"Batman Massacre"

[s_stabeler]

And if someone buys five... then what? Do they get a knock on the door by the Sheriff or the FBI? Even if they get a home visit from the Popo, what is going to be done about it? Buying the guns isn't illegal.

No, further investigation is done to see why so many guns are being purchased

In your opinion. You are not Everyman; other people might well decide that they need a rifle for long-range threats, a shotgun for close-range threats, and a pistol for tight spaces. Heck, they might well decide that they need multiple, in case one runs out of ammo before they can reload. Or any other rationale that they have. Or maybe they just like collecting them.

That's for them to decide... not you.

First, long-range threats? um, sorry to have to tell you this, but they probably aren't a threat to you, ( in the Aurora shooting, a CCW holder probably wouldn't have shot the guy due to there being too much risk of hitting someone innocent) so it wouldn't be a legal shot. Hunting, maybe.

Second, that's why you investigate further. (Not to mention, this is several guns being purchased close together, so the collector probably wouldn't be flagged up, since collectors build up collections slowly.)

Third I'm sorry, but I can't see the rationale behind the average person needing to keep firing past the capacity of a pistol without reloading. A) considering the average person is probably going to be faced with only one lethal threat at a time, if your shooting is that crap, you probably need shooting lessons, not another gun. B) you're probably hitting several innocent people shooting like that, which you would be charged for the murder of. For people that might actually need to shoot at multiple lethal targets (Police and military spring to mind) then they are usually issued weapons.

Okay, let's do that. We'll implement security protocols to prevent that from happening.

We need security guards to guard the exits. Most theaters have doors set up so that two theaters empty out into one alley, so you can guard two theaters with one guard. You'll also need three more guards - one for the lobby, and one for each additional side exit (2 on average).

There are approximately 6000 theaters in the United States, with approximately 40,000 screens between them. At the rate of 3 guards plus 2 per screen, that works out to 38,000 guards.

The average theater operates for approximately 16 hours per day. That works out to 608,000 man-hours (assuming that you don't hire any "relief" guards). At $10 per hour for unarmed guards*, that works out to $6,080,000 per day, or just over 22 billion dollars per year.

* Double that if you want armed guards.

Let's pass that suggestion on to the National Association of Theater Owners, and see how they feel about incurring that expense without raising ticket prices. Or are you willing to have your ticket price raised to around $60 each to cover the cost of all of those security guards?

there's a far cheaper security measure that would also have prevented the Aurora shootings. Alarm the emergency exits. Therefore, if the guy tried to slip out the emergency exits, it sets off an alarm, allowing someone to respond, find the door propped open, shut the door- the guy can't get back in, so can't shoot up the theater.

Ah! You hit on the key word there! SENSIBLE! A sensible reaction to the 9/11 incident was installing reinforced, locking doors on the cockpits of planes and having Air Marshals riding on some flights at random. That was done. The 9/11 hijackings and subsequent tragedies are functionally impossible to do now, at a minimal cost. The TSA screenings are security theater - it's a show to calm the average flyer, it doesn't actually do much (if anything) to stop would-be terrorists. And an expensive show, at that.

well, technically some of the methods are also useful for customs enforecement, but that's on arrival. otherwise, you've probably right on that one.

[Nekojin]

You just solved the Unemployment Crisis. Are you eligible to run for the Presidency?

Yes, I am, but that doesn't solve the problem - not even close. In addition to raising theater ticket prices to unsustainable levels (would you pay $120 to take a date to the movies?), it also shifts would-be attackers to other high-profile targets. Sporting events, shopping malls, schools...

Heck, it doesn't even protect the theaters from a determined and intelligent attacker.

[Hyena Dandy]

Heck, it doesn't even protect the theaters from a determined and intelligent attacker.

Including this one...

Since he entered without a shit-ton of guns, jarred the exit door, left, and came back with a shit-ton of guns.

[Nekojin]

No, further investigation is done to see why so many guns are being purchased

Okay, and then... ??? Finish the thought. If the person doesn't present a profile as a threat, what do you do? If he DOES present a profile as a potential thread, what do you do, given that he hasn't actually committed any crimes yet?

Second, that's why you investigate further. (Not to mention, this is several guns being purchased close together, so the collector probably wouldn't be flagged up, since collectors build up collections slowly.)

And if you make it like that, then a dedicated would-be attacker will buy slowly.

First, long-range threats? um, sorry to have to tell you this, but they probably aren't a threat to you, ( in the Aurora shooting, a CCW holder probably wouldn't have shot the guy due to there being too much risk of hitting someone innocent) so it wouldn't be a legal shot. Hunting, maybe.

