Quantcast

Should movie patrons be allowed to carry guns?

Incognito 2012/07/20 13:06:42
Related Topics: Guns, Movie, Gun
You!
Add Photos & Videos
If any of the movie patrons had a gun, the violence would not have been so extensive. What do you think?
Add a comment above

Top Opinion

  • Rusty Shackleford 2012/07/20 13:23:05
    Yes. Citizens should be able to defend themselves.
    Rusty Shackleford
    +11
    I have a right to defend myself.

    I am an armed citizen an I will defend myself.

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • whitewu... tom 2012/07/20 15:37:34
  • tom whitewu... 2012/07/20 15:43:33
    tom
    Have you ever been to the midnight premiere of a film? Sometimes you can't even see the person sitting next to you.
  • heirsof... tom 2012/07/20 16:00:47 (edited)
    heirsoftheking
    +1
    I'm currently working in the movie business, and I worked for 30 years in the Architecture-Engineering business. Movie theaters are not completely dark - they can't be, otherwise they'd never get a "Certificate of Occupancy." They have to meet certain safety criteria in the first place per local, state, and national building codes for safety, exiting, and so on in the event of an emergency. And much of what projects off the movie screen is bright enough to bring even more light into the movie theater for people to see. Even your TV does that to a darkened room.
  • tom heirsof... 2012/07/20 16:39:08
    tom
    +1
    I've been to plenty of movie theaters and I can say from experience that it can be incredibly difficult to see, and that is not counting the chaos that was currently going on. I highly doubt that anyone, even the best of shot, would have been able to do ANYTHING in this theatre without only adding to the chaos or injuring more people.
  • whitewu... tom 2012/07/20 16:19:55
  • Space I... whitewu... 2012/07/20 16:22:03
    Space Invader
    your right..your wrong
  • whitewu... Space I... 2012/07/20 16:30:08
  • Space I... tom 2012/07/20 16:21:49
    Space Invader
    +1
    PULLEAASSEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • jackola... whitewu... 2012/07/20 15:25:09 (edited)
    jackolantyrn356
    +3
    one armed citizen could have stopped this at one or 2 or maybe 1 (the Perp).
  • tom jackola... 2012/07/20 15:27:58
    tom
    +2
    One armed citizen could have added to the chaos and only contributed to the killing of more people in a dark theatre with tear gas (or some other gas substance) and running people obscuring the vision of most people.
  • mich52 Christy 2012/07/20 15:23:03
    mich52
    +1
    Look at the guy who posted above you.. He can't even spell but he's able to carry a firearm?
  • whitewu... mich52 2012/07/20 15:38:13 (edited)
  • Space I... mich52 2012/07/20 16:23:05 (edited)
    Space Invader
    I can spell great; I was expert at 100 yards; i could have put one in his f'n iris.. glock firing
  • mich52 Space I... 2012/07/22 16:57:06
    mich52
    You are a liar.
  • Wayne 2012/07/20 14:37:57
    Yes. Citizens should be able to defend themselves.
    Wayne
    +6
    I don't need permission to protect myself or others when insanity attacks.
  • Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮ 2012/07/20 14:27:59 (edited)
    Yes. Citizens should be able to defend themselves.
    Dan ☮ R P ☮ 2012 ☮
    +7
    I wonder how many fewer innocent lives would be lost if they shot back? We'll never know.

