Welcome to Gaia! ::

bad-chop-suey's avatar

Hygienic Gaian

Aurora Colorado shooter may have chosen a smaller theater because of their gun policy.

Quote:
With 12 dead and 58 wounded, the July 20th shooting at the Cinemark Century 16 Theater in Aurora, Colorado was sure to result in a lawsuit. On Friday, the first suit was announced, claiming Cinemark has “primary responsibility.” The theater did have responsibility for the attack, but not for the reasons that the lawyers bringing the case think.

The lawyer bringing the suit, Attorney Marc Bern, with the New York city law firm of Napoli, Bern, Ripka and Scholonik, suggested the theater should have had security guards the night of the attack. Yet, checking bags or metal detectors at the front of the theater that night wouldn’t have prevented the attack. The killer brought his guns in through an emergency backdoor.

Armed security guards at movie theaters are rare in low crime areas, such as Aurora, especially on less crowded weeknights. And, with an audience fleeing the theater, armed guards may have experienced difficulty getting quickly inside.

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience.

Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, it was the only one where guns were banned. In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property.

Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance.

A simple web search and some telephone calls reveal how easily one can find out how Cinemark compared to other movie theaters. According to mapquest.com and movies.com, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away.

There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns.

So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.

Concealed carry is much more frequent than many people believe. With over 4 percent of the adult population in Colorado having concealed handgun permits, a couple hundred adults in Cinemark’s movie theater #9 means that there is an extremely high probability that at least one adult would have a permit.

Unfortunately, some have still not figured this out. A manager at the Harkins Northfield 18 five miles from the killer’s apartment told me, the theater changed its policy and started banning concealed handguns following the Cinemark attack.

The recent Colorado and Sikh Temple shootings are by no means the first times that killers targeted gun-free zones. We have witnessed mass public shootings in such places as the Westroads Mall in Omaha, Nebraska and the Trolley Square Mall in Salt Lake City, Utah. In both cases, guns were banned at those particular malls, but not at other similar venues that allowed guns and were spared. With just one single exception, the attack in Tucson last year, every public shooting since at least 1950 in the U.S. in which more than three people have been killed has taken place where citizens are not allowed to carry guns.

And remember the 1999 Columbine attack in Colorado. Few appreciate that Dylan Klebold, one of the two Columbine killers, was following Colorado legislation that would have let citizens carry a concealed handgun. Presumably, he feared being stopped during his attack by someone with a weapon. In fact, the Columbine attack occurred the very day that final passage was scheduled.

Gun-free zones are a magnet for those who want to kill many people quickly. Even the most ardent gun control advocate would never put “Gun-Free Zone” signs on their home. Let’s stop finally putting them elsewhere.



Link
Honey of the South's avatar

Original Rogue

10,250 Points
  • Battle: Rogue 100
  • Demonic Associate 100
  • The Wolf Within 100
Finally some common sense.
bad-chop-suey's avatar

Hygienic Gaian

Honey of the South
Finally some common sense.


Amen.
Blood Valkyrie's avatar

Sparkly Shapeshifter

11,900 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Person of Interest 200
I want to laugh, but I can't ...
Artificers Reverie's avatar

Fashionable Genius

No crap.

Anti-gun zones are more likely to be attacked by guns.

Have people seriously not figured this out yet?
bad-chop-suey's avatar

Hygienic Gaian

Blood Valkyrie
I want to laugh, but I can't ...


Was that a positive or negative response to the writer's opinion?
Blood Valkyrie's avatar

Sparkly Shapeshifter

11,900 Points
  • Megathread 100
  • Lavish Tipper 200
  • Person of Interest 200
bad-chop-suey
Blood Valkyrie
I want to laugh, but I can't ...


Was that a positive or negative response to the writer's opinion?


I don't care about the writer's opinion.
I just ... well ... this seems funny yet not funny.
bad-chop-suey's avatar

Hygienic Gaian

The Strify
No crap.

Anti-gun zones are more likely to be attacked by guns.

Have people seriously not figured this out yet?


The majority of people do not pay attention to details.

Much like now how people assume that all republicans are racist. However during the Civil War, the Confederates were democrats, while the north was republican. Or how when the republicans deemed that Jim Crow laws were unconstitutional, yet the democrats disagreed and wanted the laws to stay.
bad-chop-suey's avatar

Hygienic Gaian

Blood Valkyrie
bad-chop-suey
Blood Valkyrie
I want to laugh, but I can't ...


