Another mass shooting deserves a better answer.

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
For starters, all those states that have pretty lax laws requiring gun purchases would have to adhere to having all customers get that license and registration. Criminals like as little oversight as possible....which is why you have such a thing as the "Iron Pipeline" for guns used in crimes in NYC, which has very strict gun laws. It would also put the kibosh on the gun show loopholes. Not perfect and won't stop all illegal exchanges/purchases/transfers, but it sure as hell would put a serious crimp in them.

there is no gun show loophole. we've had this conversation before.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
But that does not change the fact that in state with CCW, you had none to stop this guy. And if there were some who would have tried, how would the cops tell the difference between bad guy and good guy in a panic crowd fleeing shootout?

people need to make a decision, you either believe in a persons ability to defend themselves, or you don't. If you don't believe that people have a basic and fundamental right to self defense, this conversation is dead and so are millions of others, eventually. If you DO believe a person has the right to defend themselves, then you need to force law enforcement to be less trigger happy.

1. yes, and you are still in denial....playing word games in lieu of the reality: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...fact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/

2. You can blow all the smoke you want, but you can't logically or factually fault what I said there.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

1. yes, and you are still in denial....playing word games in lieu of the reality: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-...fact-sheet-3-things-know-about-gun-show-loop/

your link is playing word games. if something is specifically allowed, by law, meaning that those exact words in there state 'private sales are exempted', then it's not a loophole.

2. You can blow all the smoke you want, but you can't logically or factually fault what I said there.

anyone can logically and factually fault you for your misstatement. start supporting armed self defense, watch things change.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
1. yes, and you are still in denial....playing word games in lieu of the reality: https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...gun-show-loop/

your link is playing word games. if something is specifically allowed, by law, meaning that those exact words in there state 'private sales are exempted', then it's not a loophole.

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
2. You can blow all the smoke you want, but you can't logically or factually fault what I said there.

anyone can logically and factually fault you for your misstatement. start supporting armed self defense, watch things change.

- As usual, your myopic viewpoint favors your personal desire. Here's what you DON'T want to deal with from the link: Our findings show that there is, in fact, an exemption in the law. But the exemption pertains to who sells the guns rather than where they sell them.

When researchers excluded purchases between family and friends, that number dropped to 15 percent, which equates to approximately 5 million gun owners whose most recent purchase did not involve a background check.

"There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."
Gabriel Chin, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, told PolitiFact that there is a loophole in the sense that it has not been clear how many firearms one has to sell before one is required to obtain a license.

Nationwide, how many gun sellers are not required to hold a license is difficult to determine. Some of the research we found about the percentage of gun show vendors who are licensed was outdated or limited in scope.
A 1999 federal study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that those with federal firearm licenses make up 50 to 75 percent of the vendors at gun shows. But that included vendors who sold guns or other paraphernalia and accessories, so it was difficult to tell how many sold only guns. ATF has not updated that study, a spokeswoman told PolitiFact. (A separate outdated study looked at what percentage of gun sales escape background checks, but that study had various shortcomings, according to PolitiFact Virginia.)

"Remember, gun shows are mainly on weekends, so there is room for someone to claim ‘this is a hobby or part of my collection’ when it is also a substantial business," Chin said.
Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, said the term "gun show loophole" is misleading if it implies that the law didn’t intend to exempt some sellers.
"The term ‘loophole’ suggests that it was a minor, unintended flaw in the design of the law, something inadvertently overlooked by lawmakers, when it was actually the very intentional result of a carefully worked-out political compromise between those who wanted background checks on all gun acquisitions and those who did not want any at all," he said.

- More smoke from you.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

- As usual, your myopic viewpoint favors your personal desire. Here's what you DON'T want to deal with from the link: Our findings show that there is, in fact, an exemption in the law. But the exemption pertains to who sells the guns rather than where they sell them.

When researchers excluded purchases between family and friends, that number dropped to 15 percent, which equates to approximately 5 million gun owners whose most recent purchase did not involve a background check.

"There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."
Gabriel Chin, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, told PolitiFact that there is a loophole in the sense that it has not been clear how many firearms one has to sell before one is required to obtain a license.

