An sensible and prepared person really should not be without at least three firearms on his or her person at all times....

the more firearms you have the more likely you are to KILL SOMEONE!!!!!!!!!!

That would have made him only carry one, eh? What a silly post. Let us know when the 'Hugabear opinion standard' is adopted by anyone as the arbiter of "rational reason"..

My Glock 19 (9mm) has a "standard" 15-round magazine. I can buy 32-round magazines for it. Some states require a maximum magazine capacity of as few as 10 rounds.

I'm no competition shooter and I can drop a mag and reload in less than 4 seconds. Does it really make a difference if I can shoot 10 rounds, take 4 seconds to reload, shoot another 10, take 4 seconds to reload and shoot another 10 or just shoot 30 without reloading?

My point is that one firearm at the strictest state standards is more than enough to do whatever damage one intends. I don't see where a restriction on the number of guns would make any practical difference.

THEIR PARANOID HEADS WOULD EXPLODE AT THE VERY IDEA OF LIMITS

Those of us with CCP's usually only carry one now.
A law limiting how many one could carry is not needed, it would just be another feel good useless law.

If I'm thinking I'm going to go massacre some folks, I'm not going to be worried about a limit and so the law would have about zero benefit.

Let's say the idea becomes law, what is the actual win? Which mass murders would be prevented? Does the law provide the ability to prosecute a mass murderer?

You don't construct laws based on "for what good reason are you doing X?", you construct them for societal benefit which means that it is on you to show a need and benefits.

If your need is to prevent mass murders then how does the proposed law do so? If you can't say how but "its doing SOMETHING" then you have a vanity law and a placebo. You don't like the idea of someone having a bunch of guns around you and perhaps the law would address that but it cannot provide a benefit to society beyond addressing your personal feeling at the expense of someone else's personal feeling. There is no impact on you if your neighbor has five guns on him somewhere that doesn't come with far more trouble for them than you can add to the tally.
There is no plausible deterrence. The cost of "doing business" cannot be any less than the penalty, and probably would be far less, the person you are trying to stop is already facing life or the death penalty as is.

Also, remember physics imposes far better limits than the most carefully crafted law ever could, a motherfucker seldom has more than two usable hands. I trust that over some clumsy law that will waste tax dollars and damage decent people who get pulled over on the way to the range or during a move more than anything else.

wouldn't mean jack-shit if someone is already hell bent on committing mass-murder.

Not true

in most of them the shooter had 1 or 2 I think only in Columbine and Aurora did the shooter have more than that.

You don't need too many if you intend to start shooting in a place where the law abiding are barred from carrying a firearm.

with a bunch of guns on him in full body armor, they could have arrested him. Without that law, he'd raise no suspicions.

... that if a crowd had seen this guy walking into a theater with armor, a gas mask, AR-15 and other misc, they wouldn't have called it in as the laws stand now?

This would have zero effect on criminals and only be hindrance to law abiding citizens.

he had either, since no one would have stopped him until it was too late.

I didn't add the tag to my post, but that's how I intended it to read.

We have a tragedy like this and people come up with all sorts of ideas to "address" the gun problem, but I haven't seen anything yet that would prevent this specific kind of issue.

If he did, he wouldn't have been shooting all of those people.

Hunting 2-3 depending on the number of people hitting the field.

When I go to the range I will have 4 to 6 guns with me. It sucks though to have to clean them after.

as one person who owns a thousand guns.

How many hands do you think people have?

Personally I'd prefer they load themselves down with dozens of guns before going on a rampage. It would only slow them down.

This is another one of those laws that seems reasonable at first glance. But if you look in to it it becomes obvious that such a limit would do precisely nothing to make us safer.

nt

I don't see what this would accomplish...

Most concealed carry folks carry one handgun, but some carry a 2nd (usually) smaller back-up gun.

But because it is funny I submit this video:

is that criminals won't abide by limits, the only ones impacted by such a law are the ones who obey the laws. If criminals agree to the limit, then so will I. This would just be another useless feel good law that will have zero impact on crime.
Anyways, I only carry one now unless I'm headed to the range for a day of shooting.

Require all gun owners to have on their person that decides to carry their guns in public to have them all on their person including the bullets.

What's the point in that?
What would that accomplish?

Many time two and have been know to carry three. The third being a NAA 22 mag mini revolver. I carry it in a medallion holster.

I haven't murdered anyone yet.