DescentBB

https://medium.com/hatewatch-blog/lafay ... a16afc9643

further, other news descriptions and interviews with family describe him as a drifter(thus no fixed longterm address), with mental problems of long standing nature.


my questions are simple, and blunt:

1. How the feck does this guy get sold a gun?
2. Why aren't 'responsible' gun owners standing up, en masse, and DEMANDING that something be done about such sales?
3. How many days headlines do we have to read, containing the words 'The Shooter'?
4. Do you really think the public, who predominantly are NOT gun owners, are going to stand for this crap much longer?


I note that already, on this board, the reference to the theater as a gun-free zone was gleefully noted, as if that makes it alright for others to show up armed in cases like this.

The NRA.

“How the feck does this guy get sold a gun?”

Do you plan to restrict rights based on a person’s opinions?


“Why aren't 'responsible' gun owners standing up, en masse, and DEMANDING that something be done about such sales?”

We have you for that.


“How many days headlines do we have to read, containing the words 'The Shooter'?”

As long as freedom is more important than comfort.


"Do you really think the public, who predominantly are NOT gun owners, are going to stand for this crap much longer?"

Yea, like the public has any real say in this country.

Spidey wrote:“How the feck does this guy get sold a gun?”

Do you plan to restrict rights based on a person’s opinions?

didn't bother to read the part about long term mental health issues and no fixed address?

“Why aren't 'responsible' gun owners standing up, en masse, and DEMANDING that something be done about such sales?”

We have you for that.

thanks for failing miserably.

“How many days headlines do we have to read, containing the words 'The Shooter'?”

As long as freedom is more important than comfort.

and public safety is trumped by protecting the gun manufacturers

"Do you really think the public, who predominantly are NOT gun owners, are going to stand for this crap much longer?"

Yea, like the public has any real say in this country.

if you view it so, you are part of the reason why.

I didn’t miss the part about being evicted, but I guess I did miss the part about mental illness.

Could you paste it for me.

Spidey wrote:I didn’t miss the part about being evicted, but I guess I did miss the part about mental illness.

Could you paste it for me.

I didn't post the link, but made the comment that other news reports from family interviews indicate a long history of mental illness. You should be able to find a lot of those reports, so I'm not going to dig them up for you. Meanwhile, it turns out that NO PLACE in Louisiana is a gun free zone, thanks to a governor and legislature who now are oh-so shocked that this could happen in Lafayette(VERY cool town, BTW, one of my favorite small towns anywhere).

Spidey, had to go back to a news link for someone else, so grabbed this for you

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/theate ... ar-AAdqs49


what is he doing possessing guns, still?

My comment was based on your original link.

I’m not going to try to justify why this loon was allowed to possess a gun.

ok, then if there is no justification, and this guy's narrative is starting to play out nearly every other day in this nation, at what point do you think the nation stands up and says 'enough'? As I noted, you already have gun owners being a minority voting bloc. That is why I keep wondering why those gun owners aren't REALLY active in getting common sense legislation passed, and even more active in telling their representatives to stop tying up the enforcement of existing law. It was 9 years between ATF full-time directors. The staffing of ATF is 1/3 what it needs to be. All of this is due to Congress, which reflects NRA priorities.

Gun owners are not a voting bloc, only a political zealot can see them that way.

I think the point can be compared to responsible auto owners, do you hear an outcry every time someone gets killed in an accident, to get better licensing laws?

I think there is a lot of unreasonable expectations and indignation going on here, we have lives to live, and not everyone is obsessed with this issue. In fact everyone I know is in favor of sensible gun control laws, hell David Brooks came out and said as much tonight.

And JFTR I’m not a member of the NRA, and they don’t speak for me either.

Spidey wrote:I think there is a lot of unreasonable expectations and indignation going on here, we have lives to live, and not everyone is obsessed with this issue. ...

x10

Just slick trying to grind his axe on a different angle to attempt to find legitimacy in the eyes of gun owners. I'm not impressed.

Oh, this guy suffered from manic depression and had bipolar disorder. He was denied a concealed carry permit for domestic violence. His family removed all the guns from their home so he wouldn't be able to get a hold of them and had him involuntarily committed to a hospital for his mental issues. So he gets out because our mental health system is dysfunctional, rants crazy threatening stuff on the internet, then goes out and buys a gun and proceeds to kill people sitting in a theater. So again, why was this man able to buy a pistol? You might want to make your answer to the relatives of the victims too.

http://www.kptv.com/story/29622017/cour ... depressive

He suffered from multiple mental issues and had been committed by his family in 2008, according to court documents. He was involuntarily taken to a hospital in Columbus, GA. His family had petitioned the probate court because he was a danger to himself and others, according to the filing.