Nationwide, how many gun sellers are not required to hold a license is difficult to determine. Some of the research we found about the percentage of gun show vendors who are licensed was outdated or limited in scope.
A 1999 federal study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that those with federal firearm licenses make up 50 to 75 percent of the vendors at gun shows. But that included vendors who sold guns or other paraphernalia and accessories, so it was difficult to tell how many sold only guns. ATF has not updated that study, a spokeswoman told PolitiFact. (A separate outdated study looked at what percentage of gun sales escape background checks, but that study had various shortcomings, according to PolitiFact Virginia.)

"Remember, gun shows are mainly on weekends, so there is room for someone to claim ‘this is a hobby or part of my collection’ when it is also a substantial business," Chin said.
Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, said the term "gun show loophole" is misleading if it implies that the law didn’t intend to exempt some sellers.
"The term ‘loophole’ suggests that it was a minor, unintended flaw in the design of the law, something inadvertently overlooked by lawmakers, when it was actually the very intentional result of a carefully worked-out political compromise between those who wanted background checks on all gun acquisitions and those who did not want any at all," he said.

- More smoke from you.

you proved my point in a most excellent manner. thank you. there is no gun show loophole. In fact, there is no loophole, at all.

 

[RB 60]

you proved my point in a most excellent manner. thank you. there is no gun show loophole. In fact, there is no loophole, at all.

These people who call it a loophole want private sales (now transfers), even between family, friends and known responsible individuals, to perform background checks.

Personally, every gun I've bought or sold was with responsible people. I did the background check for them, no need for another one.

 

[Rune]

Gun control, rectum breath.

I don't support gun control, retard.

 

[Darth Omar]

I've said it before and I'll say it again....if we treat all gun purchases like this country treats car purchases, you'd have a better tracking system and mandatory class to pass in handling the item. Won't stop all nuts and evil doers, but it'll cut down the number of incidences.

Oh, and for all the 2nd Amendment/NRA/pro-gun lobby bullhorns: where were all the CCW heroes that you people swore would save the day at these tragedies? It was in Texas, ya know.

Are you talking about the mass shooting in Philly yesterday?

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
- As usual, your myopic viewpoint favors your personal desire. Here's what you DON'T want to deal with from the link: Our findings show that there is, in fact, an exemption in the law. But the exemption pertains to who sells the guns rather than where they sell them.

When researchers excluded purchases between family and friends, that number dropped to 15 percent, which equates to approximately 5 million gun owners whose most recent purchase did not involve a background check.

"There is a huge loophole in federal law, but it isn't for gun shows," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler said. "What is called the gun-show loophole is misnamed. It should be the ‘private sale loophole’ or the ‘background check loophole.’ ... The reason people talk about gun shows is that they are easily accessible marketplaces for people who don't want to be subject to a background check to find non-licensed gun sellers."
Gabriel Chin, a professor at UC Davis School of Law, told PolitiFact that there is a loophole in the sense that it has not been clear how many firearms one has to sell before one is required to obtain a license.

Nationwide, how many gun sellers are not required to hold a license is difficult to determine. Some of the research we found about the percentage of gun show vendors who are licensed was outdated or limited in scope.
A 1999 federal study by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms found that those with federal firearm licenses make up 50 to 75 percent of the vendors at gun shows. But that included vendors who sold guns or other paraphernalia and accessories, so it was difficult to tell how many sold only guns. ATF has not updated that study, a spokeswoman told PolitiFact. (A separate outdated study looked at what percentage of gun sales escape background checks, but that study had various shortcomings, according to PolitiFact Virginia.)

"Remember, gun shows are mainly on weekends, so there is room for someone to claim ‘this is a hobby or part of my collection’ when it is also a substantial business," Chin said.
Gary Kleck, a criminologist at Florida State University, said the term "gun show loophole" is misleading if it implies that the law didn’t intend to exempt some sellers.
"The term ‘loophole’ suggests that it was a minor, unintended flaw in the design of the law, something inadvertently overlooked by lawmakers, when it was actually the very intentional result of a carefully worked-out political compromise between those who wanted background checks on all gun acquisitions and those who did not want any at all," he said.

- More smoke from you.



you proved my point in a most excellent manner. thank you. there is no gun show loophole. In fact, there is no loophole, at all.

