Regal Theaters

[MWalsh]

However I will join your boycott on general principles.

No point in boycotting unless they know why, remember

Apparently most mass shootings occur in gun free zones, so really the concept of them is very stupid.

 

[Gaerek]

I can't speak to any generalities but I have seen a number of different cases in different states and involving different versions of possession violations which also involved self-defense and I have never seen the relatively minor possession charge pursued.

For example, there was a case in NY where a woman shot an attacker with a handgun that she was not authorized to possess, as she did not have a permit of any kind, say nothing of that particular firearm being on her permit. However, the shooting was obviously righteous and no charges were brought.

I remember hearing or reading something from someone, I'm pretty sure it was Mas Ayoob, about the idea of Competing Harms. In this case, between getting shot because you couldn't defend yourself, or carrying a gun somewhere you're not supposed to, you probably won't be brought up on possession charges because obviously, being shot is a bigger harm than possessing illegally. Not every state has this, and handgunlaw.us doesn't go into it, so you might have to do some digging.

I'm pretty sure the person who said it, concluded with something like, "Think about how many times you've had to use your gun in self defense, compared to the number of times you've accidently flashed, or your gun printed, or something like that." Basically, you are far more likely to get a possession charge, than you are to have to use your gun in defense. So...do what your going to do at your own risk.

Wikipedia entry on this concept:

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

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

We have a Regal theater in Medina, and I can't remember seeing a No Guns sign. We will be going to a chic flick there Monday and I will look.

Signs such as those should be ignored. Better to be tried by twelve, than carried by six.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Apparently most mass shootings occur in gun free zones, so really the concept of them is very stupid.

No, apparently they don't. The ones you hear about most often occur there, but that is not where they most often occur. That is media hype. What is commonly missed are the localized mass shootings that don't occur in public areas that fail to make national news or that are in public areas but fail to garner much attention because they are not particularly unique. As near as I can tell, most mass shootings happen in private residences, usually but not always are composed of multiple numbers of family members. These get written off by the media as domestic problems and usually carry little national newsworthiness.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=674889&highlight=gun+free+zone.

Here are just a few examples from this year and you may not have heard of any of them.

1 Jan 2013 - 4 shot at a house party, McKeesport, PA
http://pittsburgh.cbslocal.com/2013/01/01/4-people-shot-in-mckeesport/

Jan 2013 - teenage shoots and kills 5 in ABQ home
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/...oting-2013-new-mexico-teenager_n_2516424.html

Feb 2013 Mardi Gras Bourbon Street mass shooting, 4 shot
http://www.newsday.com/news/nation/...ooting-on-bourbon-street-police-say-1.4610011

Feb 2013 - 5 shot and 1 killed in a home in SF, CA
http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/02/12/1-killed-4-hurt-in-vallejo-shooting/

This morning, Feb 16 2013 - 5 shot outside of a club in Columbia, SC
http://www.wyff4.com/news/columbia-...&utm_medium=facebook&************=wyff+news+4

 

[MLeake]

DNS, it seems like you are using shootings that don't meet the normal standard for mass shootings.

Some of the examples you listed involved shooting of family members or persons known to the shooter.

Some involved a shooting subsequent to a verbal or physical altercation.

I thought the way the government and media defined "mass shootings" or "spree shootings" required 4 or more victims; victims not friends or family of the shooter; not the result of another crime (such as killing hostages during a standoff with SWAT).

Using those criteria, the vast majority occur in either Federal Gun Free Zones, posted no gun zones, or in the case of Luby's in an area where there was no mechanism for lawful concealed carry.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

The definition of mass shooting is the shooting of 4 or more people, not inclusive of the shooter. That is the definition. The definition does NOT include relationships between the people involved or location of occurence.

I thought the way the government and media defined "mass shootings" or "spree shootings" required 4 or more victims; victims not friends or family of the shooter; not the result of another crime (such as killing hostages during a standoff with SWAT).

Media definition? You mean like their definitions for assault rifle, high powered rifle, and self shooting guns? This group of the media referred to

RT referred to this shooting as a mass shooting despite only 3 people being shot.
http://rt.com/usa/news/three-people-shot-phoenix-112/

Part of the reason for not using the media as a guide is because they are far from consistent and often inaccurate.

Government definition? I don't find a specific government definition but if we look to what a mass murderer is, it is insightful. Okay, let's look at what the FBI says...

Generally, mass murder was described as a number of murders (four or more) occurring during the same incident, with no distinctive time period between the murders. These events typically involved a single location, where the killer murdered a number of victims in an ongoing incident (e.g. the 1984 San Ysidro McDonalds incident in San Diego, California; the 1991 Luby’s Restaurant massacre in Killeen, Texas; and the 2007 Virginia Tech murders in Blacksburg, Virginia).

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/serial-murder/serial-murder-1#two

Note that they do not stipulate lack of relationship and the mass murders described happened to be mass shooters. That the most common mass shootings discussed by the media are those most sensationalized based on the common fears of being randomly killed by strangers or killed where folks are least in control of their lives...away from home or family.

However, mass shootings frequently occur in the home, by family or friends, but also there are those that involve drive-by shootings that are NOT amongst friends or family. Those typically don't make national news either.

Similarly, mass murderers are those who kill 4 or more people in a singular episode. Lots of mass murderers are noted as folks who kill their families. If they kill their family in mass with a gun, they were mass shooters as well, just familial mass shooters.

 

[coachteet]

In Ohio, if they think you are carrying in a posted area, they don;t need to confront you. They can call a cop and if the officer finds you armed, you are in violation.

If the Judge finds you guilty of a minor offense, the Court can let you off with *only* a 2 year suspension of your CCW.

This is incorrect. If, for some reason, there is reason for an owner of private property to believe you have a concealed weapon (which means you have failed at actually carrying concealed, by the way) then they can call the police. So long as when an officer approaches you, you disclose immediately that you are carrying, you are only guilty of of misdemeanor trespassing. This is not cause for revoking a license.

 

[Jay24bal]

Maybe not ethical, but I do it this way...

I am also in Ohio (Cleveland area), and most movie theaters and shopping malls around here are posted as well. However, I seem to have found a "loophole" around that.

For example, there is one mall that has a movie theater inside that I frequent. All MALL ENTRANCES are posted, but the entrances to the big box stores are NOT POSTED. Then, the entrances from the big box stores to the mall are also NOT POSTED. So I simply enter through the big box stores when going into the mall.

If the need were to ever arise that I needed my firearm, I could honestly care less about some trespassing violation. And if I were ever in trouble for carrying, they most assuredly have me on video entering through whichever entrance, which is not posted. Then I can claim ignorance since those entrances are not posted.

While the signs do carry more weight in OH than most other states, the law also says that the signs need to be "conspiciously displayed," since there not even signs on the entrances I use, I doubt I could ever be prosecuted for criminal trespassing.

Obviously I am not recommending other people violate "the spirit of the law," but as the famous saying goes, "I would rather be judged by twelve than carried by six."

 

[Kevin Rohrer]

We went to that chic flick tonight. It was so bad, I have already forgotten the title.

Anyway, there are zero NO GUNS signs on the doors, so whether a Regal theater has them or not must depend on the theater owner.

Considering the popularity of CCW permits in this area, the theater would loose way too much $$$$ if the theater was posted.

 

[Flopsweat]

...
And if I were ever in trouble for carrying, they most assuredly have me on video entering through whichever entrance, which is not posted. Then I can claim ignorance since those entrances are not posted.
...

Good luck claiming ignorance now that you've confessed publicly.