TexasCHLforum.com

well thats true...My little's have a firm no movies with that level of violence rule. They also have a no movies starting past 6 pm rule. However I was thinking of if I had a 16 year old son, I might take him.

well, yeh, ok....my husband actually took our 18 and 16 year olds. scary thing is, we often drop them off, he just wanted to see this one.

mamabearCali wrote:I have tiny kids right now, but lets fast forward a few years to the time when they can run. I have no problem jumping on top of a madman into certain death so they can get out. I would prefer to watch them marry and have children from this side of eternity, but if it is needful I will gladly do it from the other side. I imagine if two people grabbed him from his 6 oclock it would take him at least a few minutes to kill them and in that time your children might be able to escape.

Though I am convinced there is no such thing as a "good way to go", saving your children from being shot by an evil madman is certainly preferable to you AND them going "before your time". If only everyone had your attitude...

If you can lead your loved ones to safety, I think that's better than covering them with your body and hoping the BG won't roll your corpse aside to slaughter your children or mate too.

Neither running nor hiding is heroic in my opinion, but they may be the most responsible thing you can do in some situations.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0[/youtube]

gringo pistolero wrote:If you can lead your loved ones to safety, I think that's better than covering them with your body and hoping the BG won't roll your corpse aside to slaughter your children or mate too.

Neither running nor hiding is heroic in my opinion, but they may be the most responsible thing you can do in some situations.

[youtube]http://youtube.com/watch?v=5VcSwejU2D0[/youtube]

I agree wholeheartedly. I would assume that covering your children or significant other would be a last resort.

I almost hesitate to post this for fear of detailing the thread, but I guess we've been meandering for a while.

So, I tried to call Smith & Wesson earlier today for a pretty routine service inquiry that I've been putting off for a while. A recording informed me that their customer service offices would be closed starting today and ending on August 13th. I poked around on their website for a while, but couldn't find any mention of a closure. I could very well be missing something obvious or being naive or something, but it seems kind of weird for a major corporation to shut down customer service for two weeks without any advance notice or explanation.

I don't want to read too much into it, but the only thing that I can think of by way of explanation is that their name is getting tossed around in the press a lot recently (and not generally in a charitable fashion). I guess it could be related to the fallout from this incident.

Has anyone else heard anything about this or anything?

James Holmes had two Glock .40 mm handguns, one with him and one left in the car. Don't know why Smith and Wesson would be called. But maybe the anti's just call anyone to harass.

In other news James Holmes was within 30 days of being evicted, since his apartment was students only, and he had quit.

The theater chain (Cinemark) normally has armed security (off duty police) on Friday and Saturday nights at this theater. Since this was a late Thursday night/ early Friday morning showing the police were not there. Certainly if police are normally needed on Friday and Saturday night, they would be needed for this special showing. In fact at a number of Cinemark theaters doing the same Batman midnight showing off duty police were present to handle problems with the large crowds that were expected. But for some reason not at this particular theater.

I know that my local AMC theater normally has 4 to 5 policeman in uniform, when I am there. Going to the movie theater is not the polite genteel thing it once was. Course I remember in the early '60's some movie was playing and it seemed to cause teens to vandalize the stores and businesses nearby after they saw it. Rebel without a Cause or something like that.

You know if your going to ban concealed weapons from your business, the least you can do is provide police on site for protection.

Installing metal detectors (which wouldn't have helped in Aurora) that has been mentioned is going to make me really stay away from movie theaters. And I am one of their best customers.

AMC bans guns with a real legal sign, so I haven't been to the theater since the shooting.

philip964 wrote:James Holmes had two Glock .40 mm handguns, one with him and one left in the car. Don't know why Smith and Wesson would be called. But maybe the anti's just call anyone to harass.

In other news James Holmes was within 30 days of being evicted, since his apartment was students only, and he had quit.

The theater chain (Cinemark) normally has armed security (off duty police) on Friday and Saturday nights at this theater. Since this was a late Thursday night/ early Friday morning showing the police were not there. Certainly if police are normally needed on Friday and Saturday night, they would be needed for this special showing. In fact at a number of Cinemark theaters doing the same Batman midnight showing off duty police were present to handle problems with the large crowds that were expected. But for some reason not at this particular theater.

I know that my local AMC theater normally has 4 to 5 policeman in uniform, when I am there. Going to the movie theater is not the polite genteel thing it once was. Course I remember in the early '60's some movie was playing and it seemed to cause teens to vandalize the stores and businesses nearby after they saw it. Rebel without a Cause or something like that.

You know if your going to ban concealed weapons from your business, the least you can do is provide police on site for protection.

Installing metal detectors (which wouldn't have helped in Aurora) that has been mentioned is going to make me really stay away from movie theaters. And I am one of their best customers.

AMC bans guns with a real legal sign, so I haven't been to the theater since the shooting.

Where did you see that there were no police at the theater? I have only heard and seen that there were officers on site because of the Batman opening.

AMC thinks they ban guns here in Texas. The only signs I've seen are 30.06 signs printed on 8.5x11 sheets of paper down in the lower corners of one or two of their windows away from the doors. Has anyone seen a proper 30.06 sign at an AMC theater?

The only personal positive to this, and I mean this with a grain of salt, is that, for me at least, the quality of movies has gotten so bad lately that I pretty much don't go to movies at the theater anymore..."Men of Valor" was the last thing I bothered to go see...I have a feeling it will be a while before they put something out again that will draw me, especially now.