    But for the issue, its up to the property owner if they allow guns on their property or not. It should not be up to the state.
  • john Kills 2012/07/20 14:15:44 (edited)
    Yes. Citizens should be able to defend themselves.
    john Kills
    +7
    I won't go into any business that prohibits the people their right to defend themselves. People need to realize that I or anyone else could have gone into that theater with a sword or machete and killed as many people and only someone with a gun could stop me. People want to blame guns but, people had been killing other people for thousands of year before guns came along. In many parts of the world where murder is even higher than here in the states, machetes are the weapon of choice. Anti gunners are naïve fools but if they want to leave themselves defenseless, that is their business. I own guns and I carry a gun everywhere I go. I will continue to carry a gun regardless of any law saying otherwise. It is my constitutional right but, if they amend or repeal that amendment I will still carry. I am a man who always tries to prepare for the worst. I think it's foolish for any man or woman to not carry a gun but, I don't want to make it a law to do so. Unlike those who hate guns and want to pass laws that would turn this and many other law abiding citizens into criminals for carrying guns. It is because of these people that I will never use my gun to stop a crime against another person. I feel they should have been armed themselves and if they are not armed, they may be working to get lawws passed to deny me my right. So don't worry if you're being raped, robbed, beat up on, I promise never to use my gun to help you because I know how much you hate guns.
  • Chris - The Rowdy One! #187 2012/07/20 14:06:01
    Yes. Citizens should be able to defend themselves.
    Chris - The Rowdy One! #187
    +9
    I believe EVERY person should have the right to carry a gun. Had a person been armed at last nights shooting, less people would have been killed or wounded.
  • Striker 2012/07/20 13:58:29
    Yes. Citizens should be able to defend themselves.
    Striker
    +10
    All Citizen non-felons should NOT be DISallowed to own and carry and use weapons of any type. They may well be needed for our self-defense against our tyrannical Rulers.
  • The Bantam Seditioner 2012/07/20 13:54:29 (edited)
    Yes. Citizens should be able to defend themselves.
    The Bantam Seditioner
    +8
    It's fundamentally a property rights issue. If a theater owner doesn't feel comfortable with guns in his/her establishment, then he/she has every right to set his/her own policy. However, if it was my theater, I'd certainly allow patrons to be armed, precisely because of unhinged and psychotic individuals like the one we're all talking about today.
  • Harley Quinn 2012/07/20 13:39:08
    No. The gun culture needs to stop.
    Harley Quinn
    +2
    We have concealed carry here, but there are buildings that do not allow guns. Movie theaters are one of those places.
  • Leo 2012/07/20 13:37:45
    Undecided.
    Leo
    +3
    The movie theatre is not the issue. It could have happened at any number of places. Even back in 1972 when I was a teenager in Raleigh, a gunman in a mall parking lot gunned down several people and 4 or 5 of them died. Then at least he had the decency to kill himself. I was still in school and some of the kids had gone out to lunch and came back talking about it but I thought they were making it up.
  • Lina Blub 2012/07/20 13:37:12
    No. The gun culture needs to stop.
    Lina Blub
    +3
    only america is this much gun crazed, no europe or asian or african houses have so much guns than those house holds in america...
  • heirsof... Lina Blub 2012/07/20 15:11:01
    heirsoftheking
    If you like Europe so much, get out of here and move over there! I'm gonna protect my wife and kids to the utmost extreme, even if I have to use guns.
  • Lina Blub heirsof... 2012/07/20 20:50:58
    Lina Blub
    for further notice, I live in EU :D
  • whitewu... Lina Blub 2012/07/20 15:12:56
  • *Mahoga... whitewu... 2012/07/20 15:33:39
    *Mahogany Goddess of P.H.A.E.T


    Yup.
  • whitewu... *Mahoga... 2012/07/20 15:41:49
  • *Mahoga... whitewu... 2012/07/20 15:50:17
    *Mahogany Goddess of P.H.A.E.T
    Yup and Sarah McKinley was able to kill these two intruders and protect her daughter.

