Did Cinemark Anti-Gun Policy Contribute to the Carnage at Colorado Theater?

The Century 16 movie theater in Aurora, Colorado is owned and operated by Cinemark Holdings Inc.  According to the company’s website:

  • “Our circuit is the third largest in the U.S. with 298 theatres and 3,895 screens in 39 states.
  • We are the most geographically diverse circuit in Latin America with 161 theatres and 1,286 screens in 13 countries.
  • During the year ended December 31, 2011, we ranked either #1 or #2 by box office revenues in 24 of our top 30 markets.”

Like a report on WND, I scoured the Cinemark website for their policy on firearms and could not find any mention of it.  However, when I did a search online, I found the same blogs that WND found from people who were told that the theater company had a no gun policy.  Several of them were asked to put their guns in their vehicles before being allowed to enter the theater, even though the person had been given permission by the manager on duty.  See:

Where have you been asked to leave, kicked out of or beeb[sic] ban from?

Escorted by police out of Cinemark-Moosic location

Cinemark Theaters

Cinemark Theatres Posted No Concealed Guns`

Was asked to leave a Cinemark theater

Cinemark in Newgate Mall

Louisville,KY Cinemark Tinseltown

I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if one or more movie goers had been carry concealed weapons that night in Aurora?  Could they have possible used those weapons to take James Holmes down and prevent some of the shootings from happening?  I guess we’ll never know, but one thing we can be certain of is that no one had the chance find out.

While anti-gun advocates like New York Mayor Bloomberg and others are once again screaming for more gun control, I am advocating that less gun control could have possibly reduced the number of victims and saved lives.  I am a strong advocate that if more law abiding citizens carry a gun, the fewer of them will fall victim to violent crimes.

Comments

comments

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1468923133 Christopher Plante

    James Holmes was a lone gunman. Policies don't kill people; people kill people. We blast the left for politicizing this sort of tragic event and then can't wait to get to our own keyboard to churn out our own political interpretation of the event. We can as easily blame the fact that Cinemark did not lease a corner of their lobby to a paramedic service. Since there is no way to know how many or how few guns would have been available in the hands of civilians, it is only politically relevant to speculate.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roger-Meyer/1785162356 Roger Meyer

      Policies that prevent self-defense kill people. It has happened over and over where a person walks into a mall, McDonalds or some other place and opens fire on the customers, but , because of company, store, or state policies, noone is carrying a weapon that could stop the madman and save lives.
      YES POLICIES KILL PEOPLE.

    • John1943

      "Since there is no way to know how many or how few guns would have been available in the hands of civilians, it is only politically relevant to speculate."

      I have no idea how many law abiding gun owners would have been armed, had they not obeyed the cinema's rules that they should be disarmed. However, it does not matter how many, even one might have been enough and even one would have given the victims more chance than the no chance at all they had as it transpired.

      Your statement is about as asinine as saying that there's no point in wearing a life jacket because sometime people wearing life jackets drown anyway.

  • alibaba123456

    When I lived in Colorado I could and did carry a weapon in Colorado Springs. Denver and Aurora however the police will and have arrested people for having a weapon that was carried according to Colorado State Law. Both the Denver and Aurora Police are highly corrupt and have had officers shooting people at random(Buster Snyder). Colorado Springs is a nice peaceful town. Denver is extremely violent as is Aurora in some parts that are joining with Denver. They never learned the lesson that a armed society is a polite society.

    • CARLjr

      Aurora Police were the heroes here. They were remarkably quick and effective. Time between the initial 911 call and apprehending Holmes - seven minutes. Amazing. Plus they were able to save lives at the apartment by being methodical and careful. They were able to determine and diffuse the explosives after they had evacuated everyone in a 3 block area. No one else was injured.

      They deserve a lot more respect than you are giving them.

      • exbuckeye

        Maybe their actions here and now were only because they were nationally visible.
        Somehow I believe alibaba had reason to state what he did! Ive been there
        done that witht the police altho elsewhere not Colo.

      • http://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-DeFranco/100001030924786 Elizabeth DeFranco

        Police did arrive quickly on the scene, within minutes, as you noted--which allowed them to apprehend the suspect, secure the area & preserve the evidence & question survivors. Police & security present at the theater complex did nothing to forestall the carnage or to mitigate it in any way. Seldom, if ever do police arrive on the scene in time to halt mass casualty/spree killings such as this; their main function in these types of scenarios is to assist with "clean up operations" & investigate; that is the harsh reality. The one thing that most imperiled all those victims was the fact that despite a "Gun Free Zone", only the law-abiding, responsible citizens chose to honor that designation, not the thug, intent on engaging in criminal conduct.

        • carguy427

          If you feel as strongly about carrying as many, if you are truly concealed then you could carry inside (not that I would of course) and they would only find out when you saved some lives.

        • Native Texan

          RE: your reply to Elizabeth DeFranco. Law abing citizens don't do as you suggest because the are law abiding citizens.

      • David S. McQueen

        Sure, the cops got there in time to arrest the shooter, but NOT in time to save the lives of the victims. So your point is that the cops only stopped the guy from killing any more than he did; they didn't prevent those he'd already shot.

        • CARLjr

          They do not have ESP, dummy.

          You hate cops? fine. Hope you never need one.

        • LeSellers

          Recognizing the limitations police have is not at all the same thing as "hating cops".

          The police, according to the SCotuS, have no affirmative duty to protect anyone (a good thing, since there are not enough of them, and they be in the way if there were). In other words, you cannot and must not count of the police to keep you from being harmed.

          Unless a criminal is stupid enough to commit his crime in front of a policeman, there is exactly zero chance that the police will be able to stop its happening. But, if he commits that crime in front of a theater filled with armed, trained citizens, there is a nearly 100% chance he will not complete his crime — the citizens will stop him.

        • CARLjr

          What I see is disrespecting true heroes. These officers deserve a pat on the back, not accusations of corruption.

          As far as the trained citizens go - this is a perfect example of how it might not have mattered. Unless they also decided to bring their gas masks to the movie that night and had armor piercing rounds.

        • Barnlady

          You don't need armor piercing rounds. One of the school shootings was done by a young man that had never fired a gun but, most of his shots were "head" shots (video games!!). The shooter I believe only had a ski mask on, not bullet proof. A head shot usually stops them instantly.

        • CARLjr

          Ballistic helmet and gas mask..

        • Barnlady

          Is a gas mask bullet proof? I honestly don't know.

        • Conservativesniper

          NO, it has to conform to the face and therefore is flexible and quite soft.

        • alibaba123456

          First of all he was firing into the light and was outlined by the movie. Ever have a gas mask on?? I have and your firing is all over the place you really can not aim. And yes my pistol is armed every other is a armour piercing round.

        • Conservativesniper

          Man, what are you, 12? I survived the gas chamber in boot. It sucks but it isn't as debilitating as you think. Besides, it only takes one shot to end the kind of actions which cost 12 innocent people their lives. And AP ammo? Just because a round doesn't penetrate the armor doesn't mean it was wasted. The impact was still felt. If you came in my home, uninvited, I don't care if you're wearing kevlar or not, 00 bock or a Foster slug will knock you down, guaranteed.

        • fliteking

          Zoooooooom CarlJr, McQueen's solid point (and everyday occurrence) went right over your head.

          This ain't Disney.

        • CARLjr

          OK, what was the point then? The cops should have been able to magically arrive before the first bullet hit the first victim? "all they did was stop him from killing any more" yeah, that's all.

        • danstewart

          When the police arrived he was outside standing by his car. He told them his apartment was booby trapped, otherwise they would have probably busted down the door & the whole thing went boom. I'm not faulting the police, but when seconds count the police are only minutes away.

        • David S. McQueen

          How do you get "You hate cops" out of my post? I merely stated the facts. The cops got there AFTER the shooting, not during, and arrested the shooter who "went quietly". With your attitude, CARLjr, you've probably had more than your share of interaction with law enforcement.

        • CARLjr

          I get that by your dismissal of the fantastic job they did. These guys arrived quickly, neutralized the threat, ensured the area was safe for emergency personnel and got victims to hospitals as fast as possible. They quickly communicated with neighboring agencies, the bomb squad, canine units, multiple hospitals/ambulances and the FBI. I cannot imagine a better response from any agency. You are just against anything and everything government. They can do nothing right.

          You can make your argument about carrying guns. You can say you feel you should be able to have one on you at all times. I wont argue with you. In fact, I think you SHOULD have that right. But don't make your argument by crapping on those who really did 'serve and protect'.

        • David S. McQueen

          I didn't dengrate the cops! As I wrote before, you have a serious attitude problem. Are you posting from some prison? I've been a law-abiding citizen my whole life, which is probably more than you can say.

        • studi30

          The police found Holmes sitting in his car waiting for them. He even told the cops his home was boobytrapped. He wasn't a threat to anyone.

        • Conservativesniper

          Here in Texas the cops like people who carry concealed because you are correct, they can't be everywhere. And they know it. I hope I never need a cop because that means there will be an investigation into the blood on the floor of my home. Hopefully, that blood isn't mine.

          Remember, CARLjr, when seconds count, like they did in Aurora, the cops are only minutes away.

        • CARLjr

          I agree that you should be able to carry a firearm. I'm not against concealed or even open carry if you are licenced to carry one.

          I just want one person here to say the cops did a good job. If the only people that want to carry a gun are people that have no respect for the law or for the police, maybe it's not such a good idea after all.

        • studi30

          McQueen is right. When seconds count the cops are minutes away.

        • Native Texan

          Jr, Jr, Jr... You miss the point of David's comment which is totally appropriate. The point being, had the theater not been 'gun free' perhaps the three young men who died protecting their dates could have instead had a chance to hold the shooter at bay until the police could arrive thus maybe saving a few lives. Oh, and should you think I hate cops you would be wrong as I live in a family of Policemen.

        • CARLjr

          I got the point. I agree with that point. I am not arguing that point.

          I am only upset because not a single positive word went toward the police that DID show up. They did a good job. That is all I was saying. The only comments were how corrupt they were, how they didn't do anything or save anyone, and how they were accused of something years ago. I guess I will not get agreement on a anarchist site like this. Everybody is corrupt, everything is bad, no good exists - that's why I need my gun. There is no spirit of community, every man for himself.

        • fliteking

          Excellent.

