After U.S. shooting, high cost of more security vexes movie theaters

If one asks the NRA (National Rifle Association, responsible for representing the interests of gun manufacturers) what can be done to help with the problem of these frequent killings by crazed gunmen, their answer is, invariably, that we need to put more guns into the hands of people on the streets. Rather like saying that we can solve the problem of flat tires by putting more nails in the road.

Aren't theaters shutting downworld wide anyway?

Since the US is so fond to its "right to own guns" and don't want to change that by law, may be increasing the cost of guns and ammunition could make some change?

Make guns and bullets expensive by a 120% taxation or something.

The enforcement of the laws are used so sparingly that there is very little risk to gun traffickers, straw buyers, corrupt gun store owners, gun thieves or individuals who lie on the background check form of ever being punished. No such focus has been placed on the laws meant to curtail the black market that supplies criminals with guns. There appears to be no comprehensive federal law enforcement strategy to use existing laws to investigate, prosecute, and eliminate the black market that supplies guns to criminals, drug dealers, kids, and gangs.

There is not one simple explanation for why most federal firearm laws are being ignored. It may be a combination of insufficient law enforcement and prosecutorial resources, a lack of political and public pressure to enforce certain firearm laws. Both political parties agree that gun laws should be vigorously enforced. But it is now absolutely clear that the support for enforcing the gun laws has not led to any increased urgency for those charged with prosecuting those law.

Giving how much any type of movie theater violence is plastered in every corner of main stream media, I'm pretty sure every single movie goer knows very well the rights.

If they still keep buying tickets, that's their choice.

If movie theaters figure out how to increase business by installing metal detectors, that's their choice.

I'm not sure why people want to hand out guns or make prices of bullets twice as high. The issue is between movie theaters and movie theater patrons.

Nobody else.

The strawman du jour is that enough laws are on the books but are not sufficiently enforced. Than Rick Perry suggests that no-gun zones are the problem:

I will suggest to you that these concepts of gun-free zones are a bad idea. I think that you allow the citizens of this country, who have appropriately trained, appropriately backgrounded, know how to handle and use firearms, to carry them. I believe that, with all my heart, that if you have the citizens who are well trained, and particularly in these places that are considered to be gun-free zones, that we can stop that type of activity, or stop it before there's as many people that are impacted as what we saw in Lafayette.

Let's think about this for a moment.: "appropriately trained"? There exist no training requirements for gun ownership anywhere in America (unlike, say, for automobiles), and any suggestion that such training be required for gun ownership would be vehemently opposed. Also, "appropriately backgrounded"? The perpetrator in question here, like many others, had shown obvious signs of mental distress - but where do you draw the line? Imagine the reaction on the right if a Tea Partier had been denied his 2nd Amendment rights simply because his wife had secured a restraining order against him and he had written anti-government scripts on social media.

No, what Perry is suggesting is something we already have: a well-regulated militia, i.e., the police and the National Guard. It is unfortunate that public outings in the US must be taken in consideration of gun mayhem, but that reality is sadly unlikely to change.

Perry went on to say:

"I think we have the laws in place. Enforcement of those laws is what seems to be lacking, both in Charleston and here in Lafayette, Louisiana.

Ah, that new strawman. Sweep it under the rug, Rick.

For the past twenty-something years, movie theaters in Florida have been using off-duty police officers as security guards. This isn't because of theater shootings (there have been none in Florida) but because having a uniformed officer at a movie theater keeps the kids in line. I don't see how theaters in other states should be vexed for doing what theaters in Florida and other places have been doing for a long time.

Let's think about this for a moment.: "appropriately trained"? There exist no training requirements for gun ownership anywhere in America

But training is required for anyone who wants to carry a gun on their person. This training makes sure that you know how to safely store, carry, and fire a gun, and it also lets you know in which situations a firearm can be used for self defense. I was a police officer, I have administered this test. And as a former police officer, I had and have no problem with people owning or carrying guns.

a well-regulated militia, i.e., the police and the National Guard.

You are getting things backward here. Think for a moment, who regulates the militia in America? Who regulates the government in America? It is the citizens who regulate both. And the reason that American citizens have the right to be armed is to givethem the means to control, resist, or otherwise regulate powers which are not allowed to regulate themselves, nor reserve special rights or powers unto themselves. America is a classless society in which no part is allowed to have more rights than any other, and this includes the military and police. A citizen can arrest a police officer in America, a citizen can arrest a soldier. A citizen is allowed to use deadly force in self defense if someone's life is in danger. In short, the police and military have no special rights to carry arms or arrest criminals, all Americans have the same rights. And in a truly equal society, that is the way it is.

