Posted on 07/26/2012 7:02:36 AM PDT by rellimpank
Cinemas like the one in Colorado where the shooting took place last week are closely regulated in virtually every respect but one.
Federal law requires large theaters to have wheelchair seating, ramps as well as stairs, and bathrooms that are accessible to the disabled. Fire codes limit audience size. Emergency fire exits must be illuminated.
We have a ratings system to protect children from nudity or offensive language. Indeed, on that horrific night in the theater last week, only one major element wasn’t regulated: the guns and ammunition used to massacre viewers.
As a nation, we regulate fire exits, but not 100-round magazines. We shield youngsters in cinemas from violence — but only if it’s on the screen.
Almost a week after the cinema shooting, we can also be sure what won’t happen: serious gun control.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“We have a ratings system to protect children from nudity or offensive language. Indeed, on that horrific night in the theater last week, only one major element wasn’t regulated: the guns and ammunition used to massacre viewers.”
Of course they were. It was totally illegal to bring ammo into that theater. Strangely enough, this criminal broke the gun control laws in his massacre.
However, the victims didn’t. So they are in the clear, and the nannies are unable to prosecute them. Thank goodness.
I’m surprised there are no metal detectors in gun free zones.
Thanks for the correction. I’d seen the former information but nothing about CO.
This never would have happened if they would have just only banned emergency exits.
I'm a “seasoned citizen” and remember flying on airliners in the 1950's and 60's. There were no metal detectors, no body searches, no checks of any kind before entering an airplane. Then came the hijackings, starting with DB Cooper and continuing through the Palestinian hijacking era, sprinkled in with a variety of politically motivated plane takeovers. The result of this surge in hijackings/takeovers was that airline companies and governments required passengers to remain in their seats, be passive and wait out the hijacking. This was based on the assumption from so called experts, that hijackings could be resolved with minimal loss of life if everyone just waited passively while “authorities” negotiated with the hijackers. Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn't. It depended on the motives and intent of the hijackers.
Along comes September 11, 2001. Hijackers carry box cutters and use them to murder flight crews while passengers remain passively in their seats, hoping for the best. Except for the passengers of Flight 93, who took the initiative to fight back and thereby saved the lives of innumerable people on the ground. At the cost of their own lives, passengers fought back against the jihadi hijackers and took destiny into their own hands. They forced the hijacker in control of plane to crash short of his intended target.
We now know that sometimes, oftentimes, passivity will lead to death, yet “authorities” be they be airline executives, police or theater chain operators still advocate passivity as the best course of action. The public has been conditioned to stay still like good little lambs and let the authorities handle the situation. Unfortunately, the “authorities” are all too often far removed from the scene when a Columbine shooting or a theater massacre in Aurora takes place. Mayor Bloomberg and others of his high status are protected by a phalanx of armed bodyguards yet they would deny us the same right of self defense.
Time and time again, the little lambs sit hoping and praying that the experts will arrive in time to save them from the evildoers of this sad world.
Imagine if one or more of the moviegoers at the theater in Aurora had opened fire or fought back by throwing cups of soda pop at his face, thereby interfering with his train of thought or obscuring his vision. Imagine if just one or two moviegoers had shot him in the face with even a .22 caliber bullet. How many lives might have been saved?
To those who say there could have been a deadly cross-fire, I ask, could it have been any worse than allowing the shooter from freely and without fear of return fire to walk up the aisle taking shots.
We know that many in our midst are afraid of guns, many hate guns, many don't want anyone to have guns. But I know that those people are wrong. They're wrong because they would deny each of us the choice of employing a firearm to defend us or others. The assumption that if we all stay in our seats like good little lambs has been proven again to be false. I haven't counted the number of laws the Aurora shooter broke, but i'll bet it's in the hundreds. Din even one of those laws help protect his victims?
The folks who left their pistols in the car when they walked into that theater were law abiding citizens who respect the “rules of the game” as pronounced by “authorities”. Those who routinely carry guns with evil intent don't give a fig for the “rules of the game”. They use the rules to their advantage, knowing that they, the wolves will be prowling among the unarmed, passive little lambs awaiting slaughter.
Not all emergency exit doors have alarms. So yes. He was alone.
Your post is succinct and dead center on point.
Thanks
The theater was marked as a no gun zone. Lawful people respected this sign. The shooter did not.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.