      • alibaba1234565

        Actually James Holmes told them about the traps. And as for the Aurora Police being heroes I have seen four of them beat a helpless man on Colfax that had done nothing. I told them either arrest or leave him alone they did not know any one first was either a witness or would speak out against them. Denver "Police" do not consider Denver County Sheriffs law officers and have had gun fights underneath the jail in Denver. On the other side both Westminster and Lake Side have excellent Police departments.

      • http://www.facebook.com/crispin.chaparro Crispin Chaparro

        When seconds count, police are only minutes away.

      • J-Dubya

        They were already at the scene working crowd control. Sure, they apprehended the shooter, who was leaned up against his car smoking a cigarette. They are heroes for saving the lives of the people he shot, too bad it's not for dropping that scum while he was in the theatre. My nephew is a cop, and he tells me the best thing to do is arm yourself, and safely carry concealed, because otherwise, cops identify bodies and arrest the shooter.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1315515107 Alan Smith

        7 Minutes? The guy freaking gave up! the gunns he carried shoot 50 to 70 rounds per minute. 7 minutes was enough time to shoot everybody in that theaetor twice or more. One person with A 22 pistal could have ended it in 10 seconds. That is what this story is about. Your calling the cops heros? how many cops were shot at? How many cops died taking down this nut? 0 thats how many 0, seven minutes was to late for 50 familys out for some fun. If A person has the permitt to carry they should be alowed to carry just for this reason. In this instance the company is an acsesory to murder. Heros, yes there were heros, some died protecting their girls or kids. Mabey even one that tryed to get to the shooter and stop him. The cops were A day late and more than A dollor short

      • gnac

        BS The whole shooting event was over in 2 min. By the time the Police - the protectors arrived the event was over. The perp never even fired a shot at the cops. They "found" him at his car removing his gear. The only "heros" are the people who put themselves in front of the bullets to protect others. The city officials are cupable - by writing laws to prevent self protection. Sorry your idea of "hero" and mine differ so much. The bar for accolades is much higher than showing up after the event.

    • Michael g.

      Oh, you remember Buster Snyder too, huh. I could tell you a story about what someone I knew did to him that never made the papers.
      Snyder, as I recall, was eventually fired, and did himself end up as a guest (for a time) of the state.
      All I can say is good riddence.

      • alibaba123456

        He and the whole of the Denver Police where under Federal Investigation along with law agencies that were near them including Aurora and others.

  • Harvey1

    I know there is now way to make everybody happy. Our Constitution is supposed to be the law of our country. It states the we have the right to keep and arms. I can not find any where in our Constitution any restrictions as to when, where and how we can or can not carry arms. Any law contrary to the Constitution is null and void!
    It is common sense to see that this despicable person violated numerous city gun laws and state and federal laws. The last time unchecked it was still against the law to murder someone. If a person will violate all of these laws how would making another law do any good? The anti gun carrying laws restricting the bearing of arms are all unconstitutional. None of us can tell what could have or would have happened if American Citizens in attendence were carrying guns. I for one always carry concealed and feel sure that I would have tried to stop the maniac. If more that one citizen was armed and took action to stop the slaughter it would have ended the situation before he had the chance to kill so many illegally disarmed citizens. Only one shot at the perp would have disrupted his aim and concentration.
    I have carry concealed since the riots of 1968. At first I was not licensed but am now. I do not care what anyone else says about my being armed. I will always have the ability to defend myself,family and any other person in need including people that hate guns for what eve reason. If for some stupid reason a place prohibits my carrying and for some idiotic reason I were to leave my gun in the car,where it is subject to be STOLEN, I will hire a lawyer to file suit for violating my Second Admendment Rights

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Bruce-A-Frank/100001390130794 Bruce A. Frank

      At a time when the Constitution is being abrogated by the administration AND the courts, you will not have a leg on which to stand. Please keep in mind that gun laws guarantee only that law abiding citizens will be without protection. Gun law guarantee that armed criminals have free reign.

      Harvey1, you may survive the attack by an armed criminal, but you will spend the rest of your life in jail. And by carrying without the CCW permit, you double your exposure to arrest, prosecution and prison time by irrational law enforcement personnel. I live in a county in CA where a CCW permit is denied to all who do not contribute to Ms Sheriff Lauri's re-election fund.

      I urge you to re-establish your CCW permit. Yes, requiring such is a violation our intrinsic rights. The Founders did not give us those rights. The citizens of this newly formed nation already had those rights. The Bill Of Rights enumerates the rights against which no law is allowed to infringe. It does not grant those rights by law, it states that government has no power to infringe on those rights.

      Yes, the Constitution tells the government what it WILL NOT DO! Which is the very reason Obama said, before he was elected, he disliked the Constitution.

    • LeSellers

      You have no right to bear arms on private property when the property owner does not allow it. The II does not apply to private persons (and their property), it applies to the government.

      You have the right to avoid dealing with people who (stupidly) refuse to allow you to carry your weapon. You do not have the right to force him to do so.

  • Screeminmeeme

    One person is guilty and that is Holmes.

    However....except for a very few exceptions, the right to carry a gun everywhere else ought be permitted.

    • LeSellers

      I disagree to this extent: any property owner (or one who controls it, as a renter or lessee) should be able to ban weapons from his own property. No one has the right to do something opposed to the will of a property owner on his property. If you (or I) don't like the policy, we should go elsewhere.

      As we see in alibaba123456's post below (or wherever it's been moved to), an armed society is a polite society.

      • Screeminmeeme

        LeSellers....actually I agree with you. While I was stating my own opinion I wasn't at all advocating that businesses should be forced to do this...but I sure would hope they would permit it.

      • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100002692843109 George Plunkett III

        If you will look to the history of these types of massacres, Columbine, Virginia Tech, Jonesboro...etc., they all occur in "Gun Free Zones." The perfect killing fields. One concealed weapon holder, I firmly believe, could have stopped the Aurora shooter!

        • LeSellers

          No disagreement from me. However, as I said, the right of the property owner must be respected in this (as in all matters).

          If you or I determine that a private restriction on carrying a weapon is unacceptable, we have a couple of options:

          * we could try to persuade him to change his policy.
          * we could avoid his establishment.

          In either case, he suffers by the loss of any income from me or you until he changes his policy. If he sees that as acceptable, then we must go elsewhere, or we can be inconsistent, and say, "Well, everywhere but here."

          Notice that nearly all of these were not on private property, but on public property. The theater atrocity (not a "tragedy") was the exception (although not alone, the mall in Salt Lake City was also a private property catastrophe) happened when a private owner decided to expose his clients to any terrorist or madman who happened along.

          So, while I agree strongly that all such places be open to concealed carry (and to open carry, as well), that is not within my power to control. What I can control is whether I patronize such a place. I believe that, from now on, I will not.

          If the millions of us who are responsible weapons owners and carriers would all decide to avoid such establishments, it would not be long before the vast majority would rescind their ill-conceived bans and welcome us into their shops, restaurants, theaters, schools, and offices. We, like the police who were given free donuts at Dunkin Donuts in order to have an armed presence in their stores, would provide a service of safety they get for free. I believe they do not understand how valuable our patronage would be in more than mere monetary terms.

        • Barnlady

          What is Cinemark reason for banning legal permitted hand guns, does anyone know??

        • fliteking

          Because the outfit is run by Politically Correct liberals that cannot make a reasonable decision to save lives.

        • Barnlady

          Thank you, I believe their "Politically Correctness" is going to cost them a lot of money.

        • Conservativesniper

          Probably has something to do with some lawyer and liability. They are, I hope, about to get a lesson in liability. But, NO ONE could have forseen what this psycho was going to do. There were NO warning flags that this was going to happen.

          I hope Cinemark gets new legal counsel AND changes their policy about CCW. And I hope the people of Colorado realize that life is not fair and 'fairness' cannot be legislated. This kind of crap doesn't happen in Switzerland because EVERY male in a certain age range is REQUIRED to be proficient with a firearm. And the bad guys/ loons know it.

        • LeSellers

          I do not know the answer to your question. I doubt Cinemark is responding to queries about that right now, so getting a reliable answer (assuming they'd not dissemble were they to answer) is unlikely for the near term.

          However, the City of Aurora, to my shame and disappointment, is essentially a "Gun-Free Zone". The theater has the cover of simply following local codes and regulations.

          I'll make this an issue when I campaign and vote next mayoral and council elections.

        • Barnlady

          You are probably correct. I have really enjoyed you very thoughtful and detailed explanations. I don't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon but my husband does and he carries it everywhere. He has only had to pull it out once, when the ill-tempered man saw it in his lap he cooled down quickly. I think that avoided a confrontation with the out-of-control person. We have an ongoing concern that the government, in all it's wisdom, will ban guns, or ammunition.

        • LeSellers

          You are very nice to say so.

          Among my greatest fears is to find myself disarmed by the very country I spent 21+ years serving in her uniform. Government, in Washington's words, is like fire, a fearsome master and a dangerous servant.

        • Tionico

          However, as I said, the right of the property owner must be respected in this (as in all matters).

          Nope.. the Constitution protects the INALIENABLE right of ALL to keep and bear arms. No restrictioins, limitations, categories, exclusions, can possibly fall outside "shall not be infringed".

          If I have the right to possess that weapon by virtue of my status as a human being made by God and placed here, I have the right to bear, or carry, that arm wherever I go. That right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Any place, for any reason by any person or agency.

          Please, show me where an individual's privete property rights trumps an inalienable right? Can a restaurant, which is private property, refuse service to someone on the basis of their race, religion, etc?? Nope.. the status as private property does NOT trump sich rights under the Constitutioni. WHY oh WHY do so many persist in trying to establish our right to arms under the Constitution as different in nature from our rights to al the OTHER protections and liberties spelled out in the same document, for the same people, and from the same source? If a cop can't arrest me within my home or inside your home or a restaurant or theater on the basis of the COnstituion, on what basis can the owner of that same property nullify my right to arms? Come on, now.. ALL the rights protected by the Bill of Rights fall under the identical limits or lack thereof. If a cop can't come into your house with no warrant and arrest me, or into a church, theater, restaurant, without that warrant, how on earth can I have a right guaranteed under a different paragraph of the same document suddenly be terminated on the basis of place? You just do't get it. Nor to the gun banners.

        • CARLjr

          There are restrictions. You cannot have a rocket launcher, fully automatic weapon, or walk around with grenades. You cannot drive around with a trunk full of explosives. You cannot just walk into a bank with a rifle and a ski mask on. You can't bring your machete to the airport. Be reasonable.

