUR GARAGE.

Are you talking about 60 minutes now?

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Most of the cases where someone gets shot are resolved anyways. Either the shooter or the owner (or both) are sent to prison, etc, etc. So it's not really an unsolved problem.

Are you certain of that? Do the stats here, Firearms and Crime Statistics, back you up?

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
I can't quite remember if I'm missing any of the segments. Overall I'm leaning towards the 'the show was a hit-piece on firearms', but I do think it has one redeeming quality: Maybe people who were just casually thinking of getting a firearm for protection will think twice. Like I said before: You shouldn't be carrying a firearm for protection unless you are fully aware of the consequences.

I agree.

I do think, however, that the ABC show went a long way towards debunking the notion that the solution to school shootings is to arm students. Most people aren't going to note the scientific deficiencies of the scenarios played out. They're more likely to find compelling the scenario where the female student who did manage to pull her weapon and get a shot off, was actually shot in the head before she shot the gunman in the leg.

Quote: Original post by phresnel
Not sure how reliable that source of information is, but I think I've seen a similar diagram elsewhere:

"Intentional Firearm Deaths" is a bit like weasel-wording. But I mean, duh, of course we have more firearm deaths. We have a shit-ton more firearms than most other countries.

As it says most are suicides. Makes sense. I bet suicide rates in 'economic partners' are pretty similar, just using different methods. None of these studies ever remove homicides that are ruled self-defense either. In most states if you shoot somebody in self-defense it's still considered homicide, and you may be brought to jail, probably released on bail or recognizance, until the DA decides it was justifiable. It's still logged as a homicide even if no charges are filed or there is no conviction.

Also, your point about only soldiers being able to pull triggers. That's BS. I said earlier it's not like movies or 'being a hero'. But most people can at least pull a trigger if they need to.

Quote: Original post by phresnel
(another sideeffect of the military service was that I am now of the opinion that you don't learn shooting in "killer-games")

No-shit Sherlock. I would like to point out that military training doesn't necessarily train you for a civilian style shootout.

First of all, the major weapons for police/civies are handguns, not rifles. With that in mind, you train with handguns much more than with rifles. It's harder actually, and when you train with both you see how much handguns suck compared to rifles.

Secondly, your enemies aren't as clear-cut as in a military engagement (this has become less of the case in recent engagements, IEDs, etc).

One of the advantages of non-military combat is you aren't bound by stupid treaties. So you can use hollow-points and whatnot, which make handguns a bit more effective vs. unarmored targets.

It's much more important to avoid collateral damage. Killing a bystander during a shootout could be pretty costly in terms of jail time and money, and well, it's bad enough for your mental health to kill someone justifiably. Killing an innocent would probably be even worse (This doesn't count if you are a sociopath).

Lastly, I don't know if it's just the US military, you might be safer in Germany, but when military guys come to the shooting range I'm at.. I always leave. Immediately. I never get as many loaded firearms negligently pointed at me, and retarded 'gun-ho' attitudes than from military guys. It's almost like they are drunk or something. Maybe the US military isn't so keen on safety. Sucks living near one of the largest Army bases in the US.

Quote: Original post by Zahlman
1. Your link leads to a cartoon.

It's a google video search. I don't necessarily mean the first video.

Quote: Original post by Zahlman

Quote: Not really. Let me go get my Glock manual:

"Warning - Children are attracted to and can operate firearms that can cause severe injuries or death."

I hope you'll pardon me if I flat out don't believe that. Attracted? Why?

Well you are right. I just grabbed the box out of the safe and it's not in the manual. It is, however, On a giant sticker that covers half the front of the case.. in English and Spanish. A similar sticker is also on the back of the documentation envelope that the manual is in.

You guys in Canada actually have lots of guns. People even own many handguns up there, it's just not legal to carry them. In fact, you can get some firearms imported that we can't in the US. I've always wanted a QBZ-95 but they aren't allowed to be imported into the US. People have semi-auto variants in Canada though!

Quote: Original post by smr

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
People will always find a way to kill others :P

The smiley at the end of this sentence both puzzles and disturbs me.

Thank you for your valuable psychoanalysis.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I don't see the relevance in that. The absence of "real" firearms training, as you put it, reflects the likely situation if firearms were allowed on college campuses.