Houser's wife and other family members also filed for a temporary protection order after he "exhibited extreme, erratic behavior" in 2008. They said he made ominous and disturbing statements, and he suffered from "manic depression and/or bi-polar disorder."

His wife, Kellie Maddox Houser, removed guns and weapons from their home because she was worried about his mental state, the filing said.

The protection order was granted. Houser's wife filed for divorce in March.

Can't stop crazy people from shootin' dem guns, so there is no reason to try!

Spidey wrote: I think there is a lot of unreasonable expectations and indignation going on here, we have lives to live, and not everyone is obsessed with this issue. In fact everyone I know is in favor of sensible gun control laws, hell David Brooks came out and said as much tonight.

yup. we gotta worry about what katey perry is doing this week, or what celebrity gained weight, or getting onto that new fad diet that promises to supercharge your metabolism or kill cancer.

callmeslick wrote:ok, then if there is no justification, and this guy's narrative is starting to play out nearly every other day in this nation, at what point do you think the nation stands up and says 'enough'?

Enough of the gun free zones as they are killing grounds

callmeslick wrote:As I noted, you already have gun owners being a minority voting bloc. That is why I keep wondering why those gun owners aren't REALLY active in getting common sense legislation passed, and even more active in telling their representatives to stop tying up the enforcement of existing law.

First off stop using the term "Common sense" It has become trite and over used. There are more gun laws on the book than you can shake a stick at. Why don't you focus your attention on violent video games, Rap songs glorifying killing and urge the movie industry to stop making graphic killing movies? You won't be satisfied until owning guns is banned outright.

callmeslick wrote:It was 9 years between ATF full-time directors. The staffing of ATF is 1/3 what it needs to be. All of this is due to Congress, which reflects NRA priorities.

And why wasn't that fixed when the Senate and the House were Democrat controlled. Why weren't your "Common Sense" gun laws enacted then? Oh wait...Obamacare blotted out the sun.

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:It was 9 years between ATF full-time directors. The staffing of ATF is 1/3 what it needs to be. All of this is due to Congress, which reflects NRA priorities.

And why wasn't that fixed when the Senate and the House were Democrat controlled. Why weren't your "Common Sense" gun laws enacted then? Oh wait...Obamacare blotted out the sun.

because as an appointment it has to pass through the Senate, which has rules allowing single members to hold an appointment, and the GOP lapdogs did their thing. The rest of your points in the post were to dim to bother with, especially when I pointed out that this wasn't a gun free zone to begin with.

Still don't wish to address the question: WHY did this person get a gun?

And what makes you think the shooter was not in a gun free zone?

woodchip wrote:And what makes you think the shooter was not in a gun free zone?

because Louisiana has no gun-free zones. Thanks to Bobby Jindal, you can bring a gun to church, or worse, a bar.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:And what makes you think the shooter was not in a gun free zone?

because Louisiana has no gun-free zones. Thanks to Bobby Jindal, you can bring a gun to church, or worse, a bar.

Except the movie chain has declared itself a gunfree zone. Once again your ignorance comes to the fore:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government ... h-permits/

under LA law, they can do whatever they want, but it doesn't make it so. Quit basing your view of reality on Breitbart. The converse of your argument is that we should FORCE a PRIVATE business into allowing weapons inside, no matter what the OWNER wishes. So that's your answer to gun violence? Taking away property rights of individuals. If that is ok with you, I have a really good solution. Take away all gun rights from all individuals not actively involved in a government approved military organization or police organization. Do so until getting a gun becomes more difficult than getting mental health treatment. Do so until someone decides to actually fund and staff the government agencies in charge of background checks, sales record audits and inventory audits. Punish violators with 10 years mandatory time. Cut the bull★■◆● with 'gun-free zone' whining, 'bring a gun to church' idiocy and fix the freaking problem we have before returning to normalcy. You're all for curtailing business owners rights to maintain their own business, you should be fine with curtailing individual's rights to endanger ever soul they encounter.

Actually, it WAS a gun-free zone. It's true that there's no law there now that forces it to be one, but it IS the theater's OWN CLEARLY STATED POLICY, which they still have the right to do. Effectively, that makes it one.

Herculosis wrote:Actually, it WAS a gun-free zone. It's true that there's no law there now that forces it to be one, but it IS the theater's OWN CLEARLY STATED POLICY, which they still have the right to do. Effectively, that makes it one.

see above, and read this:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article ... -Free_Zone

does anyone suggest that the shooter read the sign on the front of the theater and WOULDN'T have gone in were the sign not there? If so, I have land to sell you offshore a few miles.

callmeslick wrote:

Herculosis wrote:Actually, it WAS a gun-free zone. It's true that there's no law there now that forces it to be one, but it IS the theater's OWN CLEARLY STATED POLICY, which they still have the right to do. Effectively, that makes it one.

see above, and read this:
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article ... -Free_Zone

Umm... that's the place where I got the info from. So, you point me at my own source (that states exactly what I stated, albeit with its own political slant), and that's supposed to say that I'm incorrect? I figured that since it was from a "debunking the evil right-wing" article, you would believe it.