        • Conservativesniper

          Your strawman argument is pathetic and erroneous. You CAN own a full auto weapon. You just have to pay the 'tax'. You can walk around with grenades, just be ready to pay the price when you are caught. Carljr, you are like most leftwingers, you want someone else to do the hard stuff. Grow up.

        • Jammer2

          CARLjr: Anyone who can pass the NCIC criminal background investigation and has $200 for a full-auto tax stamp can legally own a functioning full automatic military weapon. You can also buy silencers for any weapon by going through the same process. My neighbor owns a 1924 Thompson .45 (Tommy Gun), and three .50 caliber machine guns as well as a mortar with surplus rounds from the Vietnam War days. People who can afford to legally purchase military weapons are not the ones out shooting people in movie theaters or anywhere else. Get your facts straight before jumping into a conversation between adults, or somebody is going to spank you and send you to your room.

        • CARLjr

          I stand corrected. I did not realize full-auto was legal.
          The point I was trying to make is you do not have a blanket right to all weaponry in all locations.

        • LeSellers

          The Constitution is not a bestowal of rights, it is not a limitation on people. The Constitution is a limited bestowal of powers by the people (indirectly, through the states) to the federal government.

          The people, except as expressly stated in the Document, retain all powers (and rights — they are not the same things).

          Nothing in the Document restricts people in the exercise of their rights unless that restriction is included in the Contract itself.

          There are a myriad of rights not listed in the Bill of Rights. Hamilton was certain, as am I, that the Bill or Rights would/has become a lever to use AGAINST the very rights it sought to protect.

          The right to smoke (as stupid as smoking is) derives from the fact that each mature, independent individual owns himself. No one has a superior claim to his person. No one has a superior claim to his time, talents, efforts, or work. He may agree to give someone rights, a spouse, for instance, or an employer, in exchange for something else (money, companionship, etc.), but even that gift can be rescinded. If you choose do drugs (smoking, drinking, shooting up, sorting, whatever), you have that right because you own yourself.

          If you find a piece of wood by the side of the road, one that no one else has a claim to, and you make a tool out of it, that tool is yours. Your work andtime created value where no value existed.

          If you settle a piece of land to which no one has a pre-existing right, the land is yours. The house and barn you build are yours. The hotel you build is yours. No one can take it away, no one can burn it down.

          Since it is yours, you control it. Yours is the final say as to what is permitted there and what is forbidden. If a third party comes onto your land, enters your hotel, and in defiance of your will, exercises his right to smoke (he owns his person, including his lungs), you, as the property owner, have the right to force him to desist or to leave.

          If that third party, in defiance of your express will that he not do so, insists on carrying a weapon onto your premises, your right trumps his. He must defer to your will because he is in that place ONLY by your leave, and, because he is not observing your wishes, you withdraw that leave.

          If we take your positon, that the guest's right supersedes yours, the property owners, then your rights are violated, and, hence, subordinate to the other's. But property rights are only extensions of the fundamental right of self-ownership. You have become the other's slave.

          That does not work in the world I live in.

          The guest is in my establishment by my leave. If and when he breaks my rules, I am fully entitled to evict him.

          The original question, as to whether the Constitution requires me to allow you to carry a weapon onto my premises demands that we review the Framers' mindset. We do not have the space or time here to do so. However, lengthy years studying their writings (not just those of the Constitutional Convention, but of others in their era, including the Anti-Federaislists and other patriots) compel me to belive that nothing in the Constitution does so. It is a Document that limits government (or, more correctly, defines a limited legitimate scope for government), not citizens. Its primary purpose was to protect individual rights, including, perhaps even especially, the right to own and control property first of all.

        • bifflefan98

          "Gun Free Zone" is another term for "target rich environment"

        • Shermer

          Like at the Gabrielle Gifford shooting? Nobody was carrying a gun there?

        • Conservativesniper

          Yeah, but open carry is legal in AZ. The sad thing is this anecdotal incident will be an argument, deeply flawed, to make an emotional appeal that guns need to be eliminated from society. Take a look at crime in 'merry old England' since they have banned the ownership of firearms. And Hitlery clintoon is trying to subvert the Constitution at this very moment by negotiating a treaty which would deny Americans their natural right to self defense.

      • wayno

        you are right. the property owner has a right to expel someone not complying with their wishes, however, you then take on a higher liability if you do not allow someone to protect themselves and should suffer the consequences. the theater's original excuse is that they have armed off-duty police at the theater. so where were they? oops, none on duty that night.

        • LeSellers

          All too true.

          As I have said, were it up to me, the theater would have two showings: one where firearms were allowed, one with them disallowed. I know which I'd feel safer attending.

          Those who were in the "unarmed seats" would, at least implicitly, say that they accepted the lilability for their safety should anything happen that their being able to defend themselves would have precluded. Those of us in the other showing, being armed, would accept the (negligible) danger of having a room full of weapons. (I'd like airlines to offer similar accommodations.)

          As to whether an armed, off-duty policeman could have done much to protect the viewers, I hope he would. But I choose not to rely on a disinterested party when my life and that of my wife are on the line.

      • richard

        When Texas first passed the Cancealed Handgun License bill too many businesses rushed out and put up "no guns allowed" signs. Thes state law says when, now big and the exact working of those no handgun signs must be. If a business has a legal noi gun sign, I do not go into that business, with or without a gun, I and onlt I make the choice where my money gets spent. To finish after just a few years businesses began began removing thos signs and now in most places you have to look hard to find one, but I still laugh at the few "illegal" signs, as in the ones that do NOT meet the state law prohibiting guns.

        • Old Texas Cowgirl

          As a point of information, the restaurant chain Denny's has recently instituted a policy that permitted guns carried by their owners are welcome in Denny's. Therefore I will henceforth give them all my dinner business, as I feel safe from robbers (and worse) in a place where I'm sure at least some good guys are prepared to defend me.

        • richard

          Yes they did as did Starbucks.

      • rich

        You confuse private property.......when you allow a public entrance and/or charge, a person's rights are not dissolved, as long as you dont interfer with the function or purpose of your entrance. You dont give up your other rights, because you pay to enter an enterprise open to the public.

        • LeSellers

          This is claptrap. Any private property is a "home", and I guarantee that if you come into my home and, say, smoke, I will kick you out in a half a heart beat. I do not allow smoking in my home. You have the right to smoke, I have the right to refuse your smoking on my property.

          Bearing arms is no different. I would not do so, but were I to refuse to let a guest carry his firearm in my home, and he insisted that I permit it, I would use my own weapon to enforce my right to control my property.

          Just because a person "opens" his "home" (or business) to the pubic does not mean he must allow each client/customer the freedom to exercise every right he has. Were it so, property rights would mean nothing. Property rights are the foundation of all rights. I own myself, and from that, all my other rights derive.

          Just as a mental exercise, let us suppose that there is a tire store in Burleyville, Nevada, a small town with no other communities within 45 miles. I have a flat tire just as I cross the town limits. The owners sees me walk into his store, and notices that I wear my watch on my right wrist. He says, "Sorry, we do not serve left-handed people here. Please leave."

          I will leave. I will make other arrangements to get where I am going, get the tire fixed or whatever it takes to do what I want to do. The tire store owner is no less a person than me, and he has no obligation to serve me, for whatever (stupid) reason he may choose. I have no right to force him (not even using men in fancy hats with shiny badges and carrying large guns) to make me happy.

          He has just as much right to pursue happiness in his way as I have in mine. He has just as much right to the freedom of association as I do. He has no right to my money, and I have no right to his tires. Unless we can both agree to a mutually beneficial trade (money for tires and tires for money), we each go away, he with his tires and I with my money. He loses, I lose. Each of us may hope to find others who will be amenable to a trade on his own terms, not terms defined by the state.

        • tionico

          which of the Bill of Rights ammendments specifically spells out the "right" to smoke as given by God and inalienable? When you show me that, I will begin to hear your argument. The bill of rights enumerates (not well, it does not "give") those rights given by our Creator to ALL men, and then guarnantess these specific rights to apply to every indnividual within the se states united. Nowhere does the idea of private property bear any effect upon those rights.

          Your premise that we each can determine how we will "persue happiness in our own way" is ungrounded. In some areas, yes.. but there are a few siecifically named ways in which we ALL are free to "persue our own happiness" as we wish unless it infringes upon the same right of another. Personal protection is NOT subject to the whim of any other person, nor llimited by time or space.

          If I were in your house, someone broke in, and I picked up a baseball bat to defend myself, would you be right to kick me out for defending myself against great bodily harm? Or defending you? No? Well, then, how could anyone pretend to object to my employing a different tool to the same purpose? You are using liberal rhetoric, and it fails. Does my right to breathe cease when I enter certain private property? No? Then, how can my right to self-defense cease when I enter the same property?

        • LeSellers

          You ask where the Constitution "spells out the 'right' to smoke'". It's in the IX amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

          God granted us stewardship over ourselves. As far as t his world goes, we own ourselves, and have the right to do any stupid ol' thing we want as long as we do not harm others who have not agreed to share the danger.

          I fail to see on what you base your claim that pursuing happiness in any way one chooses is ungrounded. The premise, that anyone can pursue happiness in his own way is fundamental to true liberty. The corollary, that doing so is limited to not harming others, is implicit in the statement itself. No one has a greater right to pursue happiness than anyone else. Thus, I cannot harm you to gain happiness any more than you can harm me in your search for it.

          You do not lose your right to self-defense by entering a place where the owner refuses your carrying a weapon. What you lose is the right to carry a weapon. If you do not accept that restriction, you are free to exercise another fundamental right: that of not entering the place. (Which I strongly recomment you do exercise: I, for one, refuse from now on, to do business with any person who refuses me the right to carry a weapon in anticipation of a violent attack such as that in my home town of Aurora, Colorado, last week.)

        • LeSellers

          Not sure how my comment got attributed to "Guest", but I wanted to make a short (albeit important, in my mind) addition to it. Here goes, with the full content as amended.

          You ask where the Constitution "spells out the 'right' to smoke'". It's in the IX amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

          Even the Declaration of Independence doesn't pretend to list ALL of a man's unalienable rights, it says that God ("[our] Creator") gave us certain rights that we cannot give away, and that the three big ones Jefferson listed were only "among these". All rights stem from the fact of our individual self-ownership. No one has a superior claim to his person, his work, or his efforts than does that man himself.

