« Top ten pickup lines for TSA agents | Main | Tough on crime -- NM woman jailed for overdue book »

July 21, 2012


Yeah! Cinemark might ban him from the theater for LIFE!

Heh heh. Good point, BambiB.

That will teach him a lesson!

When are the Liberal idiots going to realize that their restrictive laws against guns owned and carried by law abiding citizens contributed to the loss of life in this and many other situations. If only one law abiding citizen with a CCW and carrying could have responded to this hay-nus act might have reduced the loss of life by being able to return fire and change the outcome.
The patrons who attended this movie should sue the theater for restricting the law abiding CCW owners the right to defend themselves and their loved ones by making the theater a so called gun free zone. In the future I will not attend any movie theater that prohibits law abiding people from carrying their pistol so that they can protect themselves and the defenseless.

Here in the UK, a handful of private citizens own shotguns, and that's about it. But we too have had our own massacres at the hands of crazed gunmen (Michael Ryan, Thomas Hamilton and Derrick Bird to name but three).

We have highly restrictive laws on gun ownership and yet you can go into a pub anywhere in the country and find somebody who can supply you with an illegal firearm.

The UK is proof that when you outlaw guns, only outlaws have guns (and that includes the State's outlaws).

Interesting to see how the cinema operated a no-gun policy. And Columbine High School. And Virginia Tech (TWICE). And...

John, the fact that the UK has such a high violent crime rate in spite of tight gun control seem lost on the gun control crowd.

The key word here is "control." That's what they want. The crime rate is secondary.

yes; although I only own a .22 rifle (Ruger, beautiful), I tend to side with liberal gun ownership laws, because restricting gun ownership tends to create more soft targets.

In California, wait for it -- you can carry concealed (if you can get a permit), but you can no longer openly carry an UNLOADED weapon. Too scary, says the state minders.

Call me a "liberal idiot" but please note that James Holmes was one of those "law abiding citizens" "Dale" mentioned (with legally purchased weapons and ammo) UNTIL he set out to kill people. Not everyone who becomes a mass murderer is a prior felon, in fact, most are not. And yes, Holmes could have killed people with a bat or knife, but he certainly would not have killed and wounded the number that he did WITHOUT the high capacity magazines and use of the assault rifle! As for civilians with Concealed Carry weapons - unless you are properly trained to respond with a weapon, as in the case of Law Enforcement Officers or a Combat Arms branch of the service, it's unlikely one could or would respond effectively. Shooting at paper targets is far different from shooting at a person who is shooting at you!

All I can think of to say to "liberal idiots" is:

What do you think of gun-free zones?

Is it morally and practically right to have gun-free policies in a country with mass gun ownership?

Isn't it just ASKING for trouble?

Why aren't these policymakers in court for culpable homicide? (eg: Virginia Tech - TWICE!).

I thought you had such pristine consciences. Don't you think it's a DISGRACE?

Maybe if the armed person in the crowd were a highly-trained military-level professional it could have meant a lower death toll, but anything less than that could very easily have also meant a higher one. Many members of the audience initially thought that the firing was coming from the screen -- never mind knowing who was doing the shooting, never mind being able to hypothetically hit that person in the darkness of a theater, without accidentally hitting somebody else?

You can't sensibly say that would have been safer for sure if members of the audience had guns (or even that it's likely it'd have been safer). I understand wanting to believe that the shooting was preventable in any way, shape or form, but that fantasy of vigilante cops n' robbers is still just that: a fantasy.

I respect the message of this blog and truly have no opinion for or against gun control, but I do not respect that this entry has co-opted a tragedy to try to support that message.

What Phil said.

The suggestion that defenseless people facing murderous gunfire should remain defenseless because someone might get hurt is, to be as charitable as possible, counter intuitive.

I carry in all movies. Unless you are planning to commit a crime it is only Third degree criminal trespass. Only if they catch you with the gun, asked to leave and you refuse. Remember you did not see the sign sign and the ticket booth did not tell you.
Coo Revised Statutes: 18-4-504. Third degree criminal tresspass.
(1) A person commits the crime of third degree criminal
trespass if such person unlawfully enters or remains in or
upon premises of another.
(2) Third degree criminal trespass is a class 1 petty offense,
(a) It is a class 3 misdemeanor if the premises have been
classified by the county assessor for the county in which the
land is situated as agricultural land pursuant to section 39-1-
102 (1.6), C.R.S.; and That the dwelling is "of another" is an essential element of
first degree criminal trespass. Pattern jury instruction was
incorrect because it omitted that element. People v. Peoples,
8 P.3d 577 (Colo. App. 2000).
"With intent to commit a crime therein" is only an element to
first degree criminal trespass of a motor vehicle. It does not
apply to first degree criminal trespass of a dwelling. People
v. Rodriguez, 43 P.3d 641 (Colo. App. 2001).
Criminal trespass charge is defective if the count failed to
identify an ulterior crime. People v. Williams, 961 P.2d 533
(Colo. App. 1997), aff'd, 984 P.2d 56 (Colo. 1999).
Criminal trespass charge is defective in form but not in
substance if the count fails to identify an ulterior crime.
People v. Williams, 984 P.2d 56 (Colo. 1999).
I will take the tresspass charge over being dead or having a family member dead.
To sum it up use your CCW if you have one.

Thanks for schooling us about that, Bob.

For what it's worth, a conviction might result in a revocation of the concealed carry license, too. But that's a small price to pay considering the alternative.

If we outlawed assault rifles, then James Holmes probably would've shot a few people and not over 70.

Holmes did not shoot over 70, Damian. Look a the Virginia Tech, no "assault rifles".

Now, for those that want to argue that James Holmes was a "law abiding" citizen when he bought those weapons- ATF Form 4473, item 12F asks if the buyer has ever been ajudicated mentally defective or have you ever been committed to a mental institution? The psychiatrist SHOULD HAVE had him committed against his will, but instead, just reported to a Behavioral Evaluation and Threat Assessment team. They then dropped the whole thing (to include NOT notifying Aurora PD) when Holmes dropped out. So, this doc decided that Holmes wasn't her problem anymore and screw everyone else- even though she KNEW he was a threat. Had she done the right thing, he could have never purchased those weapons (or, upon being involuntarily committed, they would have confiscated any weapons he did have). This is not a "gun law" failure when it comes to Holmes, it is a failure of the mental health community. The only "gun law" failure here was the theater's "no gun" policy, a policy that ensured law abiding citizens would be defenseless against Holmes.

So sad people turned out rather helpless in the theater however I'm not sure everyone should allowed carrying guns everywhere. If everyone is armed I'm afraid there is a high chance of sudden shooting, especially in the center of the city.

The comments to this entry are closed.