Orlando shooting

The situation in the US (and a lot of other countries ) is that bad that the only solution is not less but more firearms . The reason is that those who have as mission to protect the public are unwilling (judges ) to do it or incapable (police ) to do it,thus the public has as only option to defend itself, something the leftwingers detest .

Tougher gun laws only benefit to the criminels . That's why political Washington wants tougher gun laws .

 

Why would you care if somebody has hundreds of guns? They can only shoot one at a time. There are people who own hundreds of cars, collectors, yet they can only drive one at a time. I don't see the eco-nazis getting excited about car collectors.

To answer your question, I used to have a quite extensive collection of WWII and post-WWII weapons along with a number of sporting rifles and so on. I gave most of those to my son when I left Alaska. Do I need a .350 Remington Magnum in Arizona? Nope. Garands, Carbines, AK's, SKS's, various handguns and other rifles all went to my son. Those I kept have some sort of practical use or were just too dear to my heart to part with. I have a 1911 built in 1917 - WWI - I won't allow such a piece of history to be taken from me and crushed.
This remote region of Arizona is a major drug trafficking route. An AR15 is a useful tool here. If I lived in a city, I might have chosen different tools to keep. AR15 rounds have a habit of skipping around and hitting people they aren't intended to, so not a good home defense in a crowded area. Yet, my choices are my choices and I will not obey any ban that says I can't choose which tools I choose to defend myself or hunt with or just want.

Look up the assault weapons registration scheme in New York a few years ago. That's the bluest of blue states yet they estimate only 5% of owners complied with the law. That's what you're up against.

I encourage all Americans who wish to ban guns to put up a "Gun Free Zone" sign in their front yard. If they had the courage of their convictions they'd do just that.

 

Uh yeah, and there are ordinances preventing just that. It's a silly argument. If a guy has a bunch of collectable cars, he's got them under a roof, not parked up and down the street to be towed away.

I don't know any gun collectors who stack their arms up on the sidewalk, and as pointed out earlier he can only shoot one at a time, unless he's starring in a grade B action movie.

 

I suppose it's a philosophical issue. I have no desire to police my neighbor to do as I do, to think as I do, to own or not own what I own or don't own. It's no concern of mine. If it becomes my concern I'll take it up with him.

 

Only to busybodies who think everyone should do as they do. And as for them, they get the same rating as anyone else. It's not my concern what they think.

 

A problem you've created in your own mind, an emotional rather than a rational issue. What is the current hand-wringing all about? Assault rifles.

According to the FBI, in 2014 there were 11,961 murders in the US. Only 248 of those were caused by rifles of any kind to include bolt actions, Jimmy's .22, etc. Rifles are the firearms least used in crime. Every other type of firearm is used more often. So why the wailing about rifles? Laws should be based on rational thought, not emotional outbursts and fear-mongering.

 

The problem is that these mass shootings are fearful events and watching mass funerals are deeply emotional, much like images of a dozen or more flag draped coffins sitting in the cargo bay of a Air Force transport.

I live on the outskirts of a major metropolitan market (Houston) and we get their TV news feeds. 3-5 times a week there is a story about another violent murder from various causes. We get 30 to 120 second segment that we see in some variation for a day or two. These acts are understandable to us, a home invasion gone wrong, a abused spouse who reached the end of their tether, a couple drunk idiots who take a argument too far in the parking lot, a gang/drug related fracas. These events seem to us like random acts of god, not unlike a flood or tornado. Police close off a small area for a few hours and there is very little disruption in the lives of the rest of us.

A mass shooting floods our conciseness, 24/7 coverage, massive police presence, multiple layers of law enforcement, the shooters name, work, history and suspected motives pummel us. Forced to re-evaluate our habits and preferences on where we eat, congregate, work,send our children to must be made. Often wide swaths of cities/neighborhoods forced to go on "lockdown" for hours and hours of worry/frantic calls to people we love or know who may be in harms way.

Politically motivated events like San Bernadino and Orlando lead to another fear, that of the possible consequences for the future. Is it a one off or the first of a sequence, will it lead to a new deployment of US troops?

People are emotional creature's and we will always have a hierarchy of loss, that which hurts more, that which revolts us more, that which offends our sensibilities the most.

 

The majority of murders happen in our inner cities and are associated with gangs and drugs. Every time a gangbanger with a record gets caught with a gun, he pleas to a lesser charge and is out on the street shortly thereafter. These are the people responsible for the great majority of murders in this country.

Yet, a felon with a gun is also a federal crime with a mandatory five year sentence, ten years if the gun is found in conjunction with another crime. So, why are these people released? They are released because federal prosecutors won't indict that particular crime. We don't enforce the laws we already have.

A rational response is to put away the element responsible for the murder rate, with laws that already exist. Remove those federal prosecutors from their jobs and replace them with responsible people who will do those jobs.

The emotional response is to blame lawful gun owners. The hysterically emotional response is to blame lawful gun owners who possess the type of firearms least associated with crimes.

I'm going to go with the rational response. Enforce the law.

 

Are you just being obtuse or do you really not grasp that if there are consequences for carrying an illegal gun, it will deter them from carrying or buying said gun? If they don't have a gun, the murder rate goes down. A five year mandatory sentence is a real deterrent, but only if you enforce it. At present it is not enforced and there is no deterrent.

You might also consider that since rifles, all rifles, not just AK47's and the like, are responsible for only 2% of the murders, that banning and raiding every American home where such a rifle might be found would only result in a 2% drop in murders, or likely no drop since the future killer will just grab his handy shotgun or revolver instead.

I do share your pain for the cops and federal prosecutors that may have to work harder. It brings me real angst to suggest that they should do their jobs.

 

Don't confuse "Federal Minimum Sentencing Guidelines" with Federal Crime. Federal prosecutors don't magically appear when Federal Minimums are enforced. They do State Time, From State judges at the behest of State prosecutors in State prisons. Usually those Federal Minimum sentences are only handed down if the gun was used in the commission of the crime.

In any case, even if the person gets the 10 year enhancement they will only do 3, due to Federally mandated Parole guidelines which allows the State to give 1/3 time credit, inmates serve 1/3 of their sentence, to prevent over crowding.

You want laws but you don't want to build the infrastructure to enable the laws to be enforced.

I have a case of beer and an open schedule, we can debate this all night.