Firearms are already allowed on most college campuses in the US. You make it seem like it's forbidden everywhere. In some places it may be legal, but the University will expel you, but it's still legal.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
Firearms are prohibited at McDonald's? They're prohibited at courthouses, but there have been shootouts there just the same. Are you saying that the entire country should become a gun show?

Depends actually, some states have signage law that gives legal standing to 'no-guns' signs in certain places.

Most school shootings are done in places where it's unlikely for people to have firearms, even if it's not illegal. In a public school, for example, it may not be illegal to have a firearm but if you are a teacher and you have one you will be fired, and most students probably aren't old enough to own a firearm.

Most universities will expel students found with firearms, and fire staff found with firearms. So it's generally a pretty 'gun-free' place.

I'm not saying that all firefights take place in places that generally prohibit firearms one way or another, but most of the recent high-profile shootings have taken place in such areas. The only recent one that didn't was probably the Alabama one. Having a handgun in that situation wouldn't have helped anyways.

The 'teens moving furniture and finding guns' was part of the 20/20 episode.

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I do think you were unfairly harsh on the guy who lost his sister at VA Tech. At least you didn't make fun of the woman who was shot in the face.

I think he was unfairly harsh on the Glock. I mean, even if it were the Glock used to kill his sister it's not like it's some sort of evil relic with sinister intentions. It's just a hunk of metal and plastic. Oh, and he wasn't handling the firearms very safely either. They should have had the cop (was he an ATF guy? I don't remember) teach him some basic safety, even for carrying around unloaded firearms.

Basically, I don't think people should be encouraged to carry firearms, but I don't think people should be prohibited from doing so. It doesn't make sense to prevent someone from carrying a firearm in a mall or school, when somebody that is going to murder dozens of people, and probably kill himself isn't going to give a damn about getting expelled or have an extra charge slapped on him.

At a certain point, some laws just don't really restrain people from doing their thing (insane mass murders, for example), and many people get in trouble with the state over doing something harmless, like carrying a firearm somewhere but not intending to actually shoot someone.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I don't see the relevance in that. The absence of "real" firearms training, as you put it, reflects the likely situation if firearms were allowed on college campuses.

Firearms are already allowed on most college campuses in the US. You make it seem like it's forbidden everywhere. In some places it may be legal, but the University will expel you, but it's still legal.

No, they're not allowed on campus. Yes, students with them will be expelled, but a non-student with a gun who wasn't in law enforcement would not knowingly be allowed on campus. Efforts are underway in some backwards states to make it legal to carry a licensed concealed handguns on campus. I hope they fail.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Most school shootings are done in places where it's unlikely for people to have firearms, even if it's not illegal. In a public school, for example, it may not be illegal to have a firearm but if you are a teacher and you have one you will be fired, and most students probably aren't old enough to own a firearm.

Yes, it's illegal for students to have guns, yet they manage to get them. Why is that? Who's making money off of this situation?

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
I'm not saying that all firefights take place in places that generally prohibit firearms one way or another, but most of the recent high-profile shootings have taken place in such areas. The only recent one that didn't was probably the Alabama one. Having a handgun in that situation wouldn't have helped anyways.

There have been so many shooting lately it's difficult to keep track of them all, but none of them have been school shootings, unless you want to say that the guy in upstate New York shot up his immigration school. Don't forget the four cops killed in Oakland and the three cops killed in Pittsburgh. Don't forget the guy who shot up the nursing home. Don't forget the guy who killed his five children, or the guy who shot up the birthday party or the guy who massacred his in-laws last Christmas Eve. Or they guy who shot ... the list goes on and on and the gun makers and sellers and LaPierre are laughing all the way to the bank.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
The 'teens moving furniture and finding guns' was part of the 20/20 episode.

There were also a part of a 60 minutes segment last week.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I do think you were unfairly harsh on the guy who lost his sister at VA Tech. At least you didn't make fun of the woman who was shot in the face.

I think he was unfairly harsh on the Glock. I mean, even if it were the Glock used to kill his sister it's not like it's some sort of evil relic with sinister intentions. It's just a hunk of metal and plastic. Oh, and he wasn't handling the firearms very safely either. They should have had the cop (was he an ATF guy? I don't remember) teach him some basic safety, even for carrying around unloaded firearms.