          God granted us stewardship over ourselves. As far as t his world goes, we own ourselves, and have the right to do any stupid ol' thing we want as long as we do not harm others who have not agreed to share the danger.

          I fail to see on what you base your claim that pursuing happiness in any way one chooses is ungrounded. The premise, that anyone can pursue happiness in his own way is fundamental to true liberty. The corollary, that doing so is limited to not harming others, is implicit in the statement itself. No one has a greater right to pursue happiness than anyone else. Thus, I cannot harm you to gain happiness any more than you can harm me in your search for it.

          You do not lose your right to self-defense by entering a place where the owner refuses your carrying a weapon. What you lose is the right to carry a weapon. If you do not accept that restriction, you are free to exercise another fundamental right: that of not entering the place. (Which I strongly recommend you do exercise: I, for one, refuse from now on to do business with any person who refuses me the right to carry a weapon in anticipation of a violent attack such as that in my home town of Aurora, Colorado, last week.)

      • don

        nope your wrong if he has paying costermers he is lible for their well being

        • LeSellers

          Of course he does. But he does not have to allow anyone to carry a weapon to make that happen.

          As I believe, however, the easiest way to assure that all customers are safe is to allow, and even encourage anyone who desires it to carry a weapon.

      • Conservativesniper

        Yep, I think it was Robert Heinlein who said that an armed society is a polite society. Think back to the Old West when EVERYBODY was packin'. Things certainly seemed more peaceful. Because everybody knew, good and bad alike, that you might get called on your talk and it was better to have a gun and not need it than to need one and not have it.

        • LeSellers

          Heinlein has always been a favorite in my library.

          From the days of _Gunsmoke_(and Matt Dillon) and _Bonanza_(with Hoss and Little Joe), the Old West has been portrayed a s violent time. No one would deny that there were gunfights, that Indians and Cavalry fought bloody battles and wars. But there was not a shootout on the streets of Dodge every week, and Sheriff Coffey didn't have to kill bandits each Sunday night. By and large, Boot Hill is an invention of XX television and dime store novels, not the XIX, where the people lived it.

          That everyone was "packin'" is not quite accurate, but for all practical purposes, it reflects reality. And life was mostly boring (at least not nearly as violent as today). Wagon wheels killed more people than bullets, blacksmiths were injured more often than bartenders.

    • dad666

      Thee constitution doesn't grant exceptions and state laws can''t supercede that rule.
      Neither can a theater chain.
      SUE THEM AND SHUT THEM DOWN

      • LeSellers

        The II does not apply to private entities. It is a restriction on the government.

        Private property rights are inherent in each of us, including corporations.If they do not want us to carry a weapon into their establishments, it is perfectly within their rights to deny us service. However, we have an equally valid and powerful right: that of not frequenting their place of business. If I know that a theater or restaurant doesn't want me there with my weapon, the best course is to take my money and go elsewhere.

        As to suing them, I agree. They did not provide a safe place to enjoy the movie. One of the things they could have done to assure the implicit guarantee of such a safe place would have been to allow people who chose to do so, to carry their weapons into the theater.

        If someone does not feel comfortable with knowing that a few or many of his fellow viewers would be carrying weapons, let the theater have two showings: one with and one without. We could choose. (And the same goes for airlines, trains, even churches.) I know where I'd feel safer. One reason rests comfortably on my hip. How about you?

        • NM Leon

          In this case it had nothing to do with private property. Concealed carry is banned by the city.

          A. Concealed Carry Bans:

          Aurora, Boulder, Broomfield,
          Colorado Springs, Denver, Englewood, Lakewood, Littleton, Longmont, Northglenn, Pueblo, Thornton,
          Westminster, Wheat Ridge

          http://www.coloradoceasefire.org/munilaws.htm

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WHOCS6CQ6KN5X635V6SUQWMC7M JoeM

          Colorado has preemption so all those city laws are unenforcable.

        • LeSellers

          From the site you cite:
          "In 2003, the state legislature and the governor deemed that the power to address gun violence in Colorado through laws SHALL NOT be in the domain of the affected communities, rather it should rest only in the hands of the state.
          By this legislation (SB03-25), all of the ordinances on this list have been declared unenforceable."

          I'd have to say that the City of Aurora, even if it has a ban on Concealed Carry (which I will fight over the next election cycle), could not require that Cinemark deny CCW licensees (why do we have to beg the government for the right to exercise a right, anyway?) entry into their theaters.

        • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WHOCS6CQ6KN5X635V6SUQWMC7M JoeM

          LeSellers - Go check out the Colorado State Patrol site talking about gun laws: http://www.colorado.gov/cs/Satellite/StatePatrol-Main/CBON/1251594549010

          What a load of crap. They make it sound like you can't carry nearly everywhere but conveniently leave out the exemption for permit holders. I knew it was crap right off the bat and it took me a good hour to look up the law (I'm not even from Colorado). Person who typed up that page needs to be fired for incompetence (unless it was intentionally confusing - what I suspect).

        • NM Leon

          I stand corrected. :-)

        • David S. McQueen

          Cinemark has a legal duty to provide a reasonably safe environment for its patrons. By restricting its patrons to only unarmed people, they failed in that duty. Sue the bastards.

        • Shermer

          How many peope at the Tucson shooting of Gabrielle Gifford shot back?

        • Tionico

          none.. but one on the scene was armed, and rushed TOWARD the shooting. Turns out the perp had a magazine malfunction/jam, and as soon as bystanders realised it they jumped him and took him down. It was then he was disarmed. The armed citizen never brought his handgun into the situationn.

          Now had he been there AT the scene during the shooting, there is little doubt he could, and would, ahve brought his handgun to bear, and taken out the perp before he ran his tally so high. MY question.. whiat if ten percent of those at that event had been armed?

          These government idiots are always clamouring for more gun control.... but they never will mentioni there are already planty of laws on the books to make possession of a firearm by any of these killers illegal. The Arizona shooter carried with the INTENT to cause bodily harm. THAT is illegal. The theatre shooters, same thing. So with the Virgina Tech character. The Columbine kids were under age, unlawfully in possession of handguns for that reason alone. EVERY SHOOTING involved a shooter who was unlawfully in possessionn of the firearm on SOME basis already on the books. So, on what polyanna basis do these idiot lawmakers and fear mongers reason that even MORE such laws will stop what they already have failed to do?

        • Shermer

          That one armed guy, Joe Zamudio, admits he was very close to shooting an innocent person who had taken the killer's gun from him. He also didn't draw his own gun because he feared he himself would be mistaken for the killer and shot by another armed citizen. If everyone was armed, there's no telling how many victims would have been hurt in the free-for-all.

          As it turns out, the killer was subdued with the use of a folding chair. You can learn a lot from professional wrestling...

        • studi30

          My thouht was that the gathering for Giffords was almost all libturd supporters(dimocraps). They don't believe in concealed carry.

        • Shermer

          Personal insults certainly add a lot of legitimacy to your comments, don't they? It's hardly worth trying to have a discussion...
          Anyway, at the risk of repeating myself, the one guy "carrying" almost shot an innocent person, and was too scared to draw his own gun because he thought he'd be shot himself.

        • Shermer

          Saturday morning at a suburban supermarket, and there wasn't a gun-toting conservative Republican in sight? You're kidding, right?

        • Tionico

          wrong.. the 2nd Ammendment does NOT limit the duty to not "infringe" to government. It is speaiing of the reality that ALL MEN have the right to keep and bear arms as part of our humanity, given by God as our Maker, and that that right SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED, It makes no distinction between public and private spaces, in apples universally to every place within the borders of these states united.

          There ARE some circumstances under which an individual can forfeit that right... violent crime against persons, etc. Except for those few instances/individuals, the right is uinversal. It is not even restricted to citizens, residents, adults.....

          Since a theatre is a public gathering space, anyone patronising such an establishment must be free to exercise that right. The very fact that the theatre is open to public use dictates that. Else the management is INFRINGING upon the individual right to arms, and doing so in violation of the protectioin of that right spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Does free speech end at the door to the theatre< How about freedom from unreasonable search/seizure? Right to life? Uhm, maybe the right to be secure in my person, effects, property )including the handgun on my hip)?

      • fliteking

        Excellent insight.

  • CARLjr

    Laying down crossfire in a dark smoke filled theater at a man that is head to toe in body armor is not a smart tactical move. The best thing to do is escape.

    • Ironz

      Jr. To get a concealed carry permit, a person needs to go to classes and shooting classes. they are also told to continue with their education in firearms as to when to use them and not use them. A fire arm educated person would not shot across a smoke filled room but would use their education.

    • Chemiker

      He was wearing ballistic nylon, not Kevlar. So, he did not have body armor. One shot should have stopped him. The only Kevlar that he was wearing was his helmet.
      That said, escape is best, when it is possible. Clearly, it was not for 70+ people.

      • David

        Many people do have a hesitation reaction "this can't be happening!" when faced with either fear or the unknown, and this manifested itself in this horrible situation. Only people who are trained to respond in like manner to the perpetrator would have made a difference in the incident, and no amount of pontificating from either side of the aisle is going to change this. When people no longer believe in the social compact that binds us together via our faiths, ethics, or morality, no one wishes to take action and this is the result.

        • Chemiker

          Agreed. Training is absolutley essential. It would seem to be a bad idea to carry if one is not trained fairly well.
          The best fight, IMHO, is the one that is avoided. However, sometimes, the fight is unavoidable. Defending one's fellow citizens is a part of that social contract. It is not really an easy choice.

        • graphsmith

          I agree. But gun training should be a part of the high school and/or college curriculum. Now that we have a completely volunteer army it makes even more sense to train the public on proper use of weapons. We are all need to be part of the militia today.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Roger-Meyer/1785162356 Roger Meyer

      jr: A person who has any knowlege of firearms and body aroor would not randomly shoot at such a person. If they elected to try to defend themselves and others they would wait until they had a clear shot at a vulnerable location such as the neck, the area around the temple where the helmet visor meets the helmet proper or some other spot of this type. Even then, this shot should, and would, only be attempted if there was a very, very good chance of success.

      • TW

        Also, one wouldn't necessarily have to shoot willy-nilly across the theater at him. Why was he wearing all that stuff? He thought it offered some protection because he didn't want to get hurt, himself. One round (if it missed) would likely have this guy ducking to prevent himself from being shot, therefore taking focus off his objective of killing others.
        And if there were others carrying, he would not have killed as many as he did.

