Rick Perry thinks allowing guns in movie theaters would stop shootings. What do you think?

SPC Jan Allbright, M.Sc., R.S. — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:49:18 -0400

Presidnetial hopeful and former Gov. Rick Perry (R-Texas) has a solution for move theater shootings like the one Thursday night in Lafayette, Louisiana: Allow guns inside.

"I think that it makes a lot of sense to send a message across this country," Perry told Jake Tapper on CNN's State of the Union. "If we believe in the Second Amendment, and we believe in people's right to protect themselves and defend themselves, and their families."

In Louisiana, it's legal to carry a firearm without a permit, but the site of the shooting, like many theaters, enforces a ban on guns.

"I believe, 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," Perry said.

Or would this just kick off a 100 x 100 firefight in a theater?

http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/26/politics/rick-perry-gun-free-zones-movie-theaters/index.html

Rick Perry: 'Gun-free zones are a bad idea' - CNNPolitics.com

Rick Perry said that the movie theater shooting in Lafayette, Louisiana, earlier this week shows why gun-free zones are "a bad idea."

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 27 at 2015 9:52 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:52:04 -0400

I don't think guns SHOULDN'T be allowed in theaters, but if they are, I would prefer it if they are concealed. Although if someone were to open fire, the element of surprise is going to catch most of the audience.

Response by SGT Ben Keen made Jul 27 at 2015 9:54 AM

SGT Ben Keen — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 09:54:02 -0400

And here we go again. Sure let's just allow guns everywhere, that will stop all the shootings, heck it might cure cancer too. No, this is a dumb idea. Have people not learned their lesson that people aren't careful enough sometimes with their own "protective firearms"? We saw the the two ADs by the civilians "guarding" the recruiting stations, so do people want to see an AD in a crowded theater?

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Jul 27 at 2015 10:13 AM

SFC Michael Hasbun — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:13:44 -0400

Multiple people inside a dark room firing handguns sounds like a GREAT idea...

Response by SCPO Larry Knight Sr. made Jul 27 at 2015 10:36 AM

SCPO Larry Knight Sr. — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:36:46 -0400

Rick Perry is an idiot regarding not only this topic, and as a Republican presidential candidate. I'm a concealed carrier but would not engage in a crowded theater in darkness, however I would throw myself into a full blown tackle to render a assailant incapable of harming innocent women and children at any expense/cost.
You don't become a part of the nightmare by returning fire in this setting, for you may inadvertently hit an innocent bystander as well. Then you will be incarcerated as a part of that equation, and don't misunderstand I'm quite accurate in rounds meeting the intended part of the body ensuring you don't get up ! The answer is absolutely not !

Response by Maj Chris Nelson made Jul 27 at 2015 10:45 AM

Maj Chris Nelson — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 10:45:17 -0400

Banning guns will only create an environment of "safety" for those criminals intent on doing something bad, OR turning law abiding gun owners into criminals for refusing to go unarmed and giving up the right of self protection. I think that if you just leave it alone, let those that are credentialed to carry, carry. Everything will sort out in the wash. I don't think it will increase OR decrease incidence, but it WILL allow people the opportunity at self defense.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 11:06 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 11:06:35 -0400

That doesn't really make sense to me.

Response by MSgt James Mullis made Jul 27 at 2015 12:33 PM

MSgt James Mullis — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:33:52 -0400

It would not stop "shootings"...It would stop "Massacre's".

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 27 at 2015 12:42 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:42:41 -0400

Hi, SPC Allbright.

The failure in Perry’s argument is “appropriately trained civilians” and “trained carriers.” He mentions each in the article. In my state, anyone 21 or over that passes a criminal background check, conducted by the FBI’s NICS branch, can legally purchase a gun from a federal firearms licensee, and get a concealed carry permit from their county of residence. By no means does their ability to obtain a gun suggest they’re appropriately trained to carry it, much less engage a hostile target. Everyone here knows that.

Engaging a hostile target. What others have said is correct. Engaging a target in a crowded, dark space that just went to Hell because of an active shooter is begging for trouble. But so will rushing the doors trying to get out. All you can do is shelter and secure in place.