As you can see, dear reader, STY has a reading problem...he just ignores what doesn't fit his beliefs. All one has to do is read carefully and comprehensively to see how one has to couch their analysis in order to deny the loophole. I've highlighted where it shows how both sides concede how the language of the law allows for the label. STY is insipidly stubborn, as most oathers/threepers/libertarians are.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Are you talking about the mass shooting in Philly yesterday?

Nope, I was referring to El Paso and Dayton at the time.

 

[Taichiliberal]

These people who call it a loophole want private sales (now transfers), even between family, friends and known responsible individuals, to perform background checks.

Personally, every gun I've bought or sold was with responsible people. I did the background check for them, no need for another one.

Yeah, and even if I were to believe you, what would be the harm in passing registration of those weapons like you do when you sell a car to someone?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

As you can see, dear reader, STY has a reading problem...he just ignores what doesn't fit his beliefs. All one has to do is read carefully and comprehensively to see how one has to couch their analysis in order to deny the loophole. I've highlighted where it shows how both sides concede how the language of the law allows for the label. STY is insipidly stubborn, as most oathers/threepers/libertarians are.

you're talking about yourself again...........it doesn't matter about both sides conception of the law if the law SPECIFICALLY STATES that private sales are exempt. if there's any smoke blowing going on, its coming from you, charlie.

 

[RB 60]

Yeah, and even if I were to believe you, what would be the harm in passing registration of those weapons like you do when you sell a car to someone?

It's no one's business what I have.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
As you can see, dear reader, STY has a reading problem...he just ignores what doesn't fit his beliefs. All one has to do is read carefully and comprehensively to see how one has to couch their analysis in order to deny the loophole. I've highlighted where it shows how both sides concede how the language of the law allows for the label. STY is insipidly stubborn, as most oathers/threepers/libertarians are.

you're talking about yourself again...........it doesn't matter about both sides conception of the law if the law SPECIFICALLY STATES that private sales are exempt. if there's any smoke blowing going on, its coming from you, charlie.

Your intellectual myopia is to be pitied, as I hope any lawyer you engage doesn't have your insipidly stubborn problem with reading comprehension...and if I'm "talking to myself again", how is it that YOU are responding.

I swear, just when I think you can't get any dumber, you surprise me.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Yeah, and even if I were to believe you, what would be the harm in passing registration of those weapons like you do when you sell a car to someone?

It's no one's business what I have.

Really? Then you don't pay taxes? Don't draw a paycheck? Don't own a car? You have absolutely no paper trail in any part of your life? You don't use any public facilities or utilities?

Yeah, I thought so. Read your Constitution, bunky. Congress has the power to make laws...and the laws have stated and can state what you can and can't do in this country. So again, if the AWB was in play, those weapons used in El Paso and Dayton would not have been available. Period. And those who have them prior to the law's inaction can keep them …. registered.

So what the hell are you afraid of? Obviously, you don't give a damn how many are killed so long as you have your pacifier.

 

[RB 60]

Really? Then you don't pay taxes? Don't draw a paycheck? Don't own a car? You have absolutely no paper trail in any part of your life? You don't use any public facilities or utilities?

Yeah, I thought so. Read your Constitution, bunky. Congress has the power to make laws...and the laws have stated and can state what you can and can't do in this country. So again, if the AWB was in play, those weapons used in El Paso and Dayton would not have been available. Period. And those who have them prior to the law's inaction can keep them …. registered.

So what the hell are you afraid of? Obviously, you don't give a damn how many are killed so long as you have your pacifier.

That is a pile of psychobabble.

I know what the Constitution says, it says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You have no clue what the AWB even said, do you? It merely stopped the importation of certain
semi-auto firearms, nothing about limiting the domestic manufacture or sales in this country. DUH!

Furthermore, just how would registering a firearm stop anyone who wishes to break current laws?
I have 5 registered firearms, 3 are through the Army, one through the Navy, and one handgun.
The rest are unregistered and they are going to stay that way. Period. End of conversation.

Do you think you are going to stop and ask some nut case while he's shooting people to stop so
you can get the serial number off of the gun and see who it's registered to? If that nut case is going
to shoot people, I highly doubt having it registered is going to stop them. What makes you think it will?