Of course you do, because Glocks have feelings dammit! You're right the weapon isn't evil - it's the people addicted to them who are evil with sinister intentions. [You know I don't think that, but if you're going to start using that kind of language, it's just too easy to turn it back against you.]

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Basically, I don't think people should be encouraged to carry firearms, but I don't think people should be prohibited from doing so. It doesn't make sense to prevent someone from carrying a firearm in a mall or school, when somebody that is going to murder dozens of people, and probably kill himself isn't going to give a damn about getting expelled or have an extra charge slapped on him.

At a certain point, some laws just don't really restrain people from doing their thing (insane mass murders, for example), and many people get in trouble with the state over doing something harmless, like carrying a firearm somewhere but not intending to actually shoot someone.

This brings us back to a discussion we had some time back about keeping the taxes on guns so high that only people seriously interested in them would have them. You're right about a deranged person not being deterred, but that isn't an excuse to flood college campuses with guns. Many students on college campuses are 'close to the edge' so to speak. The more access to guns for them, the more likely they'll slip over the edge using a gun.

Here's my view:

Basically we live in a free society. Our society values the human right to self defense. That's what life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness (property) mean. A gun equalizes the playing field and gives everyone equal access to their right to life. Whereas in olden days a big strong guy could just take whatever property, life, or woman he pleased. Now anybody can defend their property or life with no big strong guy of your own required. Attempting to take away my self defense tool is the first step in trying to take away my life. It saddens me that so many in this world live their lives without grasping this idea or worse understand too late. There are always going to be those who take advantage of this, and maybe they get the drop on a few people, but I'd rather put my skills and training work than cower in the corner waiting for some asshole to shoot me.

That resonates with something I just read: Denormalizing the Signs of Impending Disaster

Quote:
...
After each shooting, the question has been asked, Why do people do this sort of thing? The experts typically consulted are psychologists, who cite depression, social isolation, anger, and shame as causes. The most often mentioned contextual factor is the easy availability of guns.

But to ask, Why do people do this sort of thing?, is already to ignore the obvious pattern. It is not people of all kinds who kill because they are depressed, isolated, despairing, angry, or feeling shame. The shooters are all men. So the question we should be asking is, Why do men do this sort of thing?

One reason this question is seldom asked is that violence and manhood in U.S. culture are thoroughly normalized. As anti-violence educator Jackson Katz documents in his film "Tough Guise," over the past twenty years violence has come to be the defining feature of manhood in America. Violence and masculinity have become nearly synonymous.

This is not to say that all men are violent, or even that all men go around pretending to be Rambo just beneath the surface. Of course not. Yet all men are judged by a cultural standard that says a real man -- one who deserves all the privileges of being a member of the dominant gender group -- should have a capacity for violence and a willingness to use it when necessary.

The same cultural standard says that real men are able to exert control over the environment, over others, and over themselves. To be a victim of external forces is thus nearly the opposite of what it means to be a man in U.S. culture. It is hard to feel put upon, demeaned, or controlled by others, and still feel worthy of respect as a man.

The great contradiction, however, is that in a capitalist society most men don't have much power. A relative handful of men control vast economic resources, make laws, control the police, and command armies. These men can indeed make decisions, backed by force, that deny most other men and nearly all women control over their own lives.

On the one hand, then, real men are expected to be able to exert control; on the other hand, they lack the resources -- wealth, status, institutional authority -- to do so. Under these conditions, it is not surprising that some men try to compensate for their lack of power by displaying a capacity for violence, or a lack of fear of other men's violence.
...

i think they should build machine gun nests at the entrance to each building.
they could be maned by the students.maybe some mines our something would work.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
"Intentional Firearm Deaths" is a bit like weasel-wording.

I would say it means murders (including manslaughter) and suicides.

Quote: But I mean, duh, of course we have more firearm deaths. We have a shit-ton more firearms than most other countries.

Wait. What?

So tell me again, how is gun control supposed to be a bad thing? Oh, right, "when guns are outlawed only outlaws will have guns". But at the same time, you cede that more guns = more intentional deaths, even though the US has a much higher percentage of its guns in the hands of ordinary citizens. In fact, the correlation is drawn directly between "legally owned" guns and intentional deaths.

Quote: As it says most are suicides. Makes sense. I bet suicide rates in 'economic partners' are pretty similar, just using different methods.

Judge for yourself.