Heartland Patriot wrote:The only personal positive to this, and I mean this with a grain of salt, is that, for me at least, the quality of movies has gotten so bad lately that I pretty much don't go to movies at the theater anymore..."Men of Valor" was the last thing I bothered to go see...I have a feeling it will be a while before they put something out again that will draw me, especially now.

"Act of Valor" was about the SEALS and I watched it on Bluray last night with some crazy surround sound. AWESOME!

"Men of Honor" with Cuba Gooding Jr. and Deniro. Also a great movie. Got it, but haven't watched it in a while. Maybe tonight.

Does anyone else think it's strange that he didn't shoot at the cops and then warned them about the alleged booby trap? That sounds about as likely as Marines capturing an insurgent who doesn't shoot at them and also warns them about a bunch IEDs. It all sounds very strange to me.

emcee rib wrote:Does anyone else think it's strange that he didn't shoot at the cops and then warned them about the alleged booby trap? That sounds about as likely as Marines capturing an insurgent who doesn't shoot at them and also warns them about a bunch IEDs. It all sounds very strange to me.

I did way back on page 15 and I still think that.

C-dub wrote:This whole thing is too weird. The guy recently graduated college and was accepted to and working on a PhD. He's a smart guy and planned this out very well. However, he leaves his apartment rigged to blow when someone enters, which suggests he doesn't plan on going back there. I don't know if because he doesn't plan on surviving or because just won't go back there. I'm not sure since he wore body armor and all that, but that doesn't sound to me like someone that had a death wish and he didn't kill himself afterward or put up any resistance at all. Then, he tells the police that his apartment is rigged and they shouldn't go in there. This makes no sense unless it wasn't meant for the police, but someone else instead. IDK!

What was his plan for after? Why did he do it at all? I don't buy the insane bit with this one. Sure, he's got a screw loose, but I hope they do not find him incapable of being tried. It took too long to plan and was meticulous in it's detail and well executed. Of course, that's where we're at with Jared Loughner (sp?). I wouldn't go so far as to say he was put up to it by someone in our government, but it won't keep them from licking their chops because this came along and might get done what Fast & Furious didn't. He could be delusional and think that he will become a martyr for the gun control cause. Would that keep him from being tried?

I think there is more to this than him just being a nut job. I just don't know what.

C-dub wrote:

philip964 wrote:James Holmes had two Glock .40 mm handguns, one with him and one left in the car. Don't know why Smith and Wesson would be called. But maybe the anti's just call anyone to harass.

In other news James Holmes was within 30 days of being evicted, since his apartment was students only, and he had quit.

The theater chain (Cinemark) normally has armed security (off duty police) on Friday and Saturday nights at this theater. Since this was a late Thursday night/ early Friday morning showing the police were not there. Certainly if police are normally needed on Friday and Saturday night, they would be needed for this special showing. In fact at a number of Cinemark theaters doing the same Batman midnight showing off duty police were present to handle problems with the large crowds that were expected. But for some reason not at this particular theater.

I know that my local AMC theater normally has 4 to 5 policeman in uniform, when I am there. Going to the movie theater is not the polite genteel thing it once was. Course I remember in the early '60's some movie was playing and it seemed to cause teens to vandalize the stores and businesses nearby after they saw it. Rebel without a Cause or something like that.

You know if your going to ban concealed weapons from your business, the least you can do is provide police on site for protection.

Installing metal detectors (which wouldn't have helped in Aurora) that has been mentioned is going to make me really stay away from movie theaters. And I am one of their best customers.

AMC bans guns with a real legal sign, so I haven't been to the theater since the shooting.

Where did you see that there were no police at the theater? I have only heard and seen that there were officers on site because of the Batman opening.

AMC thinks they ban guns here in Texas. The only signs I've seen are 30.06 signs printed on 8.5x11 sheets of paper down in the lower corners of one or two of their windows away from the doors. Has anyone seen a proper 30.06 sign at an AMC theater?

Here you go. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-501363_162- ... ome-peers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The AMC at Dunvale near Westheimer in Houston, has the sign stenciled on the doors near the bottom of the door in big letters. I have never compared the writing to see if it is the updated wording, but it looks legit enough. There are fifty front doors, but since it is printed on one of them that seems OK too.

From that article above:

But Hubert Williams, former head of the Newark police department and president of the Police Foundation, said that the idea that average citizens with guns could keep a theater safe only makes sense "on a piece of paper."

"Reality is much more complicated. What if you pull a gun out, take aim and someone else thinks you're the shooter?" he asked. "Would you stand up against an AR-15, AK-47 military-style assault weapon? Give me a break."

"give me a break?" Wow, what a jerk! So surprised to hear that from a LEO. He must have been one of "those types" who lecture any CHL holder they come across about why its a bad idea they have a CHL and how they don't have enough training and they're going to get someone killed (yeah, the bad guy!).

knotquiteawake wrote:From that article above:

But Hubert Williams, former head of the Newark police department and president of the Police Foundation, said that the idea that average citizens with guns could keep a theater safe only makes sense "on a piece of paper."

"Reality is much more complicated. What if you pull a gun out, take aim and someone else thinks you're the shooter?" he asked. "Would you stand up against an AR-15, AK-47 military-style assault weapon? Give me a break."

"give me a break?" Wow, what a jerk! So surprised to hear that from a LEO. He must have been one of "those types" who lecture any CHL holder they come across about why its a bad idea they have a CHL and how they don't have enough training and they're going to get someone killed (yeah, the bad guy!).

In the first place, protecting the people in a theater from an active shooter (whatever that is) is NOT the reason people get licenses, or carry firearms.
Secondly, couldn't the same argument be made against an armed plain-clothes or off-duty cop in the audience?