Lafayette Louisiana Theater Shooting

[Abyssal Echo]

3 dead, 7 hurt when gunman opens fire in Louisiana movie theater.

11:02 PM: According to authorities, the updated count from the theaters shooting: 3 dead, including the shooter. Seven others injured.

www.myfox8.com/2015/07/23/louisiana-theater-shooting-2-dead-including-shooter-multiple-injuries/

[Horatio Nelson]

Sigh, what a tragedy. :|

[Sir Suomi]

It's a shame that this seems to be becoming a common occurrence.

As a side note I'm just waiting to see what other historical icons they start destroying seeing as the media is already calling him a "white supremacist".

[Meh Guy]

It's a shame that this seems to be becoming a common occurrence.

As a side note I'm just waiting to see what other historical icons they start destroying seeing as the media is already calling him a "white supremacist".

And that's what it truly is becoming, a common occurrence. I try not to wrap myself in politics and the like, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that something needs to be - or not be done about this.

[Dalcourt]

Things like that happen way too often and always for the same reasons.
It is really sad.

[Stronk Serb]

And that's what it truly is becoming, a common occurrence. I try not to wrap myself in politics and the like, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that something needs to be - or not be done about this.

In times of crisis and times where people barely or even cannot make ends meet, the people simply go apeshit mad. Same is happening here.

[fairmaiden]

I hope the families of the victims are ok ): This is really sad ):

[dxcxdzv]

I wonder how many time does it will take to the politicians to use it for their election campaigns.

[Sir Suomi]

And that's what it truly is becoming, a common occurrence. I try not to wrap myself in politics and the like, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that something needs to be - or not be done about this.

That's the thing though. What can we do? Do we tighten gun control laws or do we loosen them? Some may argue tighter gun laws would've kept the gun out of his hands which would've avoided this tragedy while others would say that looser laws would've allowed possibly someone else in the theater to be able to fire back with their own firearm.

It's a debate that will probably never cease here in America, more because of how our society is instead of the actual tools of murder. People will kill others to gain fame because our media sources put their whole lives into the spotlight, whether it's with an AR-15 or with fertilizer and racing fuel.

At the end of the day all we can say is that it's a shame on what is becoming the norm in our news.

[thatcountrykid]

That's the thing though. What can we do? Do we tighten gun control laws or do we loosen them? Some may argue tighter gun laws would've kept the gun out of his hands which would've avoided this tragedy while others would say that looser laws would've allowed possibly someone else in the theater to be able to fire back with their own firearm.

It's a debate that will probably never cease here in America, more because of how our society is instead of the actual tools of murder. People will kill others to gain fame because our media sources put their whole lives into the spotlight, whether it's with an AR-15 or with fertilizer and racing fuel.

At the end of the day all we can say is that it's a shame on what is becoming the norm in our news.

By the sounds of it he only had a handgun or if he did have a long gun it was only a 10 round mag.

[Sir Suomi]

By the sounds of it he only had a handgun or if he did have a long gun it was only a 10 round mag.

I was just using an AR-15 as an example since it's always on the "ban list" from anti-gun supporters.

[thatcountrykid]

I was just using an AR-15 as an example since it's always on the "ban list" from anti-gun supporters.

Yeah I know but another thing on their ban list "hi capacity clips" meaning magazines and his was only ten rounds. the idea that hi capacity being gone will stop mass shootings was wrong

[Uniquemind]

Yeah I know but another thing on their ban list "hi capacity clips" meaning magazines and his was only ten rounds. the idea that hi capacity being gone will stop mass shootings was wrong

But that was never their argument.

The argument was low capacity mags REDUCE (not stop) mass shootings. Reduce the damage, or provide openings for counter attacks on the gunman.


I already told you in a past thread the premise behind low capacity mags was not to eliminate mass shootings.

[thatcountrykid]

But that was never their argument.

The argument was low capacity mags REDUCE (not stop) mass shootings. Reduce the damage, or provide openings for counter attacks on the gunman.


I already told you in a past thread the premise behind low capacity mags was not to eliminate mass shootings.

Well obviously people didn't attack back. That might also be in part due to people being afraid to arm themselves. Reduce, stop it doesn't matter. Point is 11 people are hurt and two dead. Mass killings will always happen and people will always die. Magazine capacity doesn't change a thing.

[Uniquemind]

Well obviously people didn't attack back. That might also be in part due to people being afraid to arm themselves. Reduce, stop it doesn't matter. Point is 11 people are hurt and two dead. Mass killings will always happen and people will always die. Magazine capacity doesn't change a thing.

Sorry but the terms of what one is arguing does matter.

Reduce versus stop, completely defines the definition of the goal of success of a policy. In this case "reduce" is a lower bar of success versus the higher/impossible bar of "stop". You can't trivialize the two because it matters.


Also the rebuttal regarding a good guy with a gun stopping bad guy with gun might occur sometimes but it takes a very special person to instantly go from "hey I'm going about my normal business in public" to "zone totally identified the precise bad guy and can take him out".


In fact arming more civilians has a high potential of friendly fire when everyone is caught by surprise by an attackers.


Therefore this type of defense adds to the chaos of an already chaotic situation.


Not to mention some of these shooters have had body armor anyway as well.

[DriveAlive]

Sorry but the terms of what one is arguing does matter.

Reduce versus stop, completely defines the definition of the goal of success of a policy. In this case "reduce" is a lower bar of success versus the higher/impossible bar of "stop". You can't trivialize the two because it matters.


Also the rebuttal regarding a good guy with a gun stopping bad guy with gun might occur sometimes but it takes a very special person to instantly go from "hey I'm going about my normal business in public" to "zone totally identified the precise bad guy and can take him out".


In fact arming more civilians has a high potential of friendly fire when everyone is caught by surprise by an attackers.


Therefore this type of defense adds to the chaos of an already chaotic situation.


Not to mention some of these shooters have had body armor anyway as well.
I wholeheartedly agree that a well-armed group of people in the theater would be hard pressed to engage the shooter quickly and effectively without friendly fire. With that said, I do sometimes feel that what lets these mass shootings accumulate so many fatalities is that the guy is allowed to continue his rampage without anyine being able to stop him. I personally know that if I was at the movies and someone started shooting and I was trying to stay alive, the first thing Id want is a gun.
I am also not sure why the shooter having body armor makes a difference in whether or not civilians should be armed. The police shoot the same bullets as civilians and a couple hits from most guns is enough to incapacitate someone wearing armor, if not penetrate it.

[thatcountrykid]

Sorry but the terms of what one is arguing does matter.

Reduce versus stop, completely defines the definition of the goal of success of a policy. In this case "reduce" is a lower bar of success versus the higher/impossible bar of "stop". You can't trivialize the two because it matters.


Also the rebuttal regarding a good guy with a gun stopping bad guy with gun might occur sometimes but it takes a very special person to instantly go from "hey I'm going about my normal business in public" to "zone totally identified the precise bad guy and can take him out".


In fact arming more civilians has a high potential of friendly fire when everyone is caught by surprise by an attackers.


Therefore this type of defense adds to the chaos of an already chaotic situation.


Not to mention some of these shooters have had body armor anyway as well.

I'm not saying arm everybody. That's just stupid. But there are plenty of people who carry weapons and know how to use them and it couldve reduced damage. The shooting was spread over a little bit of time. It wasn't over in seconds.

Also body armor doesn't make you invincible. A round hitting a vest could easily go through and if it it will still fuck you up. And It doesn't cover the whole body. A round to the pelvic area is just as deadly as a torso shot