      • CARLjr

        It would be almost impossible to make such a shot. Don't forget he had used his (perfectly legal) tear gas grenades. It would be tough to hit such a precise target when your eyes are being forcibly closed, mucus is pouring out of your nose and your restricted breathing is causing dizziness and disorientation. Not to mention coughing tends to mess with your aim. Do you know what Cinemark's policy is on bringing a gas mask to the movies?
        http://i.imgur.com/OveFr.jpg

      • graphsmith

        Blunt trauma pain and impact would at least unsteady him iff not knock him off his feet (esp. 45 caliber). Thwn you get closer to disarm him or finish the job. But since he wasn't really wearing ballistic armor he would have gone down for good.
        No one wants to kill another person, but I would feel even worse if I had a chance to stop the carnage and chose to run instead.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dustin.w.taunton Dustin W. Taunton

    Anti gun policies in general lead to carnage. WAKE UP!!!

  • GWY

    If some brave soul had shot James Holmes, they would be in jail right now. The government does not want anyone defending themselves in this country. Just ask Mr. Zimmerman. You may be armed in some places but you must not use the gun to protect yourself or you go to jail.

    • LeSellers

      Indeed. Government is consistently defined by one thing: the monopoly on the use of lethal force. It defends that monopoly zealously and jealously.

      Thomas Jefferson (among others of the Founders) said that the bearing of arms defines a free people. If we are not permitted to exercise the right to keep and bear arms, we are, in Jefferson's mind, slaves.

    • tionico

      you are wrong.. the laws of the State of COlorado allow the use of "lethal forct" to defend yourself and/pr those round about you in cases of imminent serious bodily harm or death. Sure, just as in Florida, there are some who think the use of that force, though legal, is "bad", and will prosecute on trumped up charges, as in Zimmerman's case. The defense of one's self or others in the vicinity is lawful. Had I been in that theatre, I would have been armed... and would have at least tried to use it. Let them arrest me. It will go very badly for them should that happen. I seriously doubt the prosecutors there would have the guts to put anyone in jail who had successfully ended that shooting spree.

  • disqus_z28toMLQG8

    Gun control sure didn't help all those kids killed in Denmark where they have gun control. If some of them had guns more than likely there would have been fewer dealths. He was a lone gun man too.

  • Bill L Conner

    Aurora,Denver CO and all other towns, cities in the U.S.A should take A lesson from Kennesaw GA and let all law abiding cityzens carry fire arms for saftie. The only place I would not carry then I would have one handy. Is in bed...

  • Robert

    The shooter Mr. Holmes is ultimately responsible for the shootings. However the theater also must take considerable responsibility for the number of people that were killed and injured. Had one or more persons in the theater had a concealed carry permit and had been carrying their weapon Mr. Holmes could've been brought down before it killed so many people. Also considerable responsibility must go to the police department. The chief of police stated that they responded to the scene within 90 seconds if this is true why did the shooter have 20 min. of shooting time? Officer should have one in an illuminated the problem that's what they're paid for. In America today everybody wants to point fingers at somebody else blaming someone else for everyone else's misdeeds.
    Then you have the screaming liberals who stand on the bloody bodies to push their own misguided agenda.

    • LeSellers

      When every second counted, the Aurora Police were only 90 seconds away, and 12 people died (so far). We must also not forget that those 90 seconds didn't start until the first 911 call, not the first shot. We have no clear idea as to how long between when Holmes shot his first round and when the first movie-goer pulled th…, oops, before he managed to get his cell phone out and dial 911. That could easily have been several minutes, minutes during which, Holmes shot one, three, twelve, twenty more people.

      The police have no responsibility to protect you. That is settled case law. They must stop any crime being committed in their presence, but there is not duty to protect anyone. That's why average response times of 7 minutes to 911 EMERGENCY calls are accepted.

      I'm not sure what your sentence ("Officer should have one in an illuminated the problem that's what they're paid for.") means, it seems to be missing something. However, that is NOT what they're paid for. They are paid to investigate crimes and write (revenue producing) tickets.

      • TW

        Right. average 911 response time is about 20 minutes. the speed of a 357 round is about 1400 feet per second.
        Who you going to call?!

        • DWinch

          Sounds like a simple law of physics to me, 1400 fps compared to 20 minutes for 911, the choice is obvious!

  • http://www.facebook.com/don.ruane Don Ruane

    To my knowledge, a gun has never killed anyone, without the aid of a human being and that human being is solely responsibility for the results, not the gun.

    • LeSellers

      It can happen, but it's not anything close to "likely".

      There was a case a few weeks ago where a woman gave a police officer (I believe) a hug and his weapon discharged, killing her. We can make the case that the officer or the woman did something wrong that allowed the pistol to fire, and so a person was responsible for that one, too. But it looks like the gun did it, at least, to me it does.

      That said, I agree. A loaded, charged, calibre .50 machine gun sitting on my coffee table will do exactly one thing unless someone depresses the trigger: it will rust.

      • Libertarian52

        "There was a case a few weeks ago where a woman gave a police officer (I believe) a hug and his weapon discharged, killing her. We can make the case that the officer or the woman did something wrong that allowed the pistol to fire, and so a person was responsible for that one, too. But it looks like the gun did it, at least, to me it does."

        Without knowing the make and model of that handgun, it's unlikely that it's the guns's fault. In the past, some handguns were so poorly designed that they did go off when squeezed the wrong way. The WWII era Japanese Nambu was such an example. But no peace officer in his right mind would be carring such a weapon.

        My guess is the weapon in question was a Glock, which is the most handgun most commonly carried by law enforcement today. One of the reasons it is so is probably the reason the it went off unintentionally. Unlike other brands that have the safety mounted on the slide or side of the gun, the Glocks safety mechanism is incorporated into its trigger. the reasoning behind this was that a police force transitioning from revolvers to semi-automatics, wouldn't have to spend too much on retraining its personnel on proper weapon handling. Or at least that's what they thought.

        The cause of the negligent discharge could have simply have been the use of the wrong type of holster that had as one of its retention features a part that extended into the trigger guard of the handgun.

        • LeSellers

          All good information, but the point here is that guns don't "do" anything. Unless acted upon by a trigger finger (or a hug), a guns does nothing but rust.

  • http://www.facebook.com/bernardo.giansomo Bernardo Giansomo

    More lives have been saved over the years from armed citizens taking out perps than not. Idiots like Bloomberg can't get there heads wrapped around that then scream for more gun control. The perp has a rifle with a 10 round limit approved clip by gun control freaks and so points it at someone and BANG! fires one round,person's dead, 9 more to go. In a gun free zone 9 more will die. In a theater 3 people with legal CCW's are packing. Perp walks in fires one round,kills somebody and 3 respond with a volley killing the perp. 2 dead no more deaths or injuries. If you insist on agreeing with Bloomberg then go back to the first scenario.

    • TW

      Right on!
      POINT BLANK by Dr. Kleck, one of the most thorough studies to date, shows that about 2.5 MILLION crimes annually are thwarted by private citizens pulling a gun to protect themselves. 2.5 MILLION!

      • Tionico

        and of those two and a half million, well over two million of them never even had to fire the weapon. jusst "presenting" the firearm helped the perp to make an informed decision that he's better set aside his plans to use his own.

  • John1943

    If more sane people carried firearms, the crazies would get fewer shots off. So called "Gun Free Zones" are ignored by the crazies, the movie theater chain should rename them "Unarmed Victim Zones."

  • Walt

    The
    most pro-gun city in the United States – Kennesaw Georgia – where gun ownership
    is mandatory. It’s not the “Wild West”
    like some people predicted when it passed a mandatory gun ownership law. Kennesaw “has the lowest
    crime rate in Cobb County,” one of the most populace counties in Georgia. In
    fact, from 1982 through 2009, Kennesaw had been nearly murder free with one
    murder occurring in 2007. Other serious
    crimes are almost non-existent.

    “The city of
    Kennesaw was selected by Family Circle magazine as one of the nation’s ‘10 best
    towns for families.’ The award was aimed at identifying the best communities
    nationally that combine big-city opportunities with suburban charm, a blend of
    affordable housing, good jobs, top-rated public schools, wide-open spaces, and
    less stress.”

    In a 25-year period, New York City has had more than 15,000 murders – 2245 in 1990 alone – while Kennesaw,
    Georgia, had 1.

    When the people have guns
    the criminals stay away.

    • http://www.facebook.com/people/Michael-Papich/100000029359454 Michael Papich

      You are so right. Did NYC's strict anti-gun laws prevent 9/11 when several thousands died

      • Shermer

        Who was killed by a gun on 9/11?

        • overthetop

          I think he is saying that if everyone in NYC shot at the planes before they hit the buildings, they may not have hit so hard.

        • Shermer

          I hadn't thought of that. If they shot at the fuel tanks, the planes would have blown up before they even got to the buildings. I've seen it in the movies - one shot is all it takes.

        • LeSellers

          I'm not speaking for Mr. Papich, but I believe he meant that gun restrictions did not prevent the atrocity of 9/11/01. Evil people will always find a way to kill those they target. No law can prevent it if the actor is sufficiently motivated.

          Take away the guns, and the knives (or airplanes) come out. Deny them the knife, and the rock appears. Ban rocks, and it'll be clubs. Clubs outlawed, fishing spears will take their place.

          All this, of course is moot, because, with every restriction, guns, knives, airplanes, rocks, spears, and clubs will still find themselves employed as the instruments of violence in the hands of people whose nature dictates that they will refuse to follow the law in the first place.

  • DWinch

    Apparently the shooter didn't see the no shooting sign at the door of the theater.
    So what we need are bigger signs then these shootings would never happen again.
    Perhaps signs big enough to block the door to the theater.

    • TW

      How about a sign that says, "Protected by Smith AND Wesson."
      Holmes was planning this for some time and he knew that theater would be void of any other weapons.

      • DWinch

        Works for me!Those so called gun free zones are what I call future crime scenes.
        You won't catch me in one!

        • LeSellers

          That's the approach that will work.

          It will work, I say, when we not only do it, but let the managers know we are doing it. If they know that they will be losing the revenue from some 67 million gun owners across the country, they may sit up, take notice, and change their policies.

          Make a rservation at a restaurant. Ask if there is a no gun policy. If the answer is yes, cancel the reservation.