Was that a positive or negative response to the writer's opinion?


I don't care about the writer's opinion.
I just ... well ... this seems funny yet not funny.


Tactful.
Sevalle's avatar

Big Noob

Turns any place into a high-risk target.
I get the point the article is trying to make, but this part was mind-boggingly bad:

Quote:
Concealed carry is much more frequent than many people believe. With over 4 percent of the adult population in Colorado having concealed handgun permits, a couple hundred adults in Cinemark’s movie theater #9 means that there is an extremely high probability that at least one adult would have a permit.


So, does anyone really think that would have solved anything in this situation? Remember this guy came in wearing a ballistics helmet, bulletproof vest, bulletproof leggings, gas mask and gloves. Oh and don't forget the smoke bombs he used. The last thing any person with concealed carry is going to do is fire into a panicked crowd against that. The threat of causing more injury is far too great.
bad-chop-suey's avatar

Hygienic Gaian

Dude it is Bob
I get the point the article is trying to make, but this part was mind-boggingly bad:

Quote:
Concealed carry is much more frequent than many people believe. With over 4 percent of the adult population in Colorado having concealed handgun permits, a couple hundred adults in Cinemark’s movie theater #9 means that there is an extremely high probability that at least one adult would have a permit.


So, does anyone really think that would have solved anything in this situation? Remember this guy came in wearing a ballistics helmet, bulletproof vest, bulletproof leggings, gas mask and gloves. Oh and don't forget the smoke bombs he used. The last thing any person with concealed carry is going to do is fire into a panicked crowd against that. The threat of causing more injury is far too great.


I see your point. But do not forget how many people died or was injured, so any evening of the odds would have not hurt. And this guy was no soldier, chances are if he were shot even in his vest he would have went down. And yes he did use smoke so that did make things complicated. However very few of these mass shooters use such weapons and equipment. So I agree that the writer did get a bit off topic, which was that he chose the one place that banned guns.
bad-chop-suey's avatar

Hygienic Gaian

Sevalle
Turns any place into a high-risk target.


Agreed.
bad-chop-suey

I see your point. But do not forget how many people died or was injured, so any evening of the odds would have not hurt. And this guy was no soldier, chances are if he were shot even in his vest he would have went down. And yes he did use smoke so that did make things complicated. However very few of these mass shooters use such weapons and equipment. So I agree that the writer did get a bit off topic, which was that he chose the one place that banned guns.


No one forgot that it was a tragedy. I'm saying that if you're a responsible gun owner and have a CCW permit, you understand that firing into that situation would have only caused a greater chance of more injury and death.

Yes, cowards will attack places of little resistance if possible. I do believe that CCW possibilities could slow down the damage a random maniac may cause. I don't believe it would have stopped someone that was willing to take that much time to commit a horrific act. If anything, they would just plan for it or find another way to cause the damage to mitigate the gun ownership. So I think the article writer made a misstep by using this particular incident to make his point.
bad-chop-suey's avatar

Hygienic Gaian

Dude it is Bob
bad-chop-suey

I see your point. But do not forget how many people died or was injured, so any evening of the odds would have not hurt. And this guy was no soldier, chances are if he were shot even in his vest he would have went down. And yes he did use smoke so that did make things complicated. However very few of these mass shooters use such weapons and equipment. So I agree that the writer did get a bit off topic, which was that he chose the one place that banned guns.


No one forgot that it was a tragedy. I'm saying that if you're a responsible gun owner and have a CCW permit, you understand that firing into that situation would have only caused a greater chance of more injury and death.

Yes, cowards will attack places of little resistance if possible. I do believe that CCW possibilities could slow down the damage a random maniac may cause. I don't believe it would have stopped someone that was willing to take that much time to commit a horrific act. If anything, they would just plan for it or find another way to cause the damage to mitigate the gun ownership. So I think the article writer made a misstep by using this particular incident to make his point.


But look at the pro-gun ban supporters are doing, they are feeding off of these recent mass shootings to push more laws. At least the writer made a good point and is doing something about this recent nonsense. Banning guns will not stop these psychos. And if Gangsters in England can find a gun, it would not be different here

Quick Reply

Submit
Manage Your Items
Other Stuff
Get GCash
Offers
Get Items
More Items
Where Everyone Hangs Out
Other Community Areas
Virtual Spaces
Fun Stuff
Gaia's Games