Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Howard A Treesong wrote:The Cinema's are just protecting themselves, you have a country with easy access to guns, it's a wonder they haven't done this earlier. They might have to implement higher security now, because they fear losing customers who are worried about it happening again. What you really have to do is look at gun ownership as a society. Not ask how to prevent a man packing weapons got into a cinema, because a shooting could happen anywhere, but ask why a nutter was able to stockpile a large amount of weapons and ammunition. Hell, with your litigation culture if the cinemas in future don't check people then they will probably get sued if some gak does go down because they didn't raise security as a response to this attack.

I do find it odd that some of the people complaining that private businesses, like cinemas, are going to check customers coming in to protect themselves and other customers from gun packing crazies, are the same people who will fight tooth and nail against gun control and effectively support the right for people to own heaps of guns and even carry them on the street in the first place.

You can't reasonably demand to have a country with easily accessible firearms and then complain when businesses, or anyone, take precautions against people bringing weapons onto their premises. We don't have to worry about this much in the UK because these sorts of shootings almost never happen. But in a country like the US, as gun ownership is widespread then precautions will be higher, it's an unfortunate consequence of demanding other freedoms.

This still remains a knee-jerk reaction(I don't see the chances of it being implemented 'permanently' good, though). It's very costly, inconvenient, intrusive, and cannot be proven to really make a difference.

And speaking broadly, strict regulation of firearms and reduced availability is a mixed bag, results-wise. It just hasn't proven itself to be effective enough at reducing 'normal' crime, let alone massacres.

The reporting was sensationalist to scare the Frazzies and we do not yet know enough about the policy. It looks like a knee jerk, and may be one, but then it might not, it all depends on how long the changes are implemented for.

Copy cat crimes are a genuine problem, but one that dissipates over time. Once the killings are old news, by the end of the summer the restrictions can (and should) be relaxed.

Pop Tarts
Published July 23, 2012
FoxNews.com
Stephen Galloway, The Hollywood Reporter’s Executive Features Editor, tells FOX411’s Pop Tarts column that incident will likely cause theater owners to debate stepping up security – which would in turn impact ticket prices, and that in turn could affect movie theater stock.

Meanwhile, Thelma Adams, Yahoo! Movies contributing editor questioned why all cinema guests can’t be “bag-checked and wanded” the same way critics and the press are prior to advanced screenings.

But such measures come at a cost, and Hollywood movie producer Mark Joseph is not convinced that cinema patrons will be willing to pay even more to see a movie, even if that does translate to an added feeling of security.

“You can never guarantee safety and movie tickets are already too high,” he said. “There will be efforts to ban costumes, check bags and increase security but in three months it will be back to normal.”

However, leading crisis management expert, Gene Grabowski of Levick Strategic Communications, argues that the latest tragedy will have a permanent effect on the once simple adventure of going to the theater.

“Parents are very concerned that their children are being frightened by news reports and so business will likely drop of for a while,” he explained. “Many theaters, especially those showing movies with violence, will be equipped with metal detectors. The major theater chains will certainly enforce these restrictions across the country in order to protect against copycat incidents and to protect against lawsuits.”

Summary = Four random talking heads with no special insight other than their desire to promote themselves, say totally speculative sensationalist things, because that's what the media oulet wants them to do.

“We will not allow any guests into our theaters in costumes that make other guests feel uncomfortable and we will not permit face-covering masks or fake weapons inside our buildings,” Ryan Noonan, AMC Director of Public Relations, said in a statement. “If you don’t like it, they will give you a refund.”

The representative also noted that the prominent cinema chain had no plans to alter its show schedules, but are working with local law enforcement agencies, landlords and local security teams nationwide to “provide the safest environment possible for guests,” and a spokesperson for the National Association of Theater Owners concurred that members were in the process of reviewing security procedures.

Summary = Two industry PR guys say A) No masks or fake weapons for now; and B) we are "the process of reviewing security procedures." Translation: Don't freak out, keep spending money, we won't let anyone in who looks anything like the killer, and we are making no specific commitments to any kind of long term or serious changes of any kind.

“It’s not unlike the ramped-up security in schools across the country after Columbine, and the increase of security at airports after 9/11. It’s just what needs to be done right now,” Jami Philbrick, Managing Editor of movie news site iamRogue.com. “The effect this all has on the theater industry is the true question. With the advent of HD TVs, Blu-ray, Netflix and especially VOD, the theater industry was already in trouble … and this could make it worse.”

Summary = After letting the PR guys do their job and say non-alarmist things, here's another talking head to promote his website and say something sensationalist again to freak Fraz out.

Executive Summary: Ratings-driven media outlet prints sensationalist story to give its consumers their regular and expected dose of something to freak out over. Easily-trolled and not-particularly-critical Dachhound enthusiast takes the bait, reposts on Dakka.