    yup sarah mckinley kill intruders protect daughter








    Watch More News Videos at ABC


    2012 Presidential Election


    Entertainment & Celebrity News
  • Space I... Lina Blub 2012/07/20 16:24:38
    Space Invader
    and we should care why????
  • Lina Blub Space I... 2012/07/20 20:51:42
    Lina Blub
    maybe because somebody close 2 u could die because of it ?
  • Space I... Lina Blub 2012/07/20 21:19:49
    Space Invader
    So should be lock the doors and never come out??
  • Lina Blub Space I... 2012/07/21 16:51:59
    Lina Blub
    *facewalls* talking to people like u makes simply no sense... u're just one of 'em
  • Space I... Lina Blub 2012/07/21 16:54:33
    Space Invader
    thanx..
  • Samantha 2012/07/20 13:32:45
    No. The gun culture needs to stop.
    Samantha
    +4
    The pro-gun argument is insane; it's creating a culture of deadly violence. We must enact strong gun control measures related to manufacture, sale and possession. The Second Amendment isn't absolute.
  • Wayne Samantha 2012/07/20 14:47:29
    Wayne
    +4
    The pro gun culture is insane? We are citizens and not slaves because of guns. While there are some insane people out there, trying to point it to the choice of a murderers options of death is overlooking the obvious, the moral decay spawned by liberalism.People kill people, bombs, knives, cars, poison, and any number of vehicles are available to murder
    Cities that support gun rights and carry rights have lower crime rates period.
  • whitewu... Wayne 2012/07/20 15:13:41
  • Wayne whitewu... 2012/07/20 15:29:24
    Wayne
    +1
    LOL! Good point on the ability of liberals to lead with their failed philosophies!
  • whitewu... Wayne 2012/07/20 15:39:50
  • Samantha Wayne 2012/07/20 18:53:19 (edited)
    Samantha
    Wrong! We're a free people because of the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

    Your last comment is most likely based on John Lott's flawed research; his research methodology has been cited as flawed.

    http://www.handguncontrol.org/

    Both Lott's book and his study have been reviewed by academics from a wide range of disciplines from criminology to public health. Many of these scholars found serious, fundamental flaws in Lott's methodology and found his claims to be unsubstantiated. These researchers include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University; Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky and Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University; Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster, all of Johns Hopkins University; Arthur Kellermann at Emory University; and Douglas Weil at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

    Now, after several years in which the nation as a whole has enjoyed a declining crime rate, there is direct evidence that Lott's conclusions are wrong. A 1999 analysis of crime statistics conducted by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) demonstrates that allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. The Center found that, as a group, states that rely on permissive concealed weapons laws as a crime fighting strategy had a significan...



    Wrong! We're a free people because of the First Amendment and freedom of speech.

    Your last comment is most likely based on John Lott's flawed research; his research methodology has been cited as flawed.

    http://www.handguncontrol.org/

    Both Lott's book and his study have been reviewed by academics from a wide range of disciplines from criminology to public health. Many of these scholars found serious, fundamental flaws in Lott's methodology and found his claims to be unsubstantiated. These researchers include Jens Ludwig at Georgetown University; Daniel Black of the University of Kentucky and Daniel Nagin at Carnegie Mellon University; Stephen Teret, Jon Vernick and Daniel Webster, all of Johns Hopkins University; Arthur Kellermann at Emory University; and Douglas Weil at the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence.

    Now, after several years in which the nation as a whole has enjoyed a declining crime rate, there is direct evidence that Lott's conclusions are wrong. A 1999 analysis of crime statistics conducted by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (CPHV) demonstrates that allowing people to carry concealed handguns does not mean less crime. The Center found that, as a group, states that rely on permissive concealed weapons laws as a crime fighting strategy had a significantly smaller drop in crime than states which looked to other means to combat crime rather than make it easier to obtain a concealed weapons permit.

    In the 29 states that have lax CCW laws (where law enforcement must issue CCW licenses to almost all applicants), the crime rate fell 2.1%, from 5397.0 to 5285.1 crimes per 100,000 population from 1996 to 1997. During the same time period, in the 21 states and the District of Columbia with strict carry laws or which don't allow the carrying of concealed weapons at all, the crime rate fell 4.4%, from 4810.5 to 4599.9 crimes per 100,000 population. The decline in the crime rate of strict licensing and no-carry states was 2.1 times that of states with lax CCW systems, indicating that there are more effective ways to fight crime than to encourage more people to carry guns.

    Furthermore, according to the CPHV analysis, violent crime actually rose in 12 of 29 states (41%) which liberalized their CCW laws over the five years beginning in 1992, compared to a similar rise in violent crime in only 4 of 22 states (18%) which did not change their CCW laws. The disparity in the decline is even more obvious for rates of gun violence. From 1992 to 1997 (the last five years for which data exists), the violent crime rate in the strict and no-issue states fell 24.8% while the violent crime rate for states with liberal CCW laws dropped 11.4%. Nationally the violent crime rate fell 19.4%.
    (more)

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/21 11:16:58

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals