And I have to say that the amount of crimes with a firearm are probably one hundredth that of the prevalence in USA.

Two points:

1) if you take out crimes committed by the "angels" in the US, the crime rate in the US would be much lower;
2) if our goal is to lower gun crimes, why don't we put heavy punishment on crimes committed with a gun? What about an automatic life in prison for crimes committed with a gun, and in the case of personal death, automatic death sentence?

Why are the republican so retarded that they cannot even put up a half-assed fight?

 

We have a cultural problem in America that's exasperated by guns. In the 90's it peaked and the crime rate is down nationally, half what it was in 1990 while the number of guns in the population has increased.

What do you think the cause is?
Education? Income? or ??
We did put a couple of million people in prison during the same time. Maybe that lowered it?

 

I'll just post this here, because.

 

What do you think the cause is?
Education? Income? or ??
We did put a couple of million people in prison during the same time. Maybe that lowered it?

More police, more criminals in prison, a reduction in the 'crack' epidemic and legal abortion.

 

if our goal is to lower gun crimes, why don't we put heavy punishment on crimes committed with a gun?

Too late. It has already been done. 10 years for a robbery, 20 years if you bring a gun, and life if you fire the gun.
The major problem is that the definition of a criminal is that they don't obey The Law. Write all the laws you want and it won't stop people who don't obey them. This is the kind of idiotic knee-jerk reaction that has sent America down the path where the government (and the ignorant whiners) want lots and lots of more laws because that will make the criminals decide to obey the laws if there are lots and lots of laws. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

Disarming the honest citizens just makes America a safe kill zone for the nut-cases.

 

Too late. It has already been done. 10 years for a robbery, 20 years if you bring a gun, and life if you fire the gun.
The major problem is that the definition of a criminal is that they don't obey The Law. Write all the laws you want and it won't stop people who don't obey them. This is the kind of idiotic knee-jerk reaction that has sent America down the path where the government (and the ignorant whiners) want lots and lots of more laws because that will make the criminals decide to obey the laws if there are lots and lots of laws. IT DOESN'T WORK THAT WAY.

Disarming the honest citizens just makes America a safe kill zone for the nut-cases.

So how do you explain this?

 

So how do you explain this?

The same way you explain why 300 people in an Orlando bar couldn't fire back at a mass murderer.

 

I'll just post this here, because.

But it's so hard to dance with one of those over your shoulder.

 

The same way you explain why 300 people in an Orlando bar couldn't fire back at a mass murderer.

Well, one of them did have a gun. He probably needed a bigger one.
Probably everybody in this post has a couple of guns. I don't take mine with me to nightclubs. Do you?

 

Well, one of them did have a gun. He probably needed a bigger one.
Probably everybody in this post has a couple of guns. I don't take mine with me to nightclubs. Do you?

It was a 'gun-free designated massacre zone' (soft target like in France and Belgium), he visited several times to know the security, layout and strong points of the building, the murder waited until closing time so the armed officer was in the 'get the drunks' out mode instead of being alert for incoming trouble, used human shield/stall with negotiations tactics to prevent the initial response from storming the building before he could kill the people trying to escape at his leisure. If you're drinking you don't need to carry but if you're not I see nothing wrong with CCW in a nightclub.

 

Probably everybody in this post has a couple of guns. I don't take mine with me to nightclubs. Do you?

No, because most of the honest citizens are disarmed by The Law.

Sorry about the delay. My real life intruded. Meanwhile, nsaspook covered it for me.

 

It was a 'gun-free designated massacre zone' (soft target like in France and Belgium), he visited several times to know the security, layout and strong points of the building, the murder waited until closing time so the armed officer was in the 'get the drunks' out mode instead of being alert for incoming trouble, used human shield/stall with negotiations tactics to prevent the initial response from storming the building before he could kill the people trying to escape at his leisure. If you're drinking you don't need to carry but if you're not I see nothing wrong with CCW in a nightclub.

I think they were just out gunned.
http://fox6now.com/2016/06/12/orlando-mass-shooting-a-timeline-of-events-and-what-we-know/

 

No, because most of the honest citizens are disarmed by The Law.

Sorry about the delay. My real life intruded. Meanwhile, nsaspook covered it for me.

Not here. And it doesn't seem to make much difference.
I think part of the problem is that the shooter knows what he is going to do and the bystanders don't realize what is going on for a while.
I think many of these guys don't expect to live thru the experience so the fact that there might be guns around is not a real big deterrent.

 

,............... why don't we put heavy punishment on crimes committed with a gun?.....................

These are called "Richmond Laws" or "Exile Laws". They turned pretty much any crime committed with a firearm into a Federal case that carried a minimum term of 5 years, then what you did with it was added to the sentence. The few states that passed these laws enjoyed a significant reduction in gun related violent crime. Exile laws are one of the two forms of legislation that has a significant statistical reduction in gun crime. The other legislation is concealed carry laws.

 

It sort of crossed my mind when I posted what I thought was a light hearted joke that it would unfortunately escalate into a political debate.
Max.

 

Max, it had to happen sometime.

 

I think they were just out gunned.
http://fox6now.com/2016/06/12/orlando-mass-shooting-a-timeline-of-events-and-what-we-know/

The witness accounts seem to say he got the 'drop' on security by being a 'regular' they knew then starting shooting inside. You don't 'out gun' three shooters vs one with nobody dead from that encounter in a stand-up fight. My guess would be in the massive initial shooting confusion he took hostages as human shields then retreated to cover under fire while the cops did the right thing getting other people out of the club.

 

I'll just post this here, because.

Joey, I disagree. In defending my home a shotgun is KING.

 

These are called "Richmond Laws" or "Exile Laws". They turned pretty much any crime committed with a firearm into a Federal case that carried a minimum term of 5 years, then what you did with it was added to the sentence. The few states that passed these laws enjoyed a significant reduction in gun related violent crime. Exile laws are one of the two forms of legislation that has a significant statistical reduction in gun crime. The other legislation is concealed carry laws.

https://www.thetrace.org/2015/10/lower-crime-rates-not-caused-by-concealed-carry/

The witness accounts seem to say he got the 'drop' on security by being a 'regular' they knew then starting shooting inside. You don't 'out gun' three shooters vs one with nobody dead from that encounter in a stand-up fight. My guess would be in the massive initial shooting confusion he took hostages as human shields then retreated to cover under fire while the cops did the right thing getting other people out of the club.

I suspect your right. With 300 people inside that building the cops probably weren't to anxious to shoot while the killer didn't care.
He also had a long gun against probably some glocks.

 

It sort of crossed my mind when I posted what I thought was a light hearted joke that it would unfortunately escalate into a political debate.
Max.

Gun debate.
But your probably right, there are to many variables to make a solid case in either direction.