A lineman on a pole? A painter on a scaffold? An arborist pruning branches? A cyclist carrying groceries? A fly fisherman? At dinner or a movie? In the car? For defense in extremely close quarters?
Who has supported free gun zones or criminalization? Who has demonized the object? What is it about unsafe handling that you do not understand?
Do you think Soldiers never have to climb, navigate a narrow passage, trim foliage, ride a two wheeled conveyance, a four wheeled one (particularly a non-tactical), eat at a DFAC, or carry on close quarters? This is an issue of appearance, not practicality. Again, that falls right in line with the anti sentiment. It doesn't look right, so don't do it. That is a far line from it won't work or can't be done due to physical space. Plenty of posts have been made advocating for the arrest of these demonstrators, and the posting of no firearms allowed seems to be the proper response advocated by many. What I don't understand about unsafe handling is the automatic assumption that it will always happen with a long gun.
If one considers common sense, courtesy and discretion to be "Fudd-ish," then call me a Fudd.
Ah, no. Going to one's local Applebee's for a little football and a plate of nachos on Sunday afternoon isn't quite the same as gearing up to re-take Ramadi.
Having actually read through this entire thread, I will state for the record that I've seen no posters espousing "appeasing those in opposition ..."
You are spouting the much-expected hard-liner rhetoric that fans the flames the same as the two assclowns in Chipotle.
Eating at the TGIF of KAF, or the Thai place at KAIA, or the McD's at AAS aren't taking back Ramadi either, but they all involve the carry of a carbine or rifle for most of the uniformed personnel there. And not OC'ing is appeasement, since that is courtesy and discretion for others that must be obeyed. There are levels of positive or negative connotation for these words, but they all mean roughly the same, putting the thoughts and feelings of others above any other perceived or real benefits to yourself of a particular course of action.
Just as a counterpoint, that really doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Or rather, ignores reality to a degree which seems excessive.
Theoretically, sure, long guns are not more menacing or dangerous than sidearms (ignoring various technical details like energy and trajectory which might make them exceedingly more dangerous to use in densely populated areas).
However, practically they are not "appropriate" to carry in many/most situations. They are large, cumbersome, heavy. They are difficult to keep pointed in a safe direction while executing various tasks in a crowded place. Considering going about your daily routine, they are a huge pain in the butt. Even dragging along a completely inert 8-lb, 30" chunk of metal, with no social overtones or possible risk of endangering anyone, while you go shopping, stop by the bank, get your dry cleaning, eat a lunch out, etc. is supremely annoying, bothersome, and would cause everyone around you to wonder why you're saddling yourself with that impediment and presume you've got at least one screw slightly loose.
Now change the picture and make that inert chunk of steel your pet python. Great. Now you've got a bulky, heavy impediment hung around your neck every where you go, hanging up on things, and keeping at least one hand occupied half the time, that also half the population is seriously afraid of and alarmed by. But in reality, it still isn't capable (realistically) of hurting any bystanders.
Now make it a rifle? All the above absurdity and negatives, PLUS the fact that it actually could -- very realistically -- harm people if you are careless, negligent, horribly unlucky, or someone was to try a dumb stunt like messing with it while your attention is elsewhere.
But hey, there's that one in a million chance that you might need A gun today, and the perhaps one in a BILLION chance that whatever problem you need to employ a gun to solve, a handgun WON'T solve but a rifle WILL. There's no logic to this in the society we actually live in here in the USA in 2014.
Consider that the guys who are EMPLOYED to carry weapons in our society (police officers) and have a sworn duty to confront law-breakers and apprehend violent people DO NOT carry long guns in their daily life. They have them stored, ready, for very specific circumstances, but they know that there is no utility in carrying around a rifle or shotgun.
If they -- trouble magnets and duty-bound to go where you wouldn't, and deal with those you wouldn't face -- don't feel any need to carry rifles around, pretending that there is a realistic need for the average citizen to do so is either farcical or disingenuous. And probably both.
So, admit that these sorts of things either fall into the category of "stunt" or "protest" and then critically analyze whether a) either is effective at reaching the stated goals, and b) we should endorse them as such.
And you can swallow your silly "Fudd" comments right back down because you aren't among sunshine patriots here, or bunny busters and duck whackers. Speaking logically about the practicalities of carrying a rifle doesn't make one less of an RKBA die-hard. It just means we're not too chicken-hearted to speak the truth.
All of your criticisms fall on sidearms as well, lest we choose to ignore any posts and pics of NDs, holsters falling out, firearms falling out of holsters, problems in the bathroom, problems sitting in certain wooden chairs, accessibility while seated and buckled in a vehicle, the danger a bullet provides to anyone no matter the length of the barrel it exists, as long as it was built as considered practical for creating that danger to flesh. We can ignore the casual statement of using a handgun to fight to a long gun, but not so easily ignored is the truth in the physics that prompted it to begin with. If the odds are so low for the need for any gun, and it is just 'common sense' to not carry long guns, there surely we can agree on common sense gun control to keep these things off the street where the owner is assured to be lackadaisical and the risk to the many exceeds the benefit to the few.
I'm not advocating the demonstrations, but I'm noticing that the demonstrations have created this blanket response and criticism by several to the notion of anyone ever carrying a long gun at any time, anywhere that may be populated. Apparently OC means that bending over never flags anyone with a pistol barrel if its under a shirt, that no one is ever on anything but the ground floor when concealed carrying a pistol with the barrel pointed down, that the controls and safeties of a long gun are demonstrably less reliable than on handguns, and that anyone that at any time would choose to carry a long gun would be a threat due to negligence or incompetence. That is the demonization of the object, as it removes all doubt in its ability to reduce the worthiness of the owner due to the absolute rule that the carry of such indicates mental instability, and exponentially increases the risk of a mechanical failure or mishandling. And speaking of that, wouldn't that make a fine legal test for who we need to remove the right of ownership for?
And there is no theory about which is more menacing or dangerous. They are all inanimate hunks of metal and plastic, and they all fire a projectile. They are all dangerous if mishandled, and all not dangerous if handled properly.
But, the survival rate for being shot by a handgun is many, many times greater than for a long gun, so the desire to use a less effective tool with a more difficult ability to put shots on target, just to look less kooky to those who don't particularly support your individual choices is less than optimal. But hey, it's a one in a million chance, so you don't need a gun of any type anyway. However reasoned and logical the arguments about this seem, realize that they parallel the antis, and they certainly believe they are just as reasonable and logical in their beliefs. So when they can find any level of agreement, they would certainly be foolish to ignore it. So, the choice is to blame the protestors for bringing this to light. And the choice is also not to blame those who rally against the exercising of a current right because they don't like the way it looks. Well, then I guess that right should be lost, because who wants to look bad.