          Ask your barber if he allows guns in the shop. If not, let him know that Joe's Barbershop and Lube down the street will be getting your $15/month.

          When you're buying a ticket to a football game, let 'em know you'll be carrying. If they say, "We don't allow guns in the stadium," stop the transaction.

          It's the best way to make a statement. We can sit here talking all day long, but until we do something concrete, something that will get their attention, it will mean nothing in the end.

          Gun-Free Zones (or "Future Crime Scenes") should not only not exist, but where they do, they ought see neither me nor my money.

        • DWinch

          Well put, money talks!

    • Barnlady

      I love your comment! Bigger signs. If the theater will not allow you to protect yourself then they have the obligation to protect you, right. I believe anyone at that theater that was shot/or shot at should sue as the theater did not protect you.

  • Ed Mallory

    The qualified answer is Yes. Cinemark should be sued by every person in that theater. This will change their attitude and the attitude of other businesses that refuse to permit citizens the right to self-defense. If a business refuses the right of self-defense to citizens then they must provide adequate security to replace that prohibiting the right to self-defend. Only by hitting them in the pocket book will you inflict the type of incentive these corporate imbeciles understand. If there is a great incentive not to prohibit personal rights then the rights will be allowed. Rights are seldom automatic. They must be won and maintained. Jefferson knew this to be true and stated it accordingly.

    • skip k

      ed, RIGHT ON!!!... i think that all of these anti 2nd amendment and anti gun people should be specifically and personally held responsible and maybe even prosecuted for aiding and abetting murder/manslaughter, etc., for their stance, as what they are doing is PURPOSEFULLY PUTTING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS IN HARMS WAY, as crazies/gangs/crooks don't care about laws re murder, mayhem, guns, etc., and therefore, in especially 'gun free zones', are free to do their thing without fear... bad stuff...

      • overthetop

        The place that sold him the chemical weapon grenades and assault rifles were the ones guilty of PURPOSEFULLY PUTTING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS IN HARMS WAY. These are not sporting goods.

  • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

    Under the God of the Bible's law, there is no such thing as "Gun-Free Zones":

    "Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword
    (equivalent to a side arm today) in their hand; to execute vengeance
    upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings
    with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them
    the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise yes Yah."
    (Psalm 149:6-9).

    You don't need the Second Amendment (which
    only provides a right and as such can and has incrementally been whittled away) when you have Psalm 149 (which charges us with a
    responsibility).

    You might be surprised by Executive Director of Gun
    Owners of America, Larry Pratt's take on this. Click on my name to get to our website. God to our Broadcast Audio Page and then click on the third entry from the top, entitled "Interview with Larry Pratt of Gun Owners of America."

    • LeSellers

      The Constitution does not "provide a right". It only gives Congress (and thus the federal government) certain powers. Since none of those powers involves restricting the God-given right to self protection (including, as the Psalm points out, the right to protect ourselves from government), the state has no power to infringe that right.

      The II clearly states that Congress does not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, but I wish it had not been ratified because it is, just as Alexander Hamilton predicted, the crack in the dam that allows politicians and bureaucrats to believe that they can infringe on that right since it's tied to a militia and a free state.

      We XXI USmericans do not speak English as our Founders did. By using XXI English to interpret a XIX Document, we are, as you say, allowing our freedoms to become eroded, or "incrementally … whittled away".

      • http://www.missiontoisrael.org Ted R. Weiland

        On one level you're correct. However, since the Bible nowhere provides rights but only responsibilities, the "right" in question did not come from Yahweh. Even, if it did, because the framer's put it under the jurisdiction of the Constitution, which nowhere expressly establishes any of its laws upon the Yahweh's morality as codified in His commandments, statutes, and judgments, without these Biblical parameters, the Constitutional Republic has indeed whittled away this "right" and many others as well. You might find the following of interest in this regard:

        "The Scriptures provide no evidence of God-given (or unalienable)
        rights. Even life and liberty are not rights, but rather
        responsibilities delegated by Yahweh. Of course, rights are much more
        popular than responsibilities. Everyone, including homosexuals and
        infant murderers, demand their rights, but few are interested in
        fulfilling their responsibilities.

        The Puritan idea of rights and liberty was quite different from what the framers had in mind:

        'John Winthrop [first governor of Massachusetts Bay
        Colony] … reminded his fellow-citizens of Massachusetts that a doctrine
        of civil rights [as in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of
        Rights] which looked to natural or sinful man as its source and guardian
        [as in the Preamble] was actually destructive of that very liberty
        which they were seeking to protect. True freedom can never be found in
        institutions which are under the direction of sinful men, but only in
        the redemption wrought for man by Jesus Christ. Christ, not man, is the
        sole source and guarantee of true liberty. (C. Gregg Singer, A Theological Interpretation of American History (Phillipsburg, NJ: Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Co., 1964) p. 19.)

        R.J. Rushdoony pointed out the sophistry of governments based upon freedom:

        '….[A] society which makes freedom its primary goal will
        lose it, because it has made, not responsibility, but freedom from
        responsibility, its purpose. When freedom is the basic emphasis, it is
        not responsible speech which is fostered but irresponsible speech. If
        freedom of press is absolutized, libel will be defended finally as a
        privilege of freedom, and if free speech is absolutized, slander finally
        becomes a right. Religious liberty becomes a triumph of irreligion.
        Tyranny and anarchy take over. Freedom of speech, press, and religion
        all give way to controls, totalitarian controls. The goal must be God’s
        law-order, in which alone is true liberty. (Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 581.)

        Excerpted from Chapter 11 "Amendment 1: Government-Sanctioned Polytheism" of "Bible Law vs. the United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective." Click on my name, go to our Online Book Page, click on top entry, and scroll down to Chapter 11.

  • KarenLynnStaffordAntley

    I would guess anyone that could have laid their hands on a gun in that theater, would have saved lives. Anti gun laws rip personal protection out of the hands of good people, and put them at the mercy of bad people and cops that can't get to you fast enough. Who does YOUR Mayor think should be best armed? You, or people that shouldn't have guns? It's all in the hands, you, allow to control you.

  • Charles

    So they had a no gun policy. The law abiding citizens did what they were told and took their guns to their cars. But the thug managed to get his guns into the theater. Their no gun policy only worked with the good guys and not the bad guys, Imagine that .

    • KarenLynnStaffordAntley

      Politician's coffers are filled by special interest groups. There are plenty on the left that will not stop the enslavement of our people. We need real people in our offices.

  • guitarbruce

    Rather than surmise, it would be nice for the media to poll the people that were in that theater and were CCW permit holders, and how many either had not come to the theater with their firearm or had left them in their vehicle as a result of seeing the "No Guns" sign. CCW permit holders are usually very law abiding, not wanting to lose their permit for violating the law. Leaving my personal security in my vehicle because of a sign, is getting harder and harder with each of these occurrences.

  • wingedeagle

    If I was a pro -gun citizen that lost a family member in that Theater.I would sue the Corporation owning these theaters for wrong ful death,due to the emergency exit door not being alarmed for the protection of the patrons.I know that they make and install emergency exit bars that set off an alarm when pushed to open the door.The minute the door bar is pushed,it sets off an audible alarm warning theater goers and staff of a violation.The morethat we as pro-gun citizens sue these places for violating our safety and well being,the quicker they will change their policies.We would just be using the anti-gun citizen's own method's against them.I would handle this the way that attorney's handle law suits about medical wrongdoing's and dangerous material handlig's.Use a class action suit to make it much more costly for those corporation's that choose to violate our constitutional rights.The only way legal citizens will ever win this is using there own tactic's against them.

  • DJ Fisher

    The shooting would have never happened if they were carrying inside the theatre period.

  • http://www.survivingurbancrisis.com/ Silas Longshot

    Why does society give any credit to a moron like Bloom(ing idiot)berg, who wish to micromanage the helpless, moronic lives of the pathetic souls trapped in New York City because he thinks they are too stupid to deal with table salt and large sodas?
    As far as the theater policy of 'no guns', well fine, it's private property. Be advised, however, if I and my family are injured by an event such as the Dark Knight shooting, I will damwell sue your pants off because of your 'policy' being a direct cause of such injury, because you denied my self defence rights.

  • Jack_Reacher

    Had just one citizen that had been licensed for concealed carrying of a weapon been in that theater, chances are there might have been one perhaps two deaths. But the 3rd death would have been the shooter. Dozens of people that were seriously wounded, some gravely, would have been spared and for certain there would not have been 12 innocent people killed.

    Someone said "This isn't the wild west or the OK Corral", when discussing armed civilians. Oh? Take a look at the state this country is in. Drugs, terrorism and criminal activities surround everyone. Maybe it is time that we go back to the Wild West and the OK Corral? Problems were quickly solved back in those days. Captured repeat offenders were far and few between.

  • wayno

    Thanks for giving this wide coverage. I was one of the ones who tried to find this out from the beginning as to why reporters were asking 'why wasn't one of the people who had a concelaed weapons permit at the show and stopped this guy - and so much for your vaunted 'armed citizens' - it doesn't do any good when it counts!' Now we find out that the theater policy unlawfully prohibits CCW people from carrying in the theater. THEY could have caused more carnage than would have been done had the people been allowed to exercise a lawful right. Keep up the broadcast of this information. get the victims familes to SUE this theater and its parent company!

    • LeSellers

      I'd like to know how the theater's Gun-Free policy was unlawful. The theater has every right to disallow guns, bubblegum, or polished toe nails inside.It's private property.

      • John1943

        I agree they have the right to disallow it. However, it simply demonstrates that they are performing a thoughtless knee-jerk response to the call of gun ban activists, who use bogus statistics to somehow persuade people into believing that asking law abiding citizens to leave their guns outside somehow has the same effect on crazy people intent on harming others. After all, if the laws on murder don't deter people like Holmes, Cho etc., how the heck is a piece of cardboard in the doorway going to do it? Now, if they had armed security and metal detectors, so the crazies get treated the same as the law abiding, then that's a different matter. No point in a ban if you can't enforce it against those who won't do it voluntarily - because THEY are the ones that need disarming.

  • http://www.facebook.com/s58031ts Tom Sanborn

    YES. He would have had to have been shot under the helmet with all of the body armour he had on. Or cop killer teflon bullets. Where did he get that body armour. Any body know? They are against the law to won if yoiu aren't a copl Yes I was a cop. Yes I was military.