But seriously. Your argument is that the vast majority of suicidal people would kill themselves another way if they didn't have a handgun available. I think you're neglecting the fact that it's much easier to kill yourself with a handgun than in other ways. A suicidal person with a handgun has a much greater opportunity to act impulsively and a much lower chance to, well, get a second chance.

Quote: None of these studies ever remove homicides that are ruled self-defense either.

And why the fuck should they? It's still an intentional causation of death. Having more guns around provably leads to more people ending up dead. It's that simple.

Quote: Also, your point about only soldiers being able to pull triggers. That's BS. I said earlier it's not like movies or 'being a hero'. But most people can at least pull a trigger if they need to.

Evidence, please. (I am not contradicting my point about suicide above. I maintain that it is difficult to pull the trigger on yourself, and even harder to jump off a bridge.)

Quote: You guys in Canada actually have lots of guns. People even own many handguns up there, it's just not legal to carry them. In fact, you can get some firearms imported that we can't in the US. I've always wanted a QBZ-95 but they aren't allowed to be imported into the US. People have semi-auto variants in Canada though!

On the prairies, sure. Not around where I live. I would be very surprised to learn that any urban friend of mine owned any guns. And frankly, having a pro-gun stance is political suicide (pardon the pun) in Canadian federal politics.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by LessBread
I don't see the relevance in that. The absence of "real" firearms training, as you put it, reflects the likely situation if firearms were allowed on college campuses.

Firearms are already allowed on most college campuses in the US. You make it seem like it's forbidden everywhere. In some places it may be legal, but the University will expel you, but it's still legal.

You are playing semantic games with the word "allowed" here. The point is that relatively few college students are carrying because (a) most people, and college students are no exception, are rule-abiding (not simply law-abiding); and (b) the college or university would expel them for it.

Quote: Basically, I don't think people should be encouraged to carry firearms, but I don't think people should be prohibited from doing so. It doesn't make sense to prevent someone from carrying a firearm in a mall or school, when somebody that is going to murder dozens of people, and probably kill himself isn't going to give a damn about getting expelled or have an extra charge slapped on him.

And what makes you think this hypothetical psychopath is going to give a damn about getting injured or killed trying to steal a gun, rather than acquiring one through normal routes?

Most points have been answered by Zahlmann as I would have answered.

Quote: Original post by curtmax_0
Also, your point about only soldiers being able to pull triggers. That's BS. I said earlier it's not like movies or 'being a hero'. But most people can at least pull a trigger if they need to.

If you go back to my post, you will see that I was talking about the act of shooting at people, not about only soldiers being able to pull a trigger. And no, I haven't said only soldiers are able to shoot at people, I basically said that only a minority of people have the courage (by nature/education) to shoot at people, at least to do so soon enough, when they face them. It has a reason that soldiers and police men often get psychological care before (a.k.a. basic training, drill, speeches) and after killing situations, even after they have been drilled to compensate for such.

Quote:

Quote: Original post by phresnel
(another sideeffect of the military service was that I am now of the opinion that you don't learn shooting in "killer-games")

No-shit Sherlock. I would like to point out that military training doesn't necessarily train you for a civilian style shootout.

Look, Watson: The point was, without ever holding a real gun or rifle, or other military weapons and accessory, I could only guess about the training effect of games. And personally, I don't base my actual opinions on guesses; and serious surveys about the training effect of computer games did not exist back then.

Quote: It's harder actually, and when you train with both you see how much handguns suck compared to rifles.

You know that rifles and handguns have distinct appliances? E.g., I am not sure what sucks more when you are smoking out a bunker: A 1 meter sized rifle with a weight of 5-15kg, or a small, agile gun. Surely, there are also mini-sized rifles, but oh well.

Also, thanks to recoil, it takes longer to re-aim most rifles than to re-aim a lightweight gun. Though with H&K G36, it was much reduced compared to it's predecessor G3.

Further, reloading a gun is much faster than reloading a rifle (actually, one can hold ready the next magazine with the supporting hand). You don't even have to un-aim to reload a gun.

Then, rifles are generally used in a couch position, or while on one of your knees. To do combat shooting properly, you need some weight in your ass, and lots of training. Whereas everybody can use a gun while standing, even when walking (ever tried with a military scale rifle?).