Bottom line is that it WAS a gun-free zone by policy. Normal law-abiding gun-owners will (mostly) abide by that. And, there sure seems to be a strong correlation between sites people like this choose to shoot up and the expectation that the targets will be unlikely to be armed.

callmeslick wrote:does anyone suggest that the shooter read the sign on the front of the theater and WOULDN'T have gone in were the sign not there? If so, I have land to sell you offshore a few miles.

Wow, look at you squirm. Now you're agreeing gun free zones don't work.

no, I'm saying that nothing really matters, but opening the floodgates to idiots with guns is even MORE naive.

I wouldn’t put a sign on my shop or house saying “gun free zone”.

callmeslick wrote:no, I'm saying that nothing really matters, but opening the floodgates to idiots with guns is even MORE naive.

And how do you know someone is a idiot?

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:no, I'm saying that nothing really matters, but opening the floodgates to idiots with guns is even MORE naive.

And how do you know someone is a idiot?

by them thinking that bringing a gun is a solution to gun violence. Still not answering the one question I wanted answered, I see.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:

callmeslick wrote:no, I'm saying that nothing really matters, but opening the floodgates to idiots with guns is even MORE naive.

And how do you know someone is a idiot?

by them thinking that bringing a gun is a solution to gun violence. Still not answering the one question I wanted answered, I see.

So milling around like a sheep is your answer. Sorry I don't want to be a victim just to make you feel better. And there was a question in all your confused hyperbole?

woodchip wrote:So milling around like a sheep is your answer. Sorry I don't want to be a victim just to make you feel better. And there was a question in all your confused hyperbole?

How are you safer in this example(Lafayette) with your gun in your pants? Is it going to help you when the guy behind you empties 3 rounds into your skull? Or, if he is shooting elsewhere, what are you going to do? Start a gun battle in the dark? Sorry, I could care about your warm and fuzzy relationship with your handgun, I'm worrying about PUBLIC SAFETY.


oh, and you already ARE a victim, you just don't see it, and likely never will.

You know you a**holes (Slick et al) talk around in circles about "safety", but what you're asking for is making Americans into a bunch of second-class citizens under a ruling class that is "democratically" elected--it's just inconvenient to come right out and say that. We, as Americans, are the ruling class, classically speaking, and there are still places in this country where this has not been corrupted. I don't know about everyone else here, but I want to live in a country where I am responsible for my life. I will not be a second-class citizen.

You bastards push your firearm agenda because it's not convenient to address the real problems underlying these issues. You have a political agenda, and you're pursuing it by any means possible. You believe in the superiority of your favorite hammer so much that every problem must become a nail.

callmeslick wrote:

woodchip wrote:So milling around like a sheep is your answer. Sorry I don't want to be a victim just to make you feel better. And there was a question in all your confused hyperbole?

How are you safer in this example(Lafayette) with your gun in your pants? Is it going to help you when the guy behind you empties 3 rounds into your skull? Or, if he is shooting elsewhere, what are you going to do? Start a gun battle in the dark? Sorry, I could care about your warm and fuzzy relationship with your handgun, I'm worrying about PUBLIC SAFETY.


oh, and you already ARE a victim, you just don't see it, and likely never will.

first off stop with the derogatory "In your pants" comments. You equate firearms with penis's now?
No a gun will not save you if the guy is behind you and shoots you first. As to a gun battle, there is already one going on. At least I would be shooting at the aggressor and not innocent people. No you do not worry about public safety, you only worry about your agenda.

He probably thinks everyone who carries a gun forgot to buy the holster.

just trying to lighten the rhetoric, but thanks to both of you, for focusing on that and not the substance.

Yeah, talking about someone putting 3 bullets in your skull is really lightening the rhetoric...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Yeah, talking about someone putting 3 bullets in your skull is really lightening the rhetoric...

well, that was the part(along with the shootout bit) that I tried to take the edge off of, Sarge.

I get it. I just think it was a slight as much as it was levity, and then the bit about 3 bullets in the back of your skull was both overly dark and obtuse (no one carries to avoid suprise attacks). I don't appreciate it.

Think what you want. I'm sarcastic as hell, and have a VERY dark sense of humor. If that offends you, Thorne, I am sorry,but am not changing my personal style at age 60.