    • TheBucko

      There are many weird circumstances regarding this guy....1). The equipment he had cost roughly 20 Grand, he was unemployed. 2). He was studying neuroscience: Did he do mind altering drugs (look at his court appearance pictures). 3). He did not resist arrest from the police! 4). He told police he booby-trapped his apartment! 5). This gear he had was more military than a loner gunman- two examples: sophisticated (multiple) booby traps and SWAT clothing 6). Well-planned in advance 7). Who is he?: What college age kid of today who does not send emails, twitter, facebook, etc. 8) No apparent motive. All of this is VERY STRANGE!

    • John1943

      You might have been a cop, but apparently you don't know that teflon does not a cop killing bullet make.The term "cop killer bullet" is an invention of the rabid anti-gunners to conjure up emotive images of super powerful bullets designed to seek out cops and penetrate body armor. Any small caliber bullet travelling fast enough can defeat level I armor.

  • http://profiles.yahoo.com/u/QHRUML5XFH7AMSWH63TQH7F7E4 MalikTous

    Yes. Gun control aggravated the incident by denying innocents proper self defence. Ban gun control and exile the anti-gun lobby for life!

  • HDMania

    I agree with the pro gun posts here..also remember that the theater cant be totally dark if the movie is still playing..it takes a little while for the tear gas to spread around and block the view..at the first sign of smoke that would be a warning to people..not for people to think it was some kind of joke..there would be enough light to take the perp down..

  • Silentio

    I think that any shot fired back at the killer would have sent him running. Had he any reason to believe that there might be another armed person in the theater, he would have waited for a better day.
    I think that it would be wise for all businesses dealing with public, especially theater management, to require self defence training to all of their employees , for the protection of their very valuable customers.
    If the victims of this latest massacre were to sue the theatre management for failure to offer a safe environment to their customers, then you would see a very different attitude develope in the business world, toward a much safer place.

  • Jaxholley

    When Nancy Feinstein was asked if she thought that if some of the people had concealed carry permits that some of the tradegy could have been stoppped. She answered that there then could have been a firefight. What in the hell did she think went on. 1 guy shooting fish in a barrel. At least let the fish shoot back. STUPID!

  • Silentio

    All of the anti-gun laws do nothing to protect the honest , law abiding citizen. the criminals are not affected by such laws, or any laws. The anti gun carry laws only protect the criminals from the honest citizens.

  • rich

    If more honest citizens are allowed to carry, it preempts these acts. When a town "cancels" the state right to carry law...ie restaurants, movies etc........this is what happens. The bad guy isnt going to follow "rules"......he's on a mission. If only a handful of people had weapons inside the movie......they could have ended his attack, even with his armor, bullets to the head end it all. Now because this piece of garbage, we once again have to listen to these moronic politicians rant about gun control. Yet McVeigh or the 911 hijackers killed many people without a gun. So the issue isnt guns, but controlling the monster. But most of you at least live in a state where you can carry.....living in NJ is like a fiefdom, all rights are void unless granted by his lordship. Start dumping the anti 2nd amend dolts in the senate like Schumer, Menendez, Lautenberg, Boxer, Feinstein etc.

  • TheBucko

    Although I support the concealed gun carry law, in this case "the shooter (Holmes) wore a gas mask,a ballistic helmet and vest as well as leg, groin, and throat protectors during the shooting.” Plus he threw smoke bombs. This would mean you would be shooting in a dark theater, with smoke, at a guy with so much protection that it would be almost impossible to kill him with an ordinary handgun under those conditions.

    • LeSellers

      I'd still have given it a chance. Body armor isn't impregnable. And it still hurts when you're hit wearing it. At the very least, it would have distracted him, and, perhaps, made him stop shooting. There's a reason people, even in body armor, don't like getting shot at.
      They can be stopped. Untrained idiots like Holmes will always be
      overcome by superior training and a well-placed shot (or several).

      No, I wouldn't worry about hitting innocents. My shots would be going upwards, from a crouched shooting position, and these theaters have no second floor. Even if it was in a place where innocents could be hurt, they were already getting hurt. If my shots would reduce the probable body count, I'm shooting anyway (but I'd still be doing what I could to eliminate "collateral damage").

      I'm waiting for him to come to my row, so I have the advantage of surprise. Further, there is a great deal of circumstantial evidence that he was not a very good shot and unfamiliar with his weapons. I'd have the advantages, too, of training and experience. Since I don't go to a movie alone, I'd be protecting my wife, as well as
      myself, so my motivation would be higher than his, I assure you.

      Those who carry weapons as a matter of course do not do so lightly. What I'd do, I'm sure most would do. Homes should have been stopped, killed if possible, by a half dozen or more well-armed, well-regulated (meaning "trained" in XVIII parlance) citizens. Those he killed would have wanted it, I can safely assure you. Their families would approve, too.

      • Barnlady

        Help, from what I have heard(not sure I trust the news media) the shooter stopped because his gun jammed, is this correct?? Thank GOD he was an obviously untrained gun owner. I really think if someone was firing back at him he would have run like the coward he is.

  • jimmy72012

    Guns don't kill people. People use guns to kill people!

  • OJ KING, MD

    The theater had no choice and shouldn't be blamed. Colorado has the concealed carry law which specifically stipulated no smaller community can pas more restrictive legislation but both Denver and Aurora have more restrictive laws - which they claim to be legal because they are "home rule cities" - whatever that means - and our very left leaning state supreme court agreed (well - in a tie vote) giving those two cities tht OK to ignore state-wide laws on the appeal - ?make sense?
    At any rate, it is not fair to blame the theater when it was a city wide mandate that made the entire city a "gun-free" zone - praactically a license for the shooter to do what he did.
    OJ KING, MD
    NRA LIFE MEMBER

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WHOCS6CQ6KN5X635V6SUQWMC7M JoeM

      Wrong. Denver can only ban open carry. Aurora can't do anything to ban any type of carry.

  • Originalintent

    The answer to the question is yes.

  • hammer

    Exactly...this is a great commercial for everyone to carry if you want true protection.....

  • Hubert Poetschke

    If this Cinemark is so adamant about no guns in the theaters, than how come James Holmes had all these guns and was able to shoot people ar will. My opinion about James Holmes and his alike is, that they are absolute cowards, similarly to the Muslim terrorists.
    In addition, it is my strong believe that if people were able to carry guns, James Holmes most likely will be shot before making to much demage to others.
    Hubert Poetschke

  • Earl P. Holt III

    My old bank in St. Louis City has a "No Guns" decal on its entrance. This bank has had two armed robberies of which I'm aware, and there may be others. To any violent criminal, the "No Guns" decal says" "No immediate costs associated with robbing this place..."

  • rocco1234

    i remember lubby's in texas when this nut came in and did the same thing and there was this woman who lived to talk about it. she was from out of state and she had a hand gun but she did not have a carry permit, so she left it in the car........ she said , that this guy was just picking out random people and had turned away from her several times just shooting others and had she not obeyed the law and had it in her purse, he would have been dead. now she would not have been able to save some of the victims but others would have been spared... so anti gun policies are resposible for the deaths of people, the deaths of some of those people in colorodo are the unintended consequences of such a policy.

  • Ben_Elli

    Where I live, in Charleston SC, I will NOT patronize REGAL Theaters because they have a no concealed weapons allowed policy. I have emailed the company to complain and was given the response that their policy is no concealed weapons because they want to help keep people safe. Can you believe that! What a narrow minded perspective for such a national chain! In my opinion, if the theater in Aurora had a no concealed weapons policy, then they are very much to blame for exacerbating the incident a facilitating the crime by guaranteeing that no one would be shooting back in self defense; they are partially at fault!

  • AmericanIcon

    Asking if their 'designated victim zone' policy contributed to the carnage is is akin to asking if the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. Frame the question this way: If you knew there was a 10-20% chance that there were armed and trained individuals in that theater, would you go ahead, or would you look for a 'softer' target (shopping mall, school, house of worship)? Any business that willfully and maliciously disarms its patrons should be legally responsible for any death or injury related to that prohibition.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Elizabeth-DeFranco/100001030924786 Elizabeth DeFranco

    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere & everywhere restrains evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." George Washington

    "A free people ought not only armed & disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms & ammunition[ammo] to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own govt." George Washington

  • WAYNE

    THE CITY OF AURORA DOES NOT ALLOW CONCEALED CARRY AND YOU WOULD HAVE BEEN ARRESTED IF YOU HAD SHOT THE KILLER AND CHARGED WITH MURDER YOURSELF. IT TOOK 6+MINUTES FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT TO GET THERE. THE SHOOTER ONLY TOOK TWO MINUTED TO DO THE DAMAGE.. A LAWFUL CONCEALED CARRY COULD HAVE RETURNED FIRE IN FIVE SECONDS OR LESS SAVING UNTOLD LIVES AND INJURY TO INNOCENT PEOPLE.

    • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_WHOCS6CQ6KN5X635V6SUQWMC7M JoeM

      Colorado has preemption so all those city laws are unenforcable. Do some research. That is how they fool you into complying.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Les-Keator/100000805597984 Les Keator

    If people attending the movie would have been able to have their guns they may not have kill him when he started shooting but I will bet you he would have had his head down at least long enough for most of the people to get out.

  • gypsy314

    Just goes to show when peoples rights are abused what happens lives are lost due to piss poor abuse on the behalf of anti gun rights I will not go to a place that will not allow weapons. But you will notice when law suits hit you could have stay away because they fail to keep you safe. I say sue the hell out of Aurora and cinemark they must not stop someone from protecting there family or self. I would also go after anti gun groups and sue them. Most Americans do not want to becaome like Europe control by government that promise to protect you well we all know how that works. If Obama and democrats have there way you will not have any rights. We must take our country back from democrats and Obama or all hell will break out.

  • awkingsley

    Solve the problems of mass murder: Allow all American citizens 18 and older to carry firearms. Citizens need to have the freedom to protect themselves, their loved ones, and others by carrying concealed firearms anytime anywhere. Gun bans produce mass murders and repetitive killings by gangs, drug cartels, and other criminal individuals. We would not have nearly as many murders as we have now if more citizens were armed and could take killers out after the first shot. Our government wants us to be sitting ducks, waiting for the next deranged criminal mastermind to carry out his fantasy.