Seriously? You read the sentence "Many theaters, especially those showing movies with violence, will be equipped with metal detectors" and didn't laugh out loud? Like there are special movie theaters which only show non-violent movies? How much more clearly could this guy say "I am an idiot, pay no attention to me"? Does he have to hold up a sign for you?

And that was the only person quoted in the entire article who sounded like he MIGHT POSSIBLY have some sort of credentials, maybe. He works for a "strategic communications" company, and Fox411's Pop Tarts column says he's a crisis management expert. His resume looks pretty good, but I don't see him having written any books on security issues, or anything about public event venues.
http://www.levick.com/executive-vice-president/gene-grabowski

I hope you're right Manny. But we've both seen the US proclivity to freak out at the slightest thing (both right and left wings).

True; but IME a whole lot of these kind of stories and emails get circulated around just for attention and ratings and hubbub without having any real substance to them.

Mannahnin wrote:True; but IME a whole lot of these kind of stories and emails get circulated around just for attention and ratings and hubbub without having any real substance to them.

The gun boards are freaking out as we speak.

The same gun boards which have been freaking out over Obama for four years?

Mannahnin wrote:The same gun boards which have been freaking out over Obama for four years?

One yes, the other no.

Meh. If I were to make a list of things that might signal "I'm about to start living under a grossly oppressive regime, in which I have no rights or freedoms", "They start searching me for weapons an private movie theaters" is pretty far down on the list.

Then again, I place a relatively low value on privacy in general compared to the average person. So long as they don't break my gak while looking through it I'd probably find it hard to get my feathers ruffled up over something like this.

Other than outright banning guns and becoming a police state that prevents any form of weaponry potentially be developed at all, how do you stop some random person in an urban area from suddenly jumping out of a car and gunning down random people?

Amaya wrote:Other than outright banning guns and becoming a police state that prevents any form of weaponry potentially be developed at all, how do you stop some random person in an urban area from suddenly jumping out of a car and gunning down random people?

Kill everyone before they have a chance to kill you?

I kind of dislike going to movie theaters anyway.

The only time I go is to take my kids to see whatever Disney/Pixar/etc. movie, because they are still young enough to not be completely annoyed by the entire experience.

Frazzled wrote:Actual in the door ticket volumes have been on the decline for a decade however.

In the US. With other markets expanding, especially in Asia, it's no surprise Hollywood is moving more and more to bland, generic blockbusters that work regardless of the culture of the person viewing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:At the same time though, had several people in that theatre been carrying guns, it is very likely that this person would have been dropped long before his gun jammed and he tried to run.

Yeah, that kind of thinking? That kind of thinking is lunacy. A darkened theatre, with tear gas shot into it, with an unknown, and unexpected shooter, and you are actually claiming that multiple people getting up out of the panicked, fleeing crowd to try and locate and then gun down the shooter would be a reasonable solution?

I mean, this fantasy about guns being able to solve problems with violence... that's a really, really big part of the reason that these kinds of nutjobs keep showing up.

Monster Rain wrote:I kind of dislike going to movie theaters anyway.

The only time I go is to take my kids to see whatever Disney/Pixar/etc. movie, because they are still young enough to not be completely annoyed by the entire experience.

This. If it wasnt for my kids I wouldnt even set foot in one...

I think its interesting that there is a (another?) violent attack, and the talk is effectively about increased regulation of movies... not guns.

I cant help but feel that the point may have been missed...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll just leave this here: http://sydney.edu.au/medicine/news/news/2006/Dec/061214.php

Frazzled wrote:

djones520 wrote:Kind of knee jerk considering the guy came in through an emergency exit that was supposed to be locked.

Exactly.

Double exactly.

I think you might be able to do it from a practical viewpoint, in that you've got a relatively limited number of people going though a specific set of gates. But would it have stopped this latest shooting? No.

How are ticket sales at US cinemas since the crime?

sebster wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Actual in the door ticket volumes have been on the decline for a decade however.

In the US. With other markets expanding, especially in Asia, it's no surprise Hollywood is moving more and more to bland, generic blockbusters that work regardless of the culture of the person viewing it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

djones520 wrote:At the same time though, had several people in that theatre been carrying guns, it is very likely that this person would have been dropped long before his gun jammed and he tried to run.

Yeah, that kind of thinking? That kind of thinking is lunacy. A darkened theatre, with tear gas shot into it, with an unknown, and unexpected shooter, and you are actually claiming that multiple people getting up out of the panicked, fleeing crowd to try and locate and then gun down the shooter would be a reasonable solution?

I mean, this fantasy about guns being able to solve problems with violence... that's a really, really big part of the reason that these kinds of nutjobs keep showing up.

Yeah, i'm a decent shot but there is no way in hell that i would be able to do gak to someone wearing body armor, in a dark room, while being blinded by tear gas, especially with what would be considered standard for a CC gun. There are situations were a gun can be used for self defense, most of the time without even firing a shot, but to suggest that anyone would have been able to take him out under those conditions is lunacy.

