Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues Guns GUN CARRYING MAN ENDS STABBING SPREE AT SALT LAKE

I suspect you have not been around too many folks who are unstable ... these folks no longer think rationally due to a breakdown in their mental acuity (not because they are ignorant and can't think logically) and yet you impute a state of mind which is contrary to their mental condition

ok so you don't know the difference between and unstable person and a criminally insane person ... a common misconception

well had you paid any attention to my "proposal" it was designed specifically to find an answer to your claim that mass killers only target "soft" environments ... no study has been done to my knowledge and the evidence is scant so deriving a conclusion without a factual basis is merely speculation. Thus I speculated a rebuttal and made a prediction which I suspect is more plausible.

strange ... I thought we were discussing gun violence in America

Remember, if you take care of the peonies the dahlias take care of themselves.

Just a little fact-based posting: Are guns allowed in movie theaters?; Aurora Ordinance
Just sayin'

Well, see, there you go. Guns were not permitted in the theater and there's a local ordinance to verify that. Good work, NW.

whoa ... not so quick

not wanting to step on NW's response but simply pointing out the obvious

the ordinance states if private property is posted or a verbal warning precedes entry is bearing arms prohibited ... so in this case unless the theater had a sign or each customer was appropriately warned, it is apparently legal to possess a weapon in the theater, even though it was business policy to ban weapons. The other citation offers descriptions of both instances wherein customers were ushered out or ushered in depending on management. Thus in the Aurora case, the shooter gaining entry would not himself know if anyone else in theater had also gained entry with a weapon i.e. he would potentially be facing sheisstorm but obviously did not care.

Thus we are faced with the question, does business policy trump city ordinance? Turn it around and ask yourself, if the city bans weapons in any place of business and any of those businesses permits it, who wins?

Thus it is not as clear cut as you believe.

Sign at ticket window at Aurora theater:

You didn't read carefully enough, friend Slipped. Carriage was not prohibited, because the theater was not posted. While there was plenty of speculation on the subject, none validated their assumptions. You just did the same.

The posted sign in the theater prohibiting guns is actually not a sign in the window prohibiting guns? Brilliant!

I'm getting the feeling that English may not be your first language.

First I will have to admit I am not interested in the Aurora case per se but the overall substance, consequently I have not kept up with details of the case.

Now I will use Texas law which I suspect can probably be generalized to other states.

"Written communication" means either:
(1) a card or "other document" that has written language "identical" to the following:

"Pursuant to Section 30.06, Penal Code (trespass by holder of license to carry a concealed handgun), a person licensed under Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code (concealed handgun law), may not enter this property with a concealed handgun;" or

(2) A sign posted on the property that:
(a) "includes" the above language in both English and Spanish;
(b) appears in contrasting colors with block letters at least one inch in height; and
(c) is displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

Thus, according to the statute, a proper §30.06 sign must have language identical to that quoted above, and the sign must be in both English and Spanish. The letters on the sign must be block letters and they must be at least one inch in height. They must also be of "contrasting colors." Lastly, the sign must be displayed in a conspicuous manner clearly visible to the public.

the sign you have displayed clearly does not comply.

the citation clarifies the question of property rights

Thus we are still left in the murky situation that even though the intention of the theater is to prohibit guns on premises they used a non-compliant sign which I will guess be a non-issue if taken to court. The alternative of course is for management or the representative of management to confront and advise a CHL their presence with a gun is not welcome, at which point they must leave or etc.

Thus the perpetrator still would not know if anyone was carrying.

Now I know you must realize that if you sent a Trilobyte [sic ;>)] of anecdotes it still would not prove anything. Now my proposed study should be exactly what you would want as it would definitively prove your claim (or heavens forbid disprove it) and just think, all of the deaths would still mean nothing ... it could be win-win for you

See what happens when you disarm the good people? The carnage is not the fault of the shooter, it's the fault of the city because they would not let the vigilantes, I mean general public, have a gun in the theater. If they had there would have been a lot fewer people killed.

NRA Logic Handbook.