I am afraid of nothing. I do give a damn that there are assholes who use firearms in the commission of
crimes. Registering my firearms will not stop anyone else who wishes to use their firearms criminally.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Really? Then you don't pay taxes? Don't draw a paycheck? Don't own a car? You have absolutely no paper trail in any part of your life? You don't use any public facilities or utilities?

Yeah, I thought so. Read your Constitution, bunky. Congress has the power to make laws...and the laws have stated and can state what you can and can't do in this country. So again, if the AWB was in play, those weapons used in El Paso and Dayton would not have been available. Period. And those who have them prior to the law's inaction can keep them …. registered.

So what the hell are you afraid of? Obviously, you don't give a damn how many are killed so long as you have your pacifier.

That is a pile of psychobabble.

I know what the Constitution says, it says my right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You have no clue what the AWB even said, do you? It merely stopped the importation of certain
semi-auto firearms, nothing about limiting the domestic manufacture or sales in this country. DUH!

Furthermore, just how would registering a firearm stop anyone who wishes to break current laws?
I have 5 registered firearms, 3 are through the Army, one through the Navy, and one handgun.
The rest are unregistered and they are going to stay that way. Period. End of conversation.

Do you think you are going to stop and ask some nut case while he's shooting people to stop so
you can get the serial number off of the gun and see who it's registered to? If that nut case is going
to shoot people, I highly doubt having it registered is going to stop them. What makes you think it will?

I am afraid of nothing. I do give a damn that there are assholes who use firearms in the commission of
crimes. Registering my firearms will not stop anyone else who wishes to use their firearms criminally.

Your first sentence is just plain silly....please explain PRECISELY what is "psycho-babble", as the first paragraph ASKS YOU QUESTIONS pertaining to a previous statement you made that you seem unwillingly or afraid to answer.

Spare us all the SOS response by parrot gunners, who conveniently ignore part of the 2nd Amendment they find inconvenient. You know, this:

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And thanks for proving my point....jokers like you stockpiling weapons is PRECISELY what's wrong with the country's gun laws, because all it takes is ONE clown to go off and take his arsenal on a shooting spree....you know, like this fool did https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...e-investigating-shooting-mandalay-bay-n806461

Using my proposal, this clown's stockpile would have set off a red flag in a national database. Criminals or those with criminal intent are not keen on many folk knowing anything of their activities that might raise questions. A matter of history, a matter of fact that you can confirm with any police precinct.

If you are afraid of nothing and have no evil or criminal intent, then licensing and registering your little arsenal should be a snap, as I'm sure you wouldn't want to answer any embarrassing questions should you suffer a theft or actually have a shootout in home defense that would require the police to inspect the premises.

Carry on.

 

[RB 60]

Your first sentence is just plain silly....please explain PRECISELY what is "psycho-babble", as the first paragraph ASKS YOU QUESTIONS pertaining to a previous statement you made that you seem unwillingly or afraid to answer.

Spare us all the SOS response by parrot gunners, who conveniently ignore part of the 2nd Amendment they find inconvenient. You know, this:

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And thanks for proving my point....jokers like you stockpiling weapons is PRECISELY what's wrong with the country's gun laws, because all it takes is ONE clown to go off and take his arsenal on a shooting spree....you know, like this fool did https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/l...e-investigating-shooting-mandalay-bay-n806461

Using my proposal, this clown's stockpile would have set off a red flag in a national database. Criminals or those with criminal intent are not keen on many folk knowing anything of their activities that might raise questions. A matter of history, a matter of fact that you can confirm with any police precinct.

If you are afraid of nothing and have no evil or criminal intent, then licensing and registering your little arsenal should be a snap, as I'm sure you wouldn't want to answer any embarrassing questions should you suffer a theft or actually have a shootout in home defense that would require the police to inspect the premises.

Carry on.

You must not be too bright. Just how do you think someone can carry their "arsenal" on a shooting spree?
And you think just because I have a number of guns for specific uses I should be "red flagged"?

I'm afraid of nothing nor do I have any intent on using my firearms illegally, but bet your life I won't license or
register ANY of the firearms I have that currently aren't. Not gonna happen.
I have the serial #s of all my firearms recorded. If one is stolen, that is sufficient to report it.
Inspect the premises? For what? Other than doing an investigation, there's no need to "inspect" the premises
for anything unrelated to an incident.