Third I'm sorry, but I can't see the rationale behind the average person needing to keep firing past the capacity of a pistol without reloading. A) considering the average person is probably going to be faced with only one lethal threat at a time, if your shooting is that crap, you probably need shooting lessons, not another gun. B) you're probably hitting several innocent people shooting like that, which you would be charged for the murder of. For people that might actually need to shoot at multiple lethal targets (Police and military spring to mind) then they are usually issued weapons.

One threat, eh? So there's no such things as teams of burglars?

there's a far cheaper security measure that would also have prevented the Aurora shootings. Alarm the emergency exits. Therefore, if the guy tried to slip out the emergency exits, it sets off an alarm, allowing someone to respond, find the door propped open, shut the door- the guy can't get back in, so can't shoot up the theater.

Interesting. Theater fire exits used to be alarmed, but virtually every theater in existence stopped doing that decades ago when they had to respond to multiple alarms daily, just because people wanted to go straight to their cars. And you can't lock them, because they're required to be unlocked (at least from the inside) for fire safety measures.

[siead_lietrathua]

how many event screenings do theaters have that are midnight showings/ special events? maybe 3 a year? and say, in 1 or 2 theaters a region/city? and most events are in one screen, maybe two.
so let's go with 3000 theaters having the event, 2 screens per theater. most theaters have a main entrance, two side ones, and in each screen two doors. so that's 8 guards, putting two at the front door, one on each side, and one at each screen inside door, per theater. the event movie time, with prep and whatnot, would be 5 hours max.
so: 3000theatersx 2screensx 8guardsx 3 times a year x5hx $10= $7, 200,000
even having one member of trained security on staff, like an LPO in a retail store, could reduce chances of stupid because people will be aware that there is someone trained on hand.
so: 6000 theaters x 16hday x$20 x365= $700,800,000

PLUS not all those theaters are owned by one company. let's say only the big name companies, the ones with 100 or more theaters in their chain adopt these policies. i'll use AMC theater as an example. they have 207 theaters.
event security: 207 theatersx 2screensx 8guardsx 3 times a year x5hx $10= $496,800
one LPO every day: 207 theaters x 16hday x$20 x365= $24,177,600

so basically, the LPO is like paying for an extra manager to be there. and the event security is less of a cost. i have a feeling that the CEO of AMC takes home a bigger bonus than the event staff cost would be per year, in a quarterly period.


ANYWAY! off to see batman! nananananananana etc

[Andara Bledin]

You just solved the Unemployment Crisis. Are you eligible to run for the Presidency?

Ah, you just ran into the Broken Window Falacy.

Most memorably demonstrated by Zorg in The Fifth Element, where you could rename it the Broken Glass Falacy.

It's worth noting that some of our more high-profile spree shooters actually subscribed to that same falacy.

in the Aurora shooting, a CCW holder probably wouldn't have shot the guy due to there being too much risk of hitting someone innocent

Actually, it is likely that after a few more deaths by the shooter, a CCW holder would have shot, despite the potential to hit innocents.

Anyone that close to the shooter already stood a close to 1 chance of being shot and while it is an excruciating decision to have to make, the bare fact is that the shooter will continue killing people if that chance is not taken.

Alarm the emergency exits.

As often as not, those aren't strictly emergency exits. Those are sometimes standard exits and commonly in frequent use by staff.

I don't think I've ever visited a theater that had an exit that was purely an emergency exit. Due to the nature of the establishment, the doors near the screen are regularly opened in the course of business.

^-.-^

[Nekojin]

how many event screenings do theaters have that are midnight showings/ special events? maybe 3 a year? and say, in 1 or 2 theaters a region/city? and most events are in one screen, maybe two.
so let's go with 3000 theaters having the event, 2 screens per theater. most theaters have a main entrance, two side ones, and in each screen two doors. so that's 8 guards, putting two at the front door, one on each side, and one at each screen inside door, per theater. the event movie time, with prep and whatnot, would be 5 hours max.
so: 3000theatersx 2screensx 8guardsx 3 times a year x5hx $10= $7, 200,000
even having one member of trained security on staff, like an LPO in a retail store, could reduce chances of stupid because people will be aware that there is someone trained on hand.
so: 6000 theaters x 16hday x$20 x365= $700,800,000

PLUS not all those theaters are owned by one company. let's say only the big name companies, the ones with 100 or more theaters in their chain adopt these policies. i'll use AMC theater as an example. they have 207 theaters.
event security: 207 theatersx 2screensx 8guardsx 3 times a year x5hx $10= $496,800
one LPO every day: 207 theaters x 16hday x$20 x365= $24,177,600

so basically, the LPO is like paying for an extra manager to be there. and the event security is less of a cost. i have a feeling that the CEO of AMC takes home a bigger bonus than the event staff cost would be per year, in a quarterly period.


