Shooting with multiple fatalities at theater in Lafayette, Louisiana.

You are certainly welcome to intervene; however, I wish you would have brought some actual statistics to the intervention. Some citations of specific examples would be nice and if you were to expound upon "almost totally" it would be greatly appreciated.

reply to: IlluminatiTechnician

ETA: I don't know how other countries work, but it would take a Constitutional amendment (agreed upon by both houses of congress) and ratification of that amendment by 3/4 of the states to actually outlaw firearms....in short, it ain't happening.

Hello all. I live 4 miles away from this theater in Lafayette. I am a married father of 14 years with 2 teenagers, and one single digit sibling in tow. My wife and I made a decision this summer, to let the older two frequent with friends to The Grand Theater without adult supervision. We would pick them up at an agreed time. This has changed everything now. My wife was already on egg shells, now this?!?

In Louisiana we have very loose gun laws. We know now the Hi Point 40 cal. SAHG was not purchased in state. People have the right to open carry in LA. I can purchase any gun from a friend without any paperwork. CCW licenses only take one day to obtain with a clean record. Do I find this to be a problem? No.

I do not know any friend that does not carry every day....whether concealed or via the castle law. This theater does not allow firearms per its "Conduct Rules" on its website. Similar to a state funded school. CCW permit holders must abide.

I was raised in California, spending 20 years of my life under liberal law. I purchased my first gun at legal age. I bought a 9mm Hi Point in 2000 for $150 in a pawn shop style environment. I sold it for $90 cash to a man in South Sac. This gun was a piece of shiitake mushroom. What the purchaser did with that gun is their business. That guns sole purpose was to be a hammer once it was milled.

I have been on both sides of this spectrum. While in California I have vivid memories of the 1997 North Hollywood rampage. In 1991, The Good Guys hostage situation. A state run by liberals whom frown upon hunting and guns. Yet.... I could purchase anything I wanted legal or not thru a network of friends or lack thereof. Legally now, I own a couple guns in "The Sportsmans Paradise". I've bought and traded a few times over.

This in Lafayette is our second largest "national" case within a decade. The previous being a horrendous tale for a still grieving family, involving a young woman riding her bicycle.

The questions are such: It pertains to both sides of the spectrum.

If you could change laws.... what would you change versus what currently exists?

Why do you think it would work better than the laws in place?

Do I allow my teens to frequent the movie theater unattended?

Do I respect "Gun Free Zones" while maintaining a CCW?

Cheers, RUF

a reply to: Shamrock6

Whites at it again.

Just a quick update -

www.foxnews.com...

The man who opened fire in a Louisiana movie theater Thursday night, killing two patrons before turning the gun on himself when police blocked his escape, was a “drifter” from Alabama who had a collection of disguises in his motel room and a trick license plate on his 20-year-old Lincoln Continental, police said Friday.

Lafayette Police identified John Russel Houser, 59 as the gunman who fired into a crowd of 100 people at the Grand 16 Theater during a screening of Amy Schumer’s “Trainwreck.” The gunfire killed Jillian Johnson, 33, a well-known local businesswoman and Mayci Breaux, 21, an employee at a fashionable woman’s boutique. Nine others were injured in the shooting, including reportedly Breaux's boyfriend.

“He’s kind of a drifter,” Police Chief Jim Craft told a news conference.

Details about the gunman quickly emerged from the press conference and online postings believed to be Houser's, painting a picture of a troubled and erratic man who had described his occupation as “hustling.”

Craft said Houser was from Phenix City, Alabama, but had been staying at a motel in Lafayette, he said.

"This is such a senseless, tragic action," Craft said Friday night. "Why would you come here and do something like this?"

originally posted by: RufNUsd
If you could change laws.... what would you change versus what currently exists?

I'm not American, and I know that even daring to give an opinion on this will probably result in Conservatives ranting about it, but I really don't give a damn.

1. Restrictions on the types of weapons legally owned. Any weapon clearly not practical for self defense or hunting should be criminal.

2. Nationalized system of registration and checking with confirmation received instantly by the seller. If someone has been found guilty of any violent crime they are instantly prevented from legally buying. Anyone with a history of mental illness is instantly rejected. Anyone incapable of caring for themselves or managing their own affairs is instantly rejected.

There's a lot more, but I know what the response will be to these two suggestions on their own. It's almost entirely pointless trying to have this debate on here.

originally posted by: RufNUsd
Do I allow my teens to frequent the movie theater unattended?

When you say unattended, what would change if they were with you in the same place and something like this happened? Are you a superhero we don't know about? Can you deflect bullets with the power of your mind?
All parents want to protect their kids of course, but you're only Human and no manner of fantastical notions will change the fact that you would be just as easily injured as they could be.