So you carry on.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Your first sentence is just plain silly....please explain PRECISELY what is "psycho-babble", as the first paragraph ASKS YOU QUESTIONS pertaining to a previous statement you made that you seem unwillingly or afraid to answer.

Spare us all the SOS response by parrot gunners, who conveniently ignore part of the 2nd Amendment they find inconvenient. You know, this:

Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

And thanks for proving my point....jokers like you stockpiling weapons is PRECISELY what's wrong with the country's gun laws, because all it takes is ONE clown to go off and take his arsenal on a shooting spree....you know, like this fool did https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/la...ay-bay-n806461

Using my proposal, this clown's stockpile would have set off a red flag in a national database. Criminals or those with criminal intent are not keen on many folk knowing anything of their activities that might raise questions. A matter of history, a matter of fact that you can confirm with any police precinct.

If you are afraid of nothing and have no evil or criminal intent, then licensing and registering your little arsenal should be a snap, as I'm sure you wouldn't want to answer any embarrassing questions should you suffer a theft or actually have a shootout in home defense that would require the police to inspect the premises.

Carry on.

You must not be too bright. Just how do you think someone can carry their "arsenal" on a shooting spree?
And you think just because I have a number of guns for specific uses I should be "red flagged"?

I'm afraid of nothing nor do I have any intent on using my firearms illegally, but bet your life I won't license or
register ANY of the firearms I have that currently aren't. Not gonna happen.
I have the serial #s of all my firearms recorded. If one is stolen, that is sufficient to report it.
Inspect the premises? For what? Other than doing an investigation, there's no need to "inspect" the premises
for anything unrelated to an incident.

So you carry on.

Just when I think you can't come off any dumber, you surprise me. READ THE LINK, you blithering bumpkin! That shooter took a freaking arsenal with him to that hotel....and quite a few mass shooters in the last 20 years were packing more than one weapon.

And explain to the reading audience just how each weapon in your proclaimed arsenal has a specific use that differs from other. Unnecessary duplication just comes off a paranoia unless you are a licensed gun collector.

You obviously have some sort of latent fear that the gov't is gonna get cha! Otherwise why all the secrecy? But since you have a shitload of weapons available that you gunners swear are just as good if not better than the AR-15 and such, the 1994 AWB shouldn't scare you.

Oh, and thanks for making my point....if you have a theft, a report is filled out, DIRECTLY LINKING SAID STOLEN WEAPON TO YOU. Registration would take care of that, along with any sales you make, transferring responsibility of ownership OFFICIALLY to the person you sold it to, absolving you of any responsibility of a crime committed with said weapon.

Now hold onto your skivvies, but when there is a home invasion and theft, cops usually check out the premises to see how the crooks got in, if any other damage is done, did they do any signature moves that would link the theft to others in the vicinity. It's called thorough police work. If you start bitching, that hampers their job and makes you suspicious looking. A check into how many weapons you stockpile would set of a red flag....resulting in a check to see if all your weapons are legal within state & federal law. Check with your local precinct if you don't believe me.

See bunky, you mouth off about things you're just plain ignorant about. The OP stands valid....stop being a flunky for the gun manufacturers, because they're about profit, not preventing victims.

 

[RB 60]

Just when I think you can't come off any dumber, you surprise me. READ THE LINK, you blithering bumpkin! That shooter took a freaking arsenal with him to that hotel....and quite a few mass shooters in the last 20 years were packing more than one weapon.

And explain to the reading audience just how each weapon in your proclaimed arsenal has a specific use that differs from other. Unnecessary duplication just comes off a paranoia unless you are a licensed gun collector.

You obviously have some sort of latent fear that the gov't is gonna get cha! Otherwise why all the secrecy? But since you have a shitload of weapons available that you gunners swear are just as good if not better than the AR-15 and such, the 1994 AWB shouldn't scare you.

Oh, and thanks for making my point....if you have a theft, a report is filled out, DIRECTLY LINKING SAID STOLEN WEAPON TO YOU. Registration would take care of that, along with any sales you make, transferring responsibility of ownership OFFICIALLY to the person you sold it to, absolving you of any responsibility of a crime committed with said weapon.

