Mobile phones should be banned from being used in cinemas.
Some cinemas installed phone signal blockers years ago, but the networks complained, and health & safety types feared patrons would be unable to make emergency calls..
It must be very nearly feasible now, for the networks to isolate a locale somehow and permit emergency calls/incoming texts only within that zone. Not much incentive for either side to pay for it maybe.
I get the impression that you're not playing with a full pack.
The location is irrelevant: shootings can happen anywhere. We do not set interest rates, create employment laws or decide fishing quotas based solely on what happens in cinemas. They are not a representative subset of public spaces or crime scenes.
I've presented no arguments for increased gun control. I've simply shown that murders involving firearms are in fact quite common in the US, at 30 per day on average, with no doubt many maimings as well. This contradicts your assertion that shootings are not a daily occurrence, as if that were the yardstick for determining whether an action is necessary.
OK, I'll bite. What would be the yardstick in this case for determining whether increased weapon legislation is necessary?
OK, I'll bite. What would be the yardstick in this case for determining whether increased weapon legislation is necessary?
Nothing because it really isn't necessary over there. Their gun rights are as enshrined in their culture as the right to free speech. I want to know why people think increased weapons legislation would have made any difference here because if the retired man was going to kill the other man and he didn't have a gun he could use a blunt object or run him over with his car. Then the question is what would be the yardstick for determining whether increased car and blunt object legislation is necessary.
a gun he could use a blunt object or run him over with his car.
That would have been kind of difficult inside a cinema
A blunt object he may have been tackled by more of the crowed and he would be unlikely to have his car with him inside the cinema even if he was going to wait until after he would have likely have calmed down enough by then.
One of the many problems with Guns (and knifes) is you can attack and kill someone in a moments fit of rage
That would have been kind of difficult inside a cinema
A blunt object he may have been tackled by more of the crowed and he would be unlikely to have his car with him inside the cinema even if he was going to wait until after he would have likely have calmed down enough by then.
One of the many problems with Guns (and knifes) is you can attack and kill someone in a moments fit of rage
You can do the same with any kind of object really and you adding in further conditions like the crowd may have tackled him can apply equally to the gun. They could have tackled him but they didn't and you can't be sure that if he had used another method of killing that he would have been stopped. So there's no real need to introduce further legislation. People die every day it doesn't mean the cause of their death has to be banned.
You can do the same with any kind of object really and you adding in further conditions like the crowd may have tackled him can apply equally to the gun. They could have tackled him but they didn't and you can't be sure that if he had used another method of killing that he would have been stopped. So there's no real need to introduce further legislation. People die every day it doesn't mean the cause of their death has to be banned.
A gun is more likely to keep someone back as it can kill from a distance and cause more damage if it was hitting him with say bat 2-3 people could get to him a she could threaten them all at the same time and would have to back off.
A gun is more likely to keep someone back as it can kill from a distance and cause more damage if it was hitting him with say bat 2-3 people could get to him a she could threaten them all at the same time and would have to back off.
You keep adding further ideas about what might and might not happen so this is getting complicated. If society sees someone getting hit with a bat the gut instinct of most is to NOT get involved. You can't make the argument that the same attack with another weapon would go any differently when you have unrealistic expectations about the reactions of people close by. And every situation is different. A similar attack with a gun could be stopped because it jams or because people rush to tackle and a similar attack with a bat might not be stopped because the particular group of people didn't want to risk being another victim. There is no need for increased weapons legislation in the states especially with the recent school shootings because I'm sure everyone wants to avoid a repeat if possible. In this country it's a different story but in america there is no need for them.
You keep adding further ideas about what might and might not happen so this is getting complicated. If society sees someone getting hit with a bat the gut instinct of most is to NOT get involved. You can't make the argument that the same attack with another weapon would go any differently when you have unrealistic expectations about the reactions of people close by. And every situation is different. A similar attack with a gun could be stopped because it jams or because people rush to tackle and a similar attack with a bat might not be stopped because the particular group of people didn't want to risk being another victim. There is no need for increased weapons legislation in the states especially with the recent school shootings because I'm sure everyone wants to avoid a repeat if possible. In this country it's a different story but in america there is no need for them.
Your the one who added other weapons into it and for some reason a car inside a cinema
“We encourage our patrons to remember that they are sharing a common wish to be entertained and to treat their fellow moviegoers with courtesy and respect.”