People need to chill the fk out. A movie theater, a bell tower, a school campus, a shopping mall...you can't lock down every locale with searches and scanners. And if it's not a gun, it'll be a bomb, or gas, or a knife, or a truck driven through a crowd of people.

You cannot bubble wrap the world, and in trying, all you are doing is empowering the James Holmeses, Charles Whitmans, Lee Harvey Oswalds, John Hinkleys, and all the other crackpots who feel so crappy about their lives that they feel the only way they can make a statement or make an impact is to kill. The more it happens and the more sensational the reaction and media coverage is, the more likely the unknown crackpots that are still out there are going to be encouraged that they can get their thrill of terrorizing a bunch of people and maybe find their way into a history book.

There are an infinate number of ways for you, or the people you love, to randomly be snuffed out at any moment of any day, and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. Don't be an idiot, get on with your life, and quit trying to control every aspect of the world around you, it's an excercise in futility.

The thing is there are some locations that can be locked down, such as airplane access gates, and there are others that can't be locked down.

Airplane security works because people are prepared to put up with the inconvenience on the relatively few times they need to fly, because the benefit of flying is huge.

London Transport, carrying 9 million passengers a day, has been trialled for gate type security and it just doesn't work. It just cannot work with the number of people involved, and the conditions of people wanting to use the buses and tubes for quick, short journeys carrying their pen knives and stuff.

A cinema certainly could be locked down. It has a small number of entrances and is visited by a limited number of people at regular times.

The argument is whether it would be a good thing to lock down a cinema and/or other such locations where it could work in a technical sense but maybe not a social sense.

Would you be prepared to arrive at the cinema one hour earlier than now in order to get through security? Just to watch a film for two hours? Probably not.

I'm barely wiling to arrive at a theater at all, and only then when family and friends insist. If I had to spend an EXTRA hour in those dismal, filthy places? Ugh. I'd just stay home and rent a movie.

I'm not arguing that there are places that can and should be carefully controlled in a measured response comparable to the actual threat posed. Still, even with aircraft, I'm far more likely to die in a plane because some slob in management cut the maintenance budget or the mechanic forgot his "righty tighty/lefty loosey" than I am from some idealist strapping a bomb to his leg.

EDIT: and THAT's probably more likely than me being shot in a theater.

Amaya wrote:Other than outright banning guns and becoming a police state that prevents any form of weaponry potentially be developed at all, how do you stop some random person in an urban area from suddenly jumping out of a car and gunning down random people?

How do you stop them from setting off a car bomb? From just running a vehicle into a crowd?

Hell I probably could create some explosives just from what is in my house right now. Maybe make myself some bathtub semtex.

Frazzled wrote:

Amaya wrote:Other than outright banning guns and becoming a police state that prevents any form of weaponry potentially be developed at all, how do you stop some random person in an urban area from suddenly jumping out of a car and gunning down random people?

How do you stop them from setting off a car bomb? From just running a vehicle into a crowd?

In Japan, a man drove a car into a crowd, then jumped out with a knife and started stabbing people. He killed 7 and injured 10.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akihabara_massacre

Random acts of violence by "nutters" cannot be prevented.

All we can do is to try and create a society in which as few people as possible get themselves into a position where they think this sort of thing is a good idea.

Melissia wrote:Hell I probably could create some explosives just from what is in my house right now. Maybe make myself some bathtub semtex.

All I need is Tex Mex and about 8 hours...

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:Hell I probably could create some explosives just from what is in my house right now. Maybe make myself some bathtub semtex.

All I need is Tex Mex and about 8 hours...

Yep.

On the positive teeny weenie 8 lb TBone can clear a room. The first sign is the canary in the room: the other wiener dog jumping up and running out in a panic. Then it comes. Then you die.

He needs an ignition source...C4/Semtex goes off on pressure and heat

So Frazz Tex Mex IED will only look like

As stated before, the problem isn't that a guy was able to smuggle guns into a movie theatre. It's that he used the emergency exit that is supposed to be locked from the outside. A search to get in wouldn't have done anything, because it's not like he was sneaking in his RIFLE and SHOTGUN under his shirt.......

He didn't smuggle the weapons in

Yes, exactly what I said. That's why having a line of people backed up at the entrance being searched wouldn't have done a single thing to stop the shooting.

AegisGrimm wrote:

As stated before, the problem isn't that a guy was able to smuggle guns into a movie theatre. It's that he used the emergency exit that is supposed to be locked from the outside. A search to get in wouldn't have done anything, because it's not like he was sneaking in his RIFLE and SHOTGUN under his shirt.......

He didn't smuggle the weapons in

Yes, exactly what I said. That's why having a line of people backed up at the entrance being searched wouldn't have done a single thing to stop the shooting.

Exactly. besides, I'm too sexy to be searched at a theater. It would be too distracting to the female patrons.