Now hold onto your skivvies, but when there is a home invasion and theft, cops usually check out the premises to see how the crooks got in, if any other damage is done, did they do any signature moves that would link the theft to others in the vicinity. It's called thorough police work. If you start bitching, that hampers their job and makes you suspicious looking. A check into how many weapons you stockpile would set of a red flag....resulting in a check to see if all your weapons are legal within state & federal law. Check with your local precinct if you don't believe me.

See bunky, you mouth off about things you're just plain ignorant about. The OP stands valid....stop being a flunky for the gun manufacturers, because they're about profit, not preventing victims.

Yeah, and he shot from a confined and distant spot. Unless holding 2 handguns, a person can only fire one at a time.

If you don't understand why different firearms are used for hunting different game, no one can explain it to you.

Again, it's no one's business what I own. And yes, some of my firearms are superior to an AR-15.

Again, I'm not registering my firearms. I have the serial # if a firearm is stolen, but I highly doubt that will happen.

I am familiar with investigations. A complete search is not part of one. All of my firearms are legal. Why would they "set a red flag"?

Ignorant of what? "Flunky for the gun manufacturers"? Please explain.

 

[Taichiliberal]

Just when I think you can't come off any dumber, you surprise me. READ THE LINK, you blithering bumpkin! That shooter took a freaking arsenal with him to that hotel....and quite a few mass shooters in the last 20 years were packing more than one weapon.

And explain to the reading audience just how each weapon in your proclaimed arsenal has a specific use that differs from other. Unnecessary duplication just comes off a paranoia unless you are a licensed gun collector.

You obviously have some sort of latent fear that the gov't is gonna get cha! Otherwise why all the secrecy? But since you have a shitload of weapons available that you gunners swear are just as good if not better than the AR-15 and such, the 1994 AWB shouldn't scare you.

Oh, and thanks for making my point....if you have a theft, a report is filled out, DIRECTLY LINKING SAID STOLEN WEAPON TO YOU. Registration would take care of that, along with any sales you make, transferring responsibility of ownership OFFICIALLY to the person you sold it to, absolving you of any responsibility of a crime committed with said weapon.

Now hold onto your skivvies, but when there is a home invasion and theft, cops usually check out the premises to see how the crooks got in, if any other damage is done, did they do any signature moves that would link the theft to others in the vicinity. It's called thorough police work. If you start bitching, that hampers their job and makes you suspicious looking. A check into how many weapons you stockpile would set of a red flag....resulting in a check to see if all your weapons are legal within state & federal law. Check with your local precinct if you don't believe me.

See bunky, you mouth off about things you're just plain ignorant about. The OP stands valid....stop being a flunky for the gun manufacturers, because they're about profit, not preventing victims.

Yeah, and he shot from a confined and distant spot. Unless holding 2 handguns, a person can only fire one at a time.

If you don't understand why different firearms are used for hunting different game, no one can explain it to you.

Again, it's no one's business what I own. And yes, some of my firearms are superior to an AR-15.

Again, I'm not registering my firearms. I have the serial # if a firearm is stolen, but I highly doubt that will happen.

I am familiar with investigations. A complete search is not part of one. All of my firearms are legal. Why would they "set a red flag"?

Ignorant of what? "Flunky for the gun manufacturers"? Please explain.

WTF is the matter with you, bunky? YOU made it a point that an "arsenal" isn't carried by mass shooters. The link made you out to be dead wrong...something you either didn't read or chose to ignore/deny. Thus, your first sentence is comically moot and of no help to justify your previous assertion. A pathetic ploy on your part to avoid acknowledging error, because guess what? When one gun is empty, it's easier to pick up another loaded, chambered one ready to go than re-load. Mass shooters are killing PEOPLE, you simp, NOT hunting game. If you can't grasp that simple concept, then no one can help you.

Your next 3 sentences are regurgitations that ignore the previous responses...and you once again you display ignorance in basic police procedure. Any police detectives responding to a break in/theft (after the uniforms do their thing) do a complete check of the premises for signs of things that the owner may not catch...I already covered this, and you don't have the cojones to either check it with local cops or just acknowledge what I said is true. Again, you keep trying to take what I say out of context to justify your absurd stubbornness....and get a clue, because your playing dumb doesn't cut it in printed exchange medium. Your parroting NRA talking points and this silly dodge and deny tactic is just lame.