Having said that, I carry mine concealed. If the theatre doesn’t want me to carry, then I don’t need to see the movie that much. After Aurora and now Louisiana, it’s just gotten that bad.

And Rick. Take your finger off the damn trigger.

Response by Capt Richard I P. made Jul 27 at 2015 12:55 PM

Capt Richard I P. — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 12:55:24 -0400

"Gun free zones" are defense free zones. Two way gunfights always have lower body counts than one way gunfights.
I avoid areas where the right to bear arms is denied whenever possible. A fighting chance is all I ask.
The most egregious defense free zones are military facilities. In a tragically ironic twist. Maybe we should fix it. Maybe we should arm the Armed Forces. https://www.rallypoint.com/answers/arm-the-armed-forces

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Jul 27 at 2015 2:33 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:33:41 -0400

This mentality has been used before. "If we allow more people to carry guns in more places, we'll stop violent crimes." It's all a matter of timing and willingness to conceal carry. So far we haven't seen an incident where a concealed carrier has foiled a violent crime because no carriers where at or near the scene. I know there are many that carry but IMHO we would have to see a dramatic increase in carrying for enough people to be at the right place at the right time to foil a crime by throwing down. Will we get lucky some day and perhaps see this, I believe we will, but it will be pure luck of the draw (pun intended). Hopefully collateral casualties will be kept to a minimum as well.

Response by SGT Jeremiah B. made Jul 27 at 2015 2:43 PM

SGT Jeremiah B. — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 14:43:48 -0400

I am reminded of the 2012 "mass shooting" in New York where 9 people were wounded by police shooting at the guy with the gun. There is no returning fire in a darkened theater full of running people. By the time you had a clear shot, it would be over.

Response by SN Greg Wright made Jul 27 at 2015 5:58 PM

SN Greg Wright — Mon, 27 Jul 2015 17:58:02 -0400

/facepalm.

That is all.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Jul 28 at 2015 10:50 AM

SSG Warren Swan — Tue, 28 Jul 2015 10:50:18 -0400

Depending on your view point, more or less weapons in society is the answer. I'm not so sure of that. The Governor and no one else regardless of party line has addressed the ease of acquiring a weapon illegally. They haven't addressed the constant sham it is to go online and legally buy a weapon (Craigslist for ex) and no ID of any kind is needed. No FFL transfer paperwork, nothing. That is a serious problem, and one the criminal element works to a tee. Personally, carrying a weapon is fine (within reason). But like was said below me, how can the average person properly ID a suspect when they're under fire? Most are going to shoot in the general direction (like the "fighters" in Iraq), and hope they strike gold. Most have taken short classes JUST to qualify for a CCP, and that's it. And add in the fashion sense, they could pose more of a problem and a hindrance than not having one and getting the hell out of dodge. For the military, we have a stronger foundation of weapons, even those that didn't qual frequently. For most, we'd know when to stay down, cover fire, bounding, and other means to close the distance to a target without unessicarily exposing ourselves or placing others in danger. A weapon or having one on your person doesn't make you a "Star", it should make you more tolerant towards others knowing that once you pull it out, and pull that trigger, there's no going back. Sometimes a hasty retreat is better than standing your ground just to be killed by some nutjob who really doesn't care and has the element of surprise and confusion going for him.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 31 at 2015 7:53 AM

PO1 John Miller — Fri, 31 Jul 2015 07:53:10 -0400

Am I the only one who noticed that the idiot has his finger on the trigger?

With that said, this is a horrible idea. Yeah, criminals aren't going to obey laws but as everyone else has pointed out there are way too many possible bad outcomes of carrying guns in movie theaters.

Response by MSG Roy Cheever made Nov 25 at 2019 3:37 PM

MSG Roy Cheever — Mon, 25 Nov 2019 15:37:56 -0500

absolutely, only cowards attack innocent unarmed people. Every time an armed person has entered where others are armed, has not turned out to good.

Response by PO1 Jerome Newland made May 13 at 2020 5:51 AM

PO1 Jerome Newland — Wed, 13 May 2020 05:51:29 -0400

I cannot see wher a hundred guns at once, firing in the dark, at a flash from wherever they are in the theater, are all going to hit the target(s). But, they will hit something until they are stopped or expended.