“We encourage our patrons to remember that they are sharing a common wish to be entertained and to treat their fellow moviegoers with courtesy and respect.”
:D
Well, I hope that message was directed at the git using a mobile phone.
Well, I hope that message was directed at the git using a mobile phone.
Well to be fair he was using during the ads before the film how do we know he wasn't turning it off or messaging someone to tell them not to message him
When I go that's what I do I let the few people who have my Number know not to contact me for a few hours unless there is a emergency then put it on silent
Well to be fair he was using during the ads before the film how do we know he wasn't turning it off or messing someone to tell them not to message him
When I go that's what I do I let the few people who have my Number know not to contact me for a few hours unless there is a emergency then put it on silent
Yeah, I know.;-)
During the adverts, phone use is OK by me. The cinema I go to most frequently has the lighting up during the adverts and only dims them when the trailers start. I see this as the signal to stop using electronic toys and STFU.
Comments
A report I read stated the wife had put her hand in front of her husband, in a gesture of protection, so the bullet must've hit them both.
Some cinemas installed phone signal blockers years ago, but the networks complained, and health & safety types feared patrons would be unable to make emergency calls..
It must be very nearly feasible now, for the networks to isolate a locale somehow and permit emergency calls/incoming texts only within that zone. Not much incentive for either side to pay for it maybe.
Nothing because it really isn't necessary over there. Their gun rights are as enshrined in their culture as the right to free speech. I want to know why people think increased weapons legislation would have made any difference here because if the retired man was going to kill the other man and he didn't have a gun he could use a blunt object or run him over with his car. Then the question is what would be the yardstick for determining whether increased car and blunt object legislation is necessary.
That would have been kind of difficult inside a cinema
A blunt object he may have been tackled by more of the crowed and he would be unlikely to have his car with him inside the cinema even if he was going to wait until after he would have likely have calmed down enough by then.
One of the many problems with Guns (and knifes) is you can attack and kill someone in a moments fit of rage
You can do the same with any kind of object really and you adding in further conditions like the crowd may have tackled him can apply equally to the gun. They could have tackled him but they didn't and you can't be sure that if he had used another method of killing that he would have been stopped. So there's no real need to introduce further legislation. People die every day it doesn't mean the cause of their death has to be banned.
A gun is more likely to keep someone back as it can kill from a distance and cause more damage if it was hitting him with say bat 2-3 people could get to him a she could threaten them all at the same time and would have to back off.
You keep adding further ideas about what might and might not happen so this is getting complicated. If society sees someone getting hit with a bat the gut instinct of most is to NOT get involved. You can't make the argument that the same attack with another weapon would go any differently when you have unrealistic expectations about the reactions of people close by. And every situation is different. A similar attack with a gun could be stopped because it jams or because people rush to tackle and a similar attack with a bat might not be stopped because the particular group of people didn't want to risk being another victim. There is no need for increased weapons legislation in the states especially with the recent school shootings because I'm sure everyone wants to avoid a repeat if possible. In this country it's a different story but in america there is no need for them.
Agreed drives you mad in theatre and cinema some cretins phone rang when we went to see jersey boys
Your the one who added other weapons into it and for some reason a car inside a cinema
He could have I guess:D
Mind you would someone using a mobile count at a drive in as if they were inside their car you wouldn't hear it anyway
True could be
Either way best to take KITT next time
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/14/us/florida-man-is-shot-to-death-for-texting-during-movie-previews.html?_r=0
Cinema Manager/Director says,
“We encourage our patrons to remember that they are sharing a common wish to be entertained and to treat their fellow moviegoers with courtesy and respect.”
Well, I hope that message was directed at the git using a mobile phone.
Well to be fair he was using during the ads before the film how do we know he wasn't turning it off or messaging someone to tell them not to message him
When I go that's what I do I let the few people who have my Number know not to contact me for a few hours unless there is a emergency then put it on silent
Yeah, I know.;-)
During the adverts, phone use is OK by me. The cinema I go to most frequently has the lighting up during the adverts and only dims them when the trailers start. I see this as the signal to stop using electronic toys and STFU.
It certainly was. Clearly they take respect and courtesy very seriously in Florida
ETA. Though it was actually the throwing of popcorn that made him properly beyond the pale.
He was standing his ground!!!
Someone threw popcorn at him for goodness sake!
Popcorn::o:o:o
And his self defence against popcorn was a bullet:o:o
In fairness, this was America so it was probably a large bag of popcorn.