Another cinema shooting

[Crackpot]

Yes because nothing screams safty like crossfire in a dark room.

[wesw]

deterrents work. don t be a soft target. the thief does not come to the strong man s house.

nobody wants to be in a gunfight. that s a red herring.

[Crackpot]

You don't see how adding gunplay into a crowded and dark theater can worsen the situation? More shooters just supplements the perpetrators goal.

[wesw]

are you purposely not getting my point or am I explaining it poorly?

[Big RR]

So wes, you honestly think a mentally ill man who probably was bent on self destruction would have been deterred by the possiblility (even a very good one) that others might have been armed in the theater? Hell, the additional gunplay in a dark theater Crackpot refers to might well have been an additional inducement for him to start the whole event in the first place. I hardly see other guns as a deterrent of any sort.

Now you are probably right, there are cases where a rational thief/attacker/etc. might be deterred by the presence of firearms in the home of a target, but this is not one. And given the familiarity most people have with firearms, even those who own them, the mere presence of a gun is not likely to be that much of a deterrent in most circumstances; even under the best of circumstances many gun owners (a lot of whom have never even been to a range) couldn't hit a person even at close range, and many would hesitate for a second before they sought to take a life (and that second is all they need to be disarmed and have the firearm used against them). There are a lot of Walter Mitty types out there, and those are the sort most likely to be hurt or killed.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Those Vegas odds in full:

CP doesn't get wesw's point: 100-1
wesw doesn't explain anything properly: Evens
wesw is just wrong: 3-1 on

Yes sir - when I go into that crowded, dark theatre to watch some shoot-em-up movie, I'm going to feel so safe knowing that at the first sound of gunfire, dozens of folks will leap to their feet and start blazing away at each other. That are a good idee, that am.

[Sue U]

And, looking at all of the various sources that are moderately to very reliable, none of them have the take Sue got from the far left blogosphere.

Exactly which part of it what I posted is not true and not carried by a "major" media outlet?

The shooter was a radical right-wing terrorist:

http://www.rawstory.com/2015/07/louisia ... iA.twitter

He was apparently a well-known guest on local talk radio and teevee shows, brought on because airing his extremist views "could make the phones ring."

Of course, Fux Nooz describes him as a "mysterious drifter" with "no political affiliation."

I was pointing out the irony of you slamming Fox for covering the story like every other regular news outlet -- drifter with severe emotional problems -- by citing a far left biased blogsite. The biased blogsite mischaracterizes this as a right wing terrorist attack rather than what it is -- a mentally disturbed person committing a heinous crime when he should have been under monitored care. Bigsky is right, this is more a failure of our mental health system than anything else.

The website (Raw Story), had you actually read it, explicitly notes Houser's history of mental issues, erratic behavior and brushes with the law. It also points out that Houser was specifically well-known for having extreme right-wing and anti-feminist views -- views that were aired publicly on local TV and radio for their provocative "entertainment" value. What I slammed Fox for was going to great pains to try to make it look like this guy came out of nowhere and had nothing but psychosis motivating his murderous behavior, instead of his own take on the right-wing socio-political agenda -- no matter how twisted that take might be. They are certainly quick to deflect any blame that might be attributed to the shouty confrontational style of right-wing politics the network and its media imitators champion.

And it wasn't Raw Story that characterized this shooting as "a right wing terrorist attack," it was me. And in doing so, I was pointing out the irony that if this guy's name had been Jalal Rusul Husseini instead of John Russell Houser, it would have been immediately labeled an "Islamist terrorist attack" by a "lone wolf," rather than some whackjob with a gun venting his personal grievances against the world. It was clear Houser had a problem with women and feminism, and though we will never know for sure, it seems more than likely he picked his targets because they were women attending a movie starring a woman and featuring themes of women's independence. The fact that he was deranged doesn't mean that the venomous politics he espoused had nothing to do with his actions.

[Econoline]

[Gob]

Like!!