Posted on 07/20/2012 8:46:30 AM PDT by drbuzzard
“Headquartered in Plano, TX, Cinemark Holdings, Inc. is a leader in the motion picture exhibition industry with 459 theatres and 5,181 screens in the U.S. and Latin America as of March 31, 2012,” their website reports. Cinemark owns the Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado, scene of last night’s mass shooting. Cinemark doesn’t allow anyone other than law enforcement officers to carry legal firearms in their theaters.
(more at the site)
I think the best thing to speculate is what would the perp have done differently if there were anything like 10% or 20% of U.S. citizens carrying concealed handguns?
... love mine :<)
Uh, SOME lawyers (the ones employed by the State). I'm a lawyer who isn't, and I have to obey the same rules as everyone else. FYI, I'm not at all in agreement with the idea and the fact that some people are treated as super-citizens while the rest of us aren't. That goes for law enforcement (employees/agents of us citizens - how can they have more rights than those that empowered them to be their agents?) and ESPECIALLY FORMER law enforcement (otherwise known as "our fellow citizens").
Even on Ft. Hood the shooter was able to carry out his attack as he was the only one there to have BULLETS IN HIS GUN.
We carry firearms just for this reason. Suggesting we leave them home and make ourselves easy targets under just such circumstances is irresponsible and stupid.
I hate to tell Cinemark but I have carried in their theatres many times.
Have you ever been in a theater where a gunman opens fire on the audience?
I don’t think it would take a “scatterbrained moron” to fire back at him in such a scenario.
And imagine what the perp would have done, before he ever set foot in that theater, if our CCW laws were more liberal.
Even smoke would have done the job. In a crowded theater, anywhere he shot would have hit somebody, but a responding CCW would have to be able to SEE him to get him. The theater being dark would also have helped.
I won’t go to a theater unless I’m armed because of crap just like this. Same for restaurants and malls.
I’m a CCW holder .... I would NEVER carry in a place where there is a “NO Firearms” sign ... ;)
>Have you ever been in a theater where a gunman opens fire on the audience?
Well no, it’s lot like this is a daily occurrence.
>I don’t think it would take a “scatterbrained moron” to fire back at him in such a scenario.
I said shooting without a target requires a scatterbrained moron. Reading comprehension is your friend. In said situation I would like to think I would wait until I had a shot at a confirmed perp and preferably taken a back shot since he had a rifle and I would only have had a pistol.
>And imagine what the perp would have done, before he ever set foot in that theater, if our CCW laws were more liberal.
I really don’t get what you mean here.
They should be sued for first denying a legal right and then not providing the appropriate level of security.
[ Yeah, this is certainly true. The dirtbag really did plan this one well.
Though I will still say that the sign banning firearms served no useful purpose, nor would it ever. ]
From what i heard the dirtbag broke into the theatre using the exit door, of course this will prompt calls for the TSA to screen regular customers... To save us...
I expect more theaters will now follow suit. That way, they can give their patrons a warm fuzzy about the theater being a safe, gun-free environment, don'tcha know.
I suggest that Cinemark upgrade to double secret prohibition of firearms.
That will fix it.
if there had been a gun in there, some of those 13 people might be alive
Right. I meant to say prosecutors, as jagusafr stated. That distinction reinforces the point, that we now have a two-tiered, double-standard caricature of the rule of law wherein our "public officials" have arrogated to themselves special rights and privileges.
...and kiss your sorry, cowardly ass good bye.
I am sure, at least in this case, the perp would have been very distracted by any sort of incoming fire. He did not expect it, and he did not want to face it as evidenced by his surrendering without a fight.
The police were of NO HELP in this situation, and the gunman surrendered after he did what he wanted.
The ONLY thing that could have stopped this would have been armed citizens.
Put that in your pipe, Herr Bloomberg.
The don't have a single security guard here who is armed either. This is a special invite for psychopaths to come and kill as many people as they can with no return fire.
It’s actually section 30.06? That’s funny for a section dealing with firearms.
}:-)4
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.