  • just ramblin

    YES they DID

  • Foxy

    True: Colorado Springs is a more peacefull city. New York city is a divers pit of crime and violence. Yet everytime something bad happens in any other city besides NYC, Bloomberg tries to get their gun laws changed. The guy is a class "A" Adam Henry! People need to remind the news media that htis guy is bad for America. I never go anywhere without my Glock. Its like the American Express card advertisement "Never leave home without it". A lot of us honest citizens could have taken the Aurora killer out.

  • Squirrelburger

    Of course violent people would think twice before committing wanton murder. I'd like to see a class action law suit against all establishments with such restrictions. And start with Cinemark. Of course we'll never know the answer to the aforementioned question, but if our illustrious congress can sell the line, "...we saved or created jobs," then one can say, "Yes, a concealed gun holder would have shot and killed that fiend."

  • unclesam

    Perfect place to repeat.....

    WHEN SECONDS COUNT, COPS ARE MINUTES AWAY!!!!!

    I am licensed and prefer to be judged by twelve than carried by six!
    My thoughts and prayers ARE with the victims!

  • David

    It seems to me that the wacko gunman did not want to die or otherwise he would have had the cops gun him down. If the gunman had known that there would possibly have had armed citizens in the theater he wouldn't have done what he did. This was an immature act of someone who probably came from a broken family.

  • Michael g.

    My family and I lived not far from where all this happened. Recently my daughter enlightened me that there was (probably still is) an apartment complex where a number of mental patients lived. This is where this 'joker' lived too. This is what people do when they have ho conscience. How can anyone possibly look at themselves in the mirror with the knowledge of what you have done is so vile that not much compares with it?
    The worse thing is that the court system will drag out the punishment, or end result for years. Anyone who lives in Colorado, or remembers the 'Chuchie-Cheese' murdeers knows what I'm saying. That happened over 20 years ago, and the guy who did it still sits on Death Row, and no date to meet his Maker has been set. He will probably around long after I've left the scene. (All that happened in Aurora too). Maybe they should close Aurora...

  • Doski

    The more Gun Control Laws are passed the greater the chances of these type of incidents. It's like a downward Spiral, as more Citizens are denied the ability to protect themselves, the Victim Pool becomes larger. Each consecutive Mass Murderer has a greater opportunity to successfully carry out their demented dreams. With each successive tragedy the demand for more restrictive laws against gun ownership grows, and with it the number of UN-defended future victims.
    Like I said, 'A Downward Spiral'.

  • Big Manuger

    The outcome may have been different had the citizens with CCP been allowed by the Theater Mgt. to have the permited firearms with them. Several folks returning fire at this A.H. could vwery well have put him down (body armor) and all long enough for him to be taken down. If only the military guys and gals been allowed to carry they may have fired and taken this mornon down. Heck one stray warning shot to the head and this would have had a better outcome.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/Mary-Elizabeth-Danuser/698607027 Mary Elizabeth Danuser

    Am sure that after this past Fridays,that many changes will be coming about.
    Like to think for the better,but time will tell where it goes.Liz

  • sovereintyofone

    The answer is simple, lets say you are a nut job or criminal and you want to kill people. Which of the two locations would you choose: (A) A theatre that has a " No firearms allowed " sign at the entrance. or (B) A theatre that has no sign and allows law abiding (CCW) people to carry concealed firearms into the building. Which would be the least threat to you?

  • RayFromNY

    Remember this, the first thing dictators do after seizing power is to take away private ownership of what were legally owned weapons. This was true when the Nazis took power in Germany, the Communist in Russia and China, and of course Iran where unarmed citizens were recently (2008) shot down in the streets for protesting their lack of personal freedom and election fraud. The protests ended very quickly. What can unarmed citizens do when they become powerless? They were powerless because they had no power to resist. If there ever was a free and fair election in Iran since the Mullahs took power, you can be sure that there will never be one again.
    Not so many years ago I was driving through East New York in Brooklyn. While driving down a one way street I observed two young men waking down the street, both younger than twenty for sure. It was summer and hot. One was wearing a long sleeve shirt with the shirt tails out. He reached behind his back and pulled large pistol from his waistband and handed it to the other "boy". I was an "on the job" federal officer without my personal or job issued weapon and without a cell phone. One looked my direction. Here I was, a white man driving though a neighborhood that is 99% black and just observed these two teenagers with a weapon.
    Did they know that I saw them? Did they care? I accelerated up the street and as I drove away I could sense a strange taste in my mouth. It was fear. Had they wanted, I could have become a crime victim as I had no power to resist if things got ugly.
    I never want to be in that situation again. Right is might, but without weapon you can become just another powerless victim who died in the "right" just as so many others have from criminal and political violence everyday.
    When governments disarm their law abiding citizens, those citizens become nothing more than subjects, subject to the will and whim of those in power. ( North Korea) Why do you think the Second Amendment was "Second" and not "Tenth"? Because it was that important to the framers of the Constitution and the Second was written to back up the First, if it ever came to that.

    • LeSellers

      This is the reason the Founders inserted the II into the Constitution. Let's recall that they were totally unconcerned about hunting or even home protection. Their interest was to allow the citizens to resist tyranny in their own government. Every one of them, from Jefferson to Washington, from Franklin to Payne, and from Hancock to Madison, knew that governments tend to get intrusive, invasive and intolerable. The ONLY recourse the citizenry has is to arms once that state becomes too large.

      The words of the Declaration remind us that rebellion is far from our first option. Jefferson was explicit in this. But, when "when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is [the] right, it is [the] duty" of free men to do whatever needs doing to re-instate the individual as sovereign and subjugate the state to its proper role as guardian of our freedoms and protector of our rights.

      Further, let us also recall the "democracy" is Greek for "mob rule". (Okeh, it's not a perfect translation, but in essence, that's what it means. A tyranny of a majority is no more just than a tyranny of a single despot, is it?)

  • Native Texan

    In answer to your question mine is YES as most mass killings take place in "gun free" zones. 'Nuff said.

  • Amren1

    Police always arrive in minutes....usually when seconds count. At least they're there to record history. A private, armed citizen would have been far more effective.

  • Suncoast

    Gun Ownership Mandatory In Kennesaw, Georgia
    Crime Rate Plummets
    by Chuck Baldwin
    The
    New American magazine reminds us that March 25th marked the 16th
    anniversary of Kennesaw, Georgia's ordinance requiring heads of
    households (with certain exceptions) to keep at least one firearm in
    their homes.
    The city's population grew from around 5,000 in 1980
    to 13,000 by 1996 (latest available estimate). Yet there have been only
    three murders: two with knives (1984 and 1987) and one with a firearm
    (1997). After the law went into effect in 1982, crime against persons
    plummeted 74 percent compared to 1981, and fell another 45 percent in
    1983 compared to 1982.
    And it has stayed impressively low. In
    addition to nearly non-existent homicide (murders have averaged a mere
    0.19 per year), the annual number of armed robberies, residential
    burglaries, commercial burglaries, and rapes have averaged,
    respectively, 1.69, 31.63, 19.75, and 2.00 through 1998.
    With all
    the attention that has been heaped upon the lawful possession of
    firearms lately, you would think that a city that requires gun ownership
    would be the center of a media feeding frenzy. It isn't. The fact is I
    can't remember a major media outlet even mentioning Kennesaw. Can you?
    The
    reason is obvious. Kennesaw proves that the presence of firearms
    actually improves safety and security. This is not the message that the
    media want us to hear. They want us to believe that guns are evil and
    are the cause of violence.
    The facts tell a different story. What
    is even more interesting about Kennesaw is that the city's crime rate
    decreased with the simple knowledge that the entire community was armed.
    The bad guys didn't force the residents to prove it. Just knowing that
    residents were armed prompted them to move on to easier targets. Most
    criminals don't have a death wish.

  • http://www.facebook.com/people/George-J-Santa-Cruz/693364080 George J. Santa Cruz

    What did Aurora, Ft Hood, Columbine, and Virgina Tech all have in common???

    All were "Gun Free Zones"... In all cases the gunmen knew there would be no armed opposition...

    Yes, sad to say but even our military bases here in the US are gun free
    zones... It seems that our Govt trust us enough to die in foreign
    lands, but not enough to carry on our own bases at home for self
    defense... A situation that I'm sure the Israeli military finds
    inconceivable...

    And one last thought... I absolutely REFUSE to
    patronize businesses that wants to deprive me of my right to self
    defense. It's as if those businesses put up a a sign that said "Unarmed
    Victims Here!"

    I encourage EVERYONE to boycott ANY business that seeks to deprive you of your basic rights... What can they POSSIBLY offer that is more important than you beliefs???

  • http://profiles.google.com/pudbertsavannahga Mort Leith

    I would sue the movie theater for ALL they're worth, for denying me my Constitutional right to defend myself.

  • arthurlmackeyjr

    Had ther been even one person legally armed and trained one shot to the face area, a ten inch circle would have ended it all in 3 seconds and maybe only the perp would have died 1 Have seen it happen in stores before and as is well known even from the days of our founding Fathers, "George Washington" "An armed society is a polite society "!

  • http://www.facebook.com/chris.may.79274089 Chris May

    I support 2nd amendment rights, but also support not allowing weapons.. Specifically fire arms into theaters, sporting events, concerts... In a panic they are just as likely to wound innocents. And on the other end of the spectrum, what if the one with the concealed and licensed firearm is the one who had a bad week and decides to go off. Please, protect your home and your possessions. Defend yourself from a mugging, but don't ask my family to trust your aim in a crowded, panic ridden setting.

  • Will

    I guaran-dang-tee you that there were a number of patrons in that
    theater who were packing heat, but when push came to shove, they ran
    like everyone else because that’s what instinct tells a person to do.
    Moreover, introducing more guns into that situation would likely have
    made matters WORSE–not better.

    . . . and, yes, I do have a CHL, and I do carry! But I’m also a
    criminologist and former cop; this is my bailiwick. Guns aren’t the
    answer. If more guns made people safer, there never would have been a
    WILD West!

  • Ernest_T

    All theaters should sell reduced priced tickets to any armed citizen that agrees to attend with there firearms. A crazy or criminal might get one or two rounds off but then they wound be taken out. This would provide safer more secure venues. It would also save the tax payers money we would need less police, jails, courts etc..

  • http://www.facebook.com/adaes.bourne Adaes Bourne

    Anti-gun policies contribute to carnage every time it's tried. Unarm a society and armed thugs will inevitably fill the void. That's as sure as if it were an award winning science project.
    Jason Adaes Bourne