Regal Cinema's new "security policy"

[brett636]

You're afraid of liberal Democrats?

I honestly can't blame him. We are talking about people who route all their thinking through their emotions and apply almost no logic to the final outcome making them some of the most unpredictable human beings you can encounter. Most of your most recent mass shooters identify as liberal democrats which only further justifies this line of thinking.

 

[BrownArmy]

I honestly can't blame him. We are talking about people who route all their thinking through their emotions and apply almost no logic to the final outcome making them some of the most unpredictable human beings you can encounter. Most of your most recent mass shooters identify as liberal democrats which only further justifies this line of thinking.

Sometimes I wonder if we live in the same country.

 

[Rainman]

When you convince yourself that you have to live life with a weapon in your pants just to feel "secure", then you are not normal.

If you cant go to the store and buy a gallon of milk without being "armed", then you are not normal.

A person places themselves in normal situations, like living in a nice neighborhood where you dont have to live like its the wild wild west.

If a person chooses to live in fear, and accepts a "fearbased" lifestyle, then that too is abnormal.

TOS.

Most gun owners don't carry all the time. And some of those who do probably have good reason to do so ( dangerous areas they have to travel through for the job, ect). I'm an owner but don't carry unless I plan on hunting/shooting at the range, turkey shoot, ect.
Once again you are making a broad statement that simply does not apply to the majority of people you are talking about. I know plenty of owners, but only a few carry on a regular basis. That includes those who have a CC permit.

 

[Sportello]

Most of your most recent mass shooters identify as liberal democrats which only further justifies this line of thinking.

Do you even believe yourself?

Timely enough, this is the current HuffPost headline:

MOST MASS SHOOTINGS HAPPEN AT HOME
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/mass-shootings-domestic-violence-women_55d3806ce4b07addcb44542a

 

[oldngray]

The Huffington Post analyzed five years of mass shooting data compiled by Everytown For Gun Safety, a gun violence prevention organization backed by former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.
Wow. Who could have predicted that source.

 

[Sportello]

The Huffington Post analyzed five years of mass shooting data compiled by Everytown For Gun Safety, a gun violence prevention organization backed by former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg.
Wow. Who could have predicted that source.

Please post another study by Heritage or the NRA that disputes those figures.

 

[oldngray]

Please post another study by Heritage or the NRA that disputes those figures.

Its not the figures but the data manipulation used to obtain them which was done in a very unscientific and biased way. I could post studies with different results but you wouldn't accept them.

 

[oldngray]

How about CNN quoting an FBI study that found Seventy percent of the incidents "occurred in either a commerce/business or educational environment"

Contradicts your claim that most happened in the home.
http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/24/justice/fbi-shooting-incidents-study/index.html

 

[Sportello]

I didn't see a link to any study in your article, or the methodology employed in whatever FBI study it was. They never said at all. Typical CNN clickbait with no real info.

 

[brett636]

Sometimes I wonder if we live in the same country.

Oh, we live in the same country to the best of my knowledge. Just one of us is more grounded in reality than the other.

 

[wayfair]

so are the workers CLEET certified?

 

[Sportello]

Oh, we live in the same country to the best of my knowledge. Just one of us is more grounded in reality than the other.

Yes, Reality has a well known Liberal bias*





*http://www.dailykos.com/story/2006/...ow-with-complete-text-of-Colbert-Thomas-video.

 

[Brownslave688]

It's just a bare minimum deterrent, the idea is probably that if they just say they have a security policy and check for weapons that it will have some effect. If they put a real security checkpoint in place ticket prices will go up to pay for it, and they would probably also have found your glock and your wife's snacks.

Not to mention attendance would go way down.


I'm already getting bent over every time I go to the movies. I don't want to go through a strip search also.

 

[BakerMayfield2018]

Not to mention attendance would go way down.


I'm already getting bent over every time I go to the movies. I don't want to go through a strip search also.

I have a cc. Don't go anywhere without it. Don't care what the "sign says"

 

[DriveInDriveOut]

I have a cc. Don't go anywhere without it. Don't care what the "sign says"

The 4th amendment can be just as important for gun owners as the 2nd.
I wish the so called conservatives who support stop and frisk policies understood this.

 

[soberups]

The idea that sober floated about Good Samaritan laws covering the conceal carry individual who unwittingly kills a bystander. I would classify that as a false idea of rights.

Perhaps "Good Samaritan" was a poor choice of words on my part.

A better way to put it would be to define what is meant by "negligence".

I have no problem with the idea of holding the police....or a citizen with a carry permit....responsible for their negligent use of a gun which results in the death of an innocent person.

However...what would clearly be an act of negligence at the firing range or in a training exercise is not necessarily negligent if you are in a movie theater and James Holmes walks in with an AR-15 and starts murdering people. Under those conditions, the number one priority would have to be to stop him from murdering people by any means necessary. At least that is my opinion. Your opinion seems to be that the best course of action would be to do nothing, offer no resistance, and allow him to just keep murdering people until he runs out of ammo because that is somehow "safer" than an armed good guy taking a shot at him that might hit a bystander by mistake.

 

[bbsam]

Perhaps "Good Samaritan" was a poor choice of words on my part.

A better way to put it would be to define what is meant by "negligence".

I have no problem with the idea of holding the police....or a citizen with a carry permit....responsible for their negligent use of a gun which results in the death of an innocent person.

However...what would clearly be an act of negligence at the firing range or in a training exercise is not necessarily negligent if you are in a movie theater and James Holmes walks in with an AR-15 and starts murdering people. Under those conditions, the number one priority would have to be to stop him from murdering people by any means necessary. At least that is my opinion. Your opinion seems to be that the best course of action would be to do nothing, offer no resistance, and allow him to just keep murdering people until he runs out of ammo because that is somehow "safer" than an armed good guy taking a shot at him that might hit a bystander by mistake.

No. And you know it.

Simply put, do what you think necessary but know that as far as I am concerned, there is zero room for error. If that level of responsibility is too much for you, leave your sidearm holstered.

 

[soberups]

No. And you know it.

Simply put, do what you think necessary but know that as far as I am concerned, there is zero room for error. If that level of responsibility is too much for you, leave your sidearm holstered.

You cant have it both ways.

If you want to claim that the good guys have "zero room for error" and you want the ability to hold them responsible for negligence when a mass murderer starts shooting up the theater that your daughter is in, then I guess the safest thing...for the good guys anyway....would be for them to wait to engage the murderer until after he has already shot your daughter.

 

[bbsam]

You cant have it both ways.

If you want to claim that the good guys have "zero room for error" and you want the ability to hold them responsible for negligence when a mass murderer starts shooting up the theater that your daughter is in, then I guess the safest thing...for the good guys anyway....would be for them to wait to engage the murderer until after he has already shot your daughter.

I would say that you can't have it both ways.

You can't want to be the good guy hero in the dark, smoky theater, where chaos and confusion are rampant, take a shot at Holmes and accidentally hit my daughter. You don't get the shiny good guy sheriff badge for that.

 

[soberups]

I would say that you can't have it both ways.

You can't want to be the good guy hero in the dark, smoky theater, where chaos and confusion are rampant, take a shot at Holmes and accidentally hit my daughter. You don't get the shiny good guy sheriff badge for that.

I dont want to be the good guy hero sheriff in a smoky theater but thats beside the point.

The point is that you are wanting to hold the cops and good guys to an impossibly high "zero tolerance" standard of performance under life and death circumstances instead of assigning blame to the criminal whose actions created the situation in the first place.