I could enumerate more example where rifles suck, and equally many examples where guns suck. But I am sure you all know that with your big amount of experience and weapons education. Every advantage (precision, penetrating power) comes at a price (clumsyness: weight, non-agileness, sooner debility, dangerous reloading, re-aiming often necessary, hard to use while standing, often impossible to use while walking, etc.).

Quote: Secondly, your enemies aren't as clear-cut as in a military engagement (this has become less of the case in recent engagements, IEDs, etc).

Then assymetric warfare must be a rumor. Yeah, in fact communists terrorits are in the north desert and democrats are in the south cities, and everybody can just shoot northwards into the desert.

Quote: It's much more important to avoid collateral damage. Killing a bystander during a shootout could be pretty costly in terms of jail time and money, and well, it's bad enough for your mental health to kill someone justifiably. Killing an innocent would probably be even worse (This doesn't count if you are a sociopath).

Soldiers have to be careful, too. Sometimes not as much, but also sometimes as much as police; it mostly depends on appropriateness. Plus: There are the so-called Laws of war. Then, even soldiers are subject to be jailed up: click. Finally: Have you ever heard of this?

Quote: One of the advantages of non-military combat is you aren't bound by stupid treaties.

No? Oh.

Quote: Lastly, I don't know if it's just the US military, you might be safer in Germany, but when military guys come to the shooting range I'm at.. I always leave. Immediately. I never get as many loaded firearms negligently pointed at me, and retarded 'gun-ho' attitudes than from military guys. It's almost like they are drunk or something. Maybe the US military isn't so keen on safety. Sucks living near one of the largest Army bases in the US.

Then those soldiers show a clear lack of discipline (already qualifies for jail in the Bundeswehr), and if they would have been german soldiers, they had broken law by pointing their weapon on you. In fact, by pointing a loaded weapon (with real or unknown ammunition) onto one of your comrades you perfectly qualify for a punch in your face; even if that's forbidden in the modern Bundeswehr.

Quote:
You know that rifles and handguns have distinct appliances? E.g., I am not sure what sucks more when you are smoking out a bunker: A 1 meter sized rifle with a weight of 5-15kg, or a small, agile gun. Surely, there are also mini-sized rifles, but oh well.

Use a carbine, or what'd be considered an SBR in the US.

Quote:
Also, thanks to recoil, it takes longer to re-aim most rifles than to re-aim a lightweight gun. Though with H&K G36, it was much reduced compared to it's predecessor G3.

You forget that most rifles are shoulder fired. While they might have more actual recoil, the felt recoil is generally less. Now, comparing the G3 and G36 is a bit unfair. The G3 is a battle rifle, and fires 7.62x51mm NATO. The G36 is an assault rifle and fires 5.56x45mm NATO, which is an intermediate cartridge.

Quote:
Further, reloading a gun is much faster than reloading a rifle (actually, one can hold ready the next magazine with the supporting hand). You don't even have to un-aim to reload a gun.

Are you kidding? You can reload both about the same speed with practice. A handgun will be less sturdy when reloading because you don't have a shoulder stock.

Quote:
Then, rifles are generally used in a couch position, or while on one of your knees. To do combat shooting properly, you need some weight in your ass, and lots of training. Whereas everybody can use a gun while standing, even when walking (ever tried with a military scale rifle?).

Huh? While getting extra support while shooting helps with accuracy, I guarantee someone can be more accurate with a rifle while standing and moving than a handgun. You apparently haven't shot handguns that much...

Quote:
I could enumerate more example where rifles suck, and equally many examples where guns suck. But I am sure you all know that with your big amount of experience and weapons education. Every advantage (precision, penetrating power) comes at a price (clumsyness: weight, non-agileness, sooner debility, dangerous reloading, re-aiming often necessary, hard to use while standing, often impossible to use while walking, etc.).

This is pretty wrong. The weight of a modern intermediate cartridge rifle isn't that much of a factor. For HD, even a 26" carbine (the shortest you can have in the US without an NFA tax stamp) will not stick out as far as a standard handgun stance. You also have the advantage of having a firm grip and shoulder lock on the rifle, as opposed to a handgun held out in front that is easier to get removed. At close range, aiming isn't going to be much of a factor. You will most likely be point shooting.

I could go on, but the only real advantage to a handgun is it's easily concealable and more convenient to carry than a rifle. There are also fringe cases where maneuverability would be a factor, but the only 'civilian' case would be inside a vehicle.