Why Did the Aurora Shooter Choose the Cinemark?
I’m certain everyone remembers James Holmes, the (alleged) Aurora theater mass-murderer.
John Lott has an interesting take on just why Holmes may have chosen the Cinemark Theater as his venue for murder. It wasn’t the closest to his house, or the largest one showing “The Dark Knight Rises” that evening. So why the Cinemark?
Turns out that the Cinemark was the only theater nearby that – by business policy – banned patrons from bringing licensed concealed firearms into the theater.
The article is short, but is worth a read. Lott’s argument that gun-free zones are counterproductive and foolish is rather persuasive.
Category: Guns
It certainly makes sense. It’s easier to shoot at targets that don’t shoot back. Though I am not sure that one cans say difinitively that this was the reason the theatre was chosen. I hope it’s enough to make the thetre compnay liable for damages.
“Unfortunately, some have still not figured this out. A manager at the Harkins Northfield 18 five miles from the killer’s apartment told me, the theater changed its policy and started banning concealed handguns following the Cinemark attack.”
Yeah, that makes perfect sense; since the killer went to a gun free zone, let’s make another gun free zone, since that worked so well before.
Idiots
So, an evil gun walks into a movie theatre…
Haven’t actually read the reports, but I did hear that at least some families are going to sue Cinemark over this. Wonder if this policy might come up (were any of the victim CHL holders who disarmed themselves in order to comply with that policy?) in that suit…
What’s the saying about fear being the thing we should fear the most?
Once again the law of unintended consequences strikes hard. The only people actually obeying the laws are those who ended up as victims here. Drawing the analogy that disarming patrons of a different theater would result in a better outcome is ridiculous on the part of the Harkins manager.
We can’t know for certain if armed patrons would have prevented this or have lessened the impact, but we certainly do know the outcome a room full of unarmed patrons produces as we have seen those results on the evening news. I am thus inclined to believe a theater with some law abiding armed patrons represents a better potential outcome and is therefore desirable to no armed patrons.
I’m generally a law abiding citizen….but when it comes to carrying, I’ll take my chances everytime.
I’m just curious, but is “if someone had been carrying a weapon other than the perp, this wouldn’t have happened” a valid argument in court?
Or would someone have to present evidence that they or a deceased victim was a CCL holder and were discouraged by the no carry rule?
That is a very persuasive argument, one that makes sense.
HM2, as civil suits only depend on a preponderance of evidence, it would be easy to make the argument that a gun-free zone encouraged the shooter, and let the lawyers for Cinemark try to refute it.
@4, yes, Ms. Ladybug. Two were. The former soldier and another guy. Both of which had ample training to be able to pop this guy in the head in the dimly lit theater.
I carry everywhere. The Gun Free sign on the door carries no legal weight. (Federal and local government buildings and drinking establishment excepted) The most they can do is ask you to leave. If you comply with their request it’s over. If you refuse to leave they can have the police trespass and remove you. I understand that the victims will argue that by denying the right of self-protection, the business assumes that responsibility. Only time will tell if that argument will prevail. A compact .40 is invisible to all but the most astute observers, sometimes even to them.
Roger @12: be careful; that is only true in some states. For example, they are legally meaningless in AL and CA, but in OH they are enforceable (IOW, you can be arrested for otherwise-legal carry in a place that has such a sign posted.)