It makes no difference who is with them, and it makes no difference about the location either.
These things happen in schools, in malls, in theaters, in the street...
Just yesterday I saw someone suggest armed guards outside theaters. How nonsensical is that? Going by this logic, you would end up all needing an armed guard to follow you everywhere you go 24/7.
If there are armed guards at the theater, someone will attack a mall. Put guards at the mall, they'll go to a school. Put guards at the school, they'll target people in the street...

At what point does a society say that enough is enough and stop making concessions and sacrifices just because Billy Bob needs to wave his gun around on a weekend to feel like a real man?

originally posted by: RufNUsd
Do I respect "Gun Free Zones" while maintaining a CCW?

Yes.

a reply to: YoungMula0

I'm glad you joined just so you could make that very valuable contribution to the thread!

a reply to: Rocker2013

Your statement about the arm guards being "nonsensical" . Well its common practice in Lafayette for business to hire off duty police officers or deputys as armed security guards. That night there was two on duty at the theatre, which is why the shooter did not get away. The point I am trying to make is, that it's a difficult problem with no easy fix. More laws? Maybe but the only people who would follow them are the law abiding citizens. Let everybody CCW without permits? Not really then you would possibly have a wild west type of situation with shoot outs. Hire more guards or officers? The coast will be passed on to the tax payers or patrons of business's. The only answer that I can think of would take away many of our rights and I for sure don't want to live that way (can you say nazi Germany 1930's & 40's)
And yes I live in Lafayette

originally posted by: Rocker2013

2. Nationalized system of registration and checking with confirmation received instantly by the seller. If someone has been found guilty of any violent crime they are instantly prevented from legally buying. Anyone with a history of mental illness is instantly rejected. Anyone incapable of caring for themselves or managing their own affairs is instantly rejected.

Most of this is already law in the US. Any conviction of a crime carrying a possible penalty of more than one year in prison results in permanent forfeiture of the right to own a firearm. Likewise, anyone who has been formally declared mentally ill or incompetent by the court system, including inability to manage one's own affairs, is also barred from ownership of a firearm. Registration, however, is actually illegal at the Federal level under US law. Note that ATF Form 4473, which is a required form for purchasing from a dealer, specifically asks these questions of the buyer.

I do agree, however, that private sellers should have some form of access to the NICS system to run background checks on potential buyers if they want to do so. To that extent, while I might trade one in at a gun shop, I have a personal rule that I will NOT sell a firearm to an individual.

And just to add, your first point about weapons 'clearly not practical' for self defense or hunting is subjective. It even turns out to be highly problematic itself as a practical matter.

originally posted by: Rocker2013


I'm not American, and I know that even daring to give an opinion on this will probably result in Conservatives ranting about it, but I really don't give a damn.

1. Restrictions on the types of weapons legally owned. Any weapon clearly not practical for self defense or hunting should be criminal.

We already have that. It's called "sporting purpose" and it applies to all standard firearms sold without jumping through a bunch of hoops and additional registration.

2. Nationalized system of registration and checking with confirmation received instantly by the seller. If someone has been found guilty of any violent crime they are instantly prevented from legally buying. Anyone with a history of mental illness is instantly rejected. Anyone incapable of caring for themselves or managing their own affairs is instantly rejected.

We already have that. It's called the National Instant Criminal Background Check System and it's administered by the FBI.

There's a lot more, but I know what the response will be to these two suggestions on their own. It's almost entirely pointless trying to have this debate on here.

Yeah, it's pointless trying to debate when your "solution" already exists.

At what point does a society say that enough is enough and stop making concessions and sacrifices just because Billy Bob needs to wave his gun around on a weekend to feel like a real man?

Thank you for displaying how little you know or care about the gun culture.

"Let's ban the religion of Islam because Ahmed needs to blow people up to feel like a real man." That is essentially what you're saying whether you realize it or not. There are hundreds of millions of gun owners who will never commit a crime but you want to take away their rights because of a small minority of criminals.

originally posted by: RufNUsd

If you could change laws.... what would you change versus what currently exists?

Make it so that "gun-free zones" do not apply to concealed carry permit holders. It wouldn't stop the criminals but it might keep these areas from being so "self-defense free." Those areas are certainly not stopping the criminals from bringing their gun.

Why do you think it would work better than the laws in place?

No law will prevent a murderer from committing murder. Murder is the worst crime a person can commit so does anyone believe that a lesser crime would prevent someone from killing?

Do I allow my teens to frequent the movie theater unattended?

Yes.

Do I respect "Gun Free Zones" while maintaining a CCW?