Accidents and intentional murders happen. When you allow people to drive cars, you have to accept that each year more than 40,000 Americans will die in car accidents, and that millions more will be injured. You have to accept the fact that when food is plentiful and cheap, people will die from obesity-related diseases. When you allow people to smoke cigarettes, you have to accept the 480,000 deaths that come with it.

You need to put things in perspective. Violent crime in America is the lowest it has ever been, the amount of gun violence in America is astonishingly small, given the numbers of guns which exist. If saving Americans from preventable deaths is the goal, there are far more deadly things than guns in American culture.

But training is required for anyone who wants to carry a gun on their person.

What is not required for gun ownership in either Alabama, where the gun was purchased, nor Louisiana, where the murders took place, are a permit to purchase, firearm registration, or owner license. Basically, anyone can purchase a weapon, and what happens to the weapon after that is unknown to anyone.

I assume, as a responsible gun owner, that you would like potential gun owners to first obtain a permit clearing them of legal or mental issues, that the firearm is registered so that it can be tracked, and that the owner have a license so that authorities might periodically update data. Without these, any suggestion of gun control is a joke.

What I meant by "taxing to 120%" is that the guns and bullets should be made inaccessible to the common public a luxury if you may... Same as cars, the more powerful the more expensive; the gun holder should get a license (well that is being implemented for a time); the gun holder should contract some sort of insurance; the gun holder should get periodical checks of him/her self as well as a periodical check of the gun(s); the licence has to be renewed every certain time, etc.

All this measures would certainly not bring gun related crimes/accidents to zero (as with the cars, they don't prevent accidents/crimes to zero) but it is a pretty good way to control guns.

Daniel, this would never fly as it would be seen as a restriction on the common man's right top bear arms

Daniel Taxing guns would be seen as an infringement on the common man's right to bear arms....

Simply put, the blood of innocents is on the hands of the NRA and the conservatives who took over the NRA in 1977 and have created the current promiscuous availability of guns in the US. The most important arch-gun fiend was Ronald Reagan. He greatly helped set the US's downward slide into today's mass murder disaster.

The US really needs strict gun control laws. But before that can happen the people who oppose this rational need must be removed from power.

The US really needs strict gun control laws. But before that can happen the people who oppose this rational need must be removed from power.

The problem is, it's a bipartisan issue in that many liberals love their guns as much as republicans. So there isn't anyone left to really oppose the NRA.

America really is one big live-firing range, isn't it?

The guns need to be taken out of the hands of private individuals. As long as there are weapons all over the place there will always be death and mayhem on the streets and in public places. Criminals can get guns from wherever, but they wouldn't obey gun laws anyway... but if you take away the guns from individuals you won't have the have-a-go heroes getting themselves shot defending a car from a villain. Better a stolen car than a stolen life.

Most of the nutjobs carrying out the mass shootings hold the guns legally, so when they feel like going berserk they just reach for the old gun weapon and off they pop. Take away the guns and you reduce the number of killings in this way. Yes, they could get a knife, etc... but you can outrun a knife, you can take self defence lessons and learn how to disarm a knife-wielding maniac...

...the US's downward slide into today's mass murder disaster

Check your facts, there was less violent crime in America when Reagan was president than when Kennedy was president. And there is less violent crime in America now than there was in Reagan's time. There has been no "downward slide" of any kind. America's rate of violent crime has decreased by more than 30% since 1960. I remember when 42nd street and Times Square were too dangerous to visit after dark, and even the police were afraid to go into Central Park at night.

Mass shootings have less to do with the availability of weapons than they do with a blood-glorifying media which is more than happy to give the mentally-unstable a stage upon which they can share their craziness with the rest of the world. If the media stopped reporting on these incidents, it would be a much more effective way to reduce them.

If the US had rational gun control as we do in Japan there would be less need--or no need at all--for the high security that American citizens pay for either directly through taxes or indirectly through high prices.

sangetsu, check your reality. Guns play an outsized part in American life. American cops are so on edge because they don't know who's packing, and you see the results there. This article discussed security at movie theaters; tell me, which other country outside of a war zone need consider this?

There was huge turd in my house that was really stinking the place out. How can I get rid of the stomach-churning smell of that turd I thought. Then Rick Perry gave me the solution. I just needed more turds. What a genius that guy is.

Mass shootings have less to do with the availability of weapons than they do with a blood-glorifying media which is more than happy to give the mentally-unstable a stage upon which they can share their craziness with the rest of the world. If the media stopped reporting on these incidents, it would be a much more effective way to reduce them.

If there were no guns then these nutters wouldn't have access to them to carry out their desires. As for stopping reporting the shootings... you want to hide them from the public?