Wednesday, September 12, 2012

Colorado Shooting and "No Firearms Allowed" Signs

With all the hyperbole about tightening firearm restrictions and reducing or eliminating Second Amendment rights because of the Colorado theater shooting incident, an interesting Op-Ed has been published at that contains information that points toward the fact why the shooter chose that theater. The article, entitled Did Colorado Shooter Single Out Cinemark Theater?
It is often pointed out by defenders of the Second Amendment that dangerous, mentally-disturbed people like the Colorado shooter choose places where there is less likely to be armed people present. Indeed, in the 1990s, in an extensive study, interviewed inmates of violent crimes all agreed that robbing a place is better when no one present is armed. The theater the killer chose posted a "No Firearms Allowed" sign.
The article presents this point:

So why did the killer pick the Cinemark theater? You might think that it was the one closest to the killer’s apartment. Or, that it was the one with the largest audience. Yet, neither explanation is right. Instead, out of all the movie theaters within 20 minutes of his apartment showing the new Batman movie that night, **it was the only one where guns were banned.** In Colorado, individuals with permits can carry concealed handgun in most malls, stores, movie theaters, and restaurants. But private businesses can determine whether permit holders can carry guns on their private property. Most movie theaters allow permit holders carrying guns. But the Cinemark movie theater was the only one with a sign posted at the theater’s entrance. According to and, there were seven movie theaters showing "The Dark Knight Rises" on July 20th within 20 minutes of the killer’s apartment at 1690 Paris St, Aurora, Colorado. At 4 miles and an 8-minute car ride, the Cinemark’s Century Theater wasn't the closest. Another theater was only 1.2 miles (3 minutes) away. There was also a theater just slightly further away, 10 minutes. It is the "home of Colorado's largest auditorium," according to their movie hotline greeting message. The potentially huge audience ought to have been attractive to someone trying to kill as many people as possible. Four other theaters were 18 minutes, two at 19 minutes, and 20 minutes away. But all of those theaters allowed permitted concealed handguns. So why would a mass shooter pick a place that bans guns? The answer should be obvious, though it apparently is not clear to the media – disarming law-abiding citizens leaves them as sitting ducks.

The shooter thought the entire incident out carefully. He rigged his apartment with explosives knowing it would be checked out after the crime was committed. He wore body armor, helmet and arm/leg protection, despite choosing a theater that had a No Firearms Allowed sign at the entrance. His disturbed reasoning behind the crime is still not yet determined. One wonders why someone who looked upon the fictional character of Batman as a hero would take on the persona of his arch-enemy, Joker. It is all too bizarre to contemplate.
Many Second Amendment Rights advocates have warned businesses that posting signs forbidding licensed permit-to-carry-concealed firearms on their property – and this is their right to do so. The Second Amendment provides freedom of choice – you may exercise it or not.
However, is it truly wise?
It makes that place standout for those with criminal minds intending to harm person or persons within that establishment, or robbing it.
I have always conveyed to others that it is better to have a firearm and not need it then not have it when needed; just as other things, like emergency survival supplies and equipment, as well as a backup generator. The same applies to conceal-carry permits.
Here at the Peninsula, because of the rarity of violent crimes in this county, I feel no need to have such a permit. I did have one while living in Georgia because of the nature of my job as security for the 1996 Olympics in Atlanta. I did not rush down to get one when Wisconsin passed the law in February of this year, but I am certainly going to obtain one before this year ends. Rightfully, because of the Second Amendment's wording, I shouldn't need any permit to carry; however, I see the importance of thorough background checks in preventing criminals and mentally disturbed/deficient people from being allowed to be armed.
It is better to have one and not need it than not have one and need it.
The media is the biggest culprit against Second Amendment rights - they only publish the bad stuff that occurs because of firearms, not the many daily incidents where lives have been saved and evil criminal actions were thwarted.

If the Federal bill is passed in Congress this year or next, I will be able to use my conceal-carry permit in any state who allows exercising the Second Amendment – which gives me coverage of 47 or 48 states presently. That is rightful and sensible, for the Second Amendment is for ALL law-abiding citizens of the United States of sound mind, and no state or local government has the authority to impede or forbid those rights.
I still insist that if just one person in that theater that night had been legally carrying a firearm, the outcome on that fateful evening in Colorado would have come out differently – probably saving Colorado taxpayers the cost of a trial, and if no death penalty is imposed, life incarceration costs. 
Please watch the following video. It may change your mind about Second Amendment Rights.

It is better to have a means of defense and not need it, then to not have it and need it.
In the following video, is Ted Nugent "radical". He is a law abiding citizen, who abhors the use of drugs and alcohol - in fact, alcohol beverages are not allowed on his property even if they are his guests. He is a member and advocate of DARE.

No comments:

Post a Comment