That's up to you but I know where I stand on that issue. It's concealed for a reason and if I have to use it, there's not a damn soul who is going to punish me for carrying where I wasn't supposed to.

a reply to: Answer

And that's what it comes down to. Because of a very small minority of people who use legally purchased and owned firearms in acts of violence, the rest of gun owners who spend a lifetime never doing other than cleaning their firearm and practicing with it need to be punished as well.

And of course that answer will get the response of "well you obviously don't NEED a gun then." Perhaps they don't NEED a gun, but it's people's right to have one. Even if the weapon spends its entire lifetime in a bedside table drawer.

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Answer

And that's what it comes down to. Because of a very small minority of people who use legally purchased and owned firearms in acts of violence, the rest of gun owners who spend a lifetime never doing other than cleaning their firearm and practicing with it need to be punished as well.

And of course that answer will get the response of "well you obviously don't NEED a gun then." Perhaps they don't NEED a gun, but it's people's right to have one. Even if the weapon spends its entire lifetime in a bedside table drawer.

People scoff at the idea of lumping folks together because of a few bad apples. They simultaneously scoff when gun owners are compared to anyone who is discriminated against for their lifestyle.

Inner-city blacks aren't just a bunch of thugs and criminals. Muslims aren't just a bunch of terrorists. Christians aren't just a bunch of young-earth simpletons who want to force their beliefs on everyone. Etc. etc. etc.

However, gun owners are just a bunch of paranoid crazies who need a gun to feel like a man and we need to take away their rights for the good of everyone else because I DON'T LIKE/UNDERSTAND/CARE ABOUT WHAT THEY DO.

I'm creating a new term called "Gunphobia" and I will now accuse all people who criticize guns of being Gunphobic so I can dismiss their opinions as ignorant nonsense. It worked for Islamophobia, Homophobia, and Racism.

originally posted by: Helimech
The only answer that I can think of would take away many of our rights and I for sure don't want to live that way (can you say nazi Germany 1930's & 40's)

I'm sorry, but comparing sensible gun laws to Nazi Germany is more than a little ridiculous.

The question will ultimately be who deserves more rights and protection, the kids who now live in perpetual fear that their school, their local theater or the mall they go to will become a target for some crazy with a gun? Or the right of the gun owner to have any weapon he or she chooses, without restriction?

In another thread just now I saw someone comment that the right to have any gun is a fundamental right and no law should be in existence to prevent that, none at all. They believe that everyone should be able to own and carry any kind of gun anywhere they like. That post was starred multiple times by other members. That's the kind of simplistic and absolute refusal we're dealing with here.

When you're dealing with people who truly believe that their right to own something they seem to have an fetish over is more important than the public safety and the rights of kids to grow up without the constant fear that they might be gunned down any moment, you have a major problem.

It's one thing to have the fiery debate about gun control, it's something entirely different when the pro-gun crowd absolutely refuse to even contemplate any sensible laws over the legislation of gun ownership whatsoever.

This discussion has to be had, and those who refuse to accept any possible controls need to be shut out of the conversation so the grown ups can talk about it properly.

a reply to: Answer

I like it. And with your permission will use it as well.

I just don't get it. Let's take away all the guns to prevent that one person in a million (and that's low balling it) from using a gun when they lose their crap.

Nobody pays attention to the fact that there's literally tens of millions of legal gun owners who DIDN'T kill somebody on any given day.

Crazy to me.

originally posted by: Rocker2013
The question will ultimately be who deserves more rights and protection, the kids who now live in perpetual fear that their school, their local theater or the mall they go to will become a target for some crazy with a gun? Or the right of the gun owner to have any weapon he or she chooses, without restriction?

The correct answer is that both groups deserve to have their rights respected to the fullest extent. As for the gun owner, as long as they've not committed a crime...and we know from a mountain of historical data that the vast majority won't...why do they deserve to have their rights restricted?

Take the guns out of it for a moment. Why does anyone deserve to have any of their rights restricted when they've committed no crime?

From where I'm sitting, its irrational and illogical to strip away the rights of people who are not guilty of a crime, whatever those rights may be. That goes against everything I believe in, whether its on this issue or any other.

originally posted by: Rocker2013

I'm sorry, but comparing sensible gun laws to Nazi Germany is more than a little ridiculous.

You all want to use the term "sensible." You don't understand that what's "sensible" to you is downright ludicrous to gun owners. There are a boat load of "sensible" gun laws already on the books and they're not working because the criminals are not being properly handled by the legal system. How is it so hard to understand that if the legal system is failing, passing more laws will do absolutely nothing to prevent future murders?

The question will ultimately be who deserves more rights and protection, the kids who now live in perpetual fear that their school, their local theater or the mall they go to will become a target for some crazy with a gun? Or the right of the gun owner to have any weapon he or she chooses, without restriction?

What a massive load of dramatic BS. Kids don't live in fear that they're going to be shot. These events are still EXTREMELY rare and kids have an astronomically better chance of drowning in a pool than being shot. You already said you're not from the US so don't try to pretend that you know how our children feel about it. If you're from the UK, as I suspect, you've been fed LOADS of propaganda by your government to convince you that guns are horrible. You've bought right into it.

In another thread just now I saw someone comment that the right to have any gun is a fundamental right and no law should be in existence to prevent that, none at all. They believe that everyone should be able to own and carry any kind of gun anywhere they like. That post was starred multiple times by other members. That's the kind of simplistic and absolute refusal we're dealing with here.

Which of the existing laws stopped this man from killing? They're clearly working so well...

When you're dealing with people who truly believe that their right to own something they seem to have an fetish over is more important than the public safety and the rights of kids to grow up without the constant fear that they might be gunned down any moment, you have a major problem.

Stop with the "kids in constant fear" crap. It's nothing but hyperbole because you're a victim of your nation's propaganda.

Would you support banning the religion of Islam because kids might be in fear of getting killed by a terrorist? Honest question.

It's one thing to have the fiery debate about gun control, it's something entirely different when the pro-gun crowd absolutely refuse to even contemplate any sensible laws over the legislation of gun ownership whatsoever.

This discussion has to be had, and those who refuse to accept any possible controls need to be shut out of the conversation so the grown ups can talk about it properly.

Right, let's shut out the people who are actually invested. Why don't you focus on your own country's affairs and stay the hell out of ours? Your gunphobia doesn't apply to the US.

originally posted by: LeatherNLace
a reply to: Patriotsrevenge

I see reading comprehension is not your strong suite. Did I say anything about banning firearms? There is plenty of middle-ground between banning and a free-for-all. I find other's refusal to even sit and have a rational discussion about the issue most disturbing. BTW, I currently own 7 firearms; ranging from small caliber pistols to high-powered rifles.

Some people...SMH

You own firearms yet you think it's "free-for-all"?

Surely you must know about all of the gun laws currently on the books. All of those laws that did nothing to stop this shooting.

The only conversation that needs to be had is "Why aren't the current laws working? Why are career criminals out on the street? Why are heavily-medicated, mentally-ill people snapping and killing folks? How do we curtail the violence in urban centers?"

Those questions have difficult answers so everyone would rather divert to the easy "solution" of "let's come up with some new gun laws... that'll fix it!"

We all know the definition of insanity, right?

Here's a little light reading for those who think there's a "free for all" and guns aren't regulated in the US. There are other laws plus the state laws but this will get you started.

228 pages of regulations:

ATF Firearm Regulations

Also, did you know there's an excise tax on firearms and ammo?

a reply to: Answer

However, gun owners are just a bunch of paranoid crazies who need a gun to feel like a man and we need to take away their rights for the good of everyone else because I DON'T LIKE/UNDERSTAND/CARE ABOUT WHAT THEY DO.

I don't think that. I just think people who feel the need to carry a firearm everywhere they go for 'so called' protection, are in a constant state of irrational paranoia.

Also, people who can't see the loopholes that exist for purchasing firearms aren't an issue, are incapable of approaching the issue in a rational manner.

But imo, individuals who are prepared to go to the effort to prove there responsible mentally stable people, should be completely free to purchase firearms for the purpose of hunting and sport.

originally posted by: Subaeruginosa


I don't think that. I just think people who feel the need to carry a firearm everywhere they go for 'so called' protection, are in a constant state of irrational paranoia.

And that would make you wrong.

Articles about guns used in self defense.

See, those are the stories you never hear about... people using guns to stop an attack. It happens daily in this country but it never makes the national news so you don't know about it.

Also, people who can't see the loopholes that exist for purchasing firearms aren't an issue, are incapable of approaching the issue in a rational manner.

Is that so? What loopholes are those? How do you propose fixing those loopholes?

If you're referring to the fact that any private individual can buy a gun from another private individual, how would you solve that problem? Would you pass a law that says all non-dealer sales require a background check? Would a person who intends to commit a crime actually go that route instead of getting a gun from someone who won't do the background check?

But imo, individuals who are prepared to go to the effort to prove there responsible mentally stable people, should be completely free to purchase firearms for the purpose of hunting and sport.

Right, and those individuals are not the ones who will commit a crime. The folks who will not go to the effort to prove they're responsible mentally stable people will still have no problem getting a gun and meanwhile, the folks who are going through all your testing and permitting will be defenseless.

Hunting and sport are not the reasons for the 2nd Amendment but I'm sure you already know that. Reference my link above if you want to know the real reason.