ANYWAY! off to see batman! nananananananana etc

So you acquire all of this extra expense for one night, the grand opening of the show... and a shooter goes the next night, or Saturday night after the premiere, when there's still a full audience, but no significant security presence. Net result: Massive money spent for no actual improvement.

Edit: I'm pointing out that no matter what you do, the dedicated shooter can find a way around your security procedures, particularly if they're willing to take the time to plan the attack. Breivik's planning was downright intricate in the way he avoided detection ahead of time.

[Greenday]

The money grabbing going on is outstanding. I was checking my email and one of the stories was about how people are going to sue the theater. Good luck with that. It's a ridiculous lawsuit. You can't plan for some psycho to go on a shooting rampage.

[s_stabeler]

Okay, and then... ??? Finish the thought. If the person doesn't present a profile as a threat, what do you do? If he DOES present a profile as a potential thread, what do you do, given that he hasn't actually committed any crimes yet?

if he doesn't preent a profile as a threat, you do nothing, which should be obvious. if he does commit a shooting, you update the profile. If he presents a threat, the further investigation dictates your action? mentally ill? then send him to a mental hospital. actively planning a shooting? have cops waiting for him to stop him before he enters with the guns.

And if you make it like that, then a dedicated would-be attacker will buy slowly.

Meaning he needs to take longer to get the guns, increasing the chance of him slipping up somehow and getting caught.

One threat, eh? So there's no such things as teams of burglars?

that article doesn't help your point- only one person was actually possibly shootable- but my point was that suppression fire is unnecessary for civilians, so they have a chance to reload, therefore do not need multiple guns so they can keep shooting w/o reloading.

Interesting. Theater fire exits used to be alarmed, but virtually every theater in existence stopped doing that decades ago when they had to respond to multiple alarms daily, just because people wanted to go straight to their cars. And you can't lock them, because they're required to be unlocked (at least from the inside) for fire safety measures.

True, I suppose. I was merely suggesting a cheaper alternative to guards on the doors, though, in reply to you saying it would cost 22 billion dollars.

Actually, it is likely that after a few more deaths by the shooter, a CCW holder would have shot, despite the potential to hit innocents.

Anyone that close to the shooter already stood a close to 1 chance of being shot and while it is an excruciating decision to have to make, the bare fact is that the shooter will continue killing people if that chance is not taken.

not being a CCW holder myself (I'm in the UK), i can't be sure, but I thought that avoiding hitting someone innocent was a priority for CCW holders? Again, if I'm wrong, i will accept that.

As often as not, those aren't strictly emergency exits. Those are sometimes standard exits and commonly in frequent use by staff.

I don't think I've ever visited a theater that had an exit that was purely an emergency exit. Due to the nature of the establishment, the doors near the screen are regularly opened in the course of business.

^-.-^

OK, I'll grant that is a problem however, would that not be possible to avoid by making them openable only one way ( out) with some form of override for staff?

So you acquire all of this extra expense for one night, the grand opening of the show... and a shooter goes the next night, or Saturday night after the premiere, when there's still a full audience, but no significant security presence. Net result: Massive money spent for no actual improvement.

Edit: I'm pointing out that no matter what you do, the dedicated shooter can find a way around your security procedures, particularly if they're willing to take the time to plan the attack. Breivik's planning was downright intricate in the way he avoided detection ahead of time.

Yes, someone truly determined will always get through. However, by taking reasonable steps (I don't think anything I've suggested is entirely unreasonable) you can reduce that number as low as possible.

[Nekojin]

True, I suppose. I was merely suggesting a cheaper alternative to guards on the doors, though, in reply to you saying it would cost 22 billion dollars.

The 22 billion figure was two things: First, it was an example of Scary Big Numbers, which goes on in threads like this ("Spree shooters killed SO MANY PEOPLE over the past decade!"). Second, it was a short-cut to the end argument that Siead started anyway.

1.) Protect on the big events.
1a.) Shooter goes on a different non-big-event night with a full house.
2.) Protect on other full-house nights.
2a.) Shooter goes in through a low-rating theater with only a few viewers, and crosses the hall to the full house theater before shooting.
3. (and final)) Protect every showing in every theater.

Of course, the response to 3 is that the shooter goes somewhere else that isn't protected.

You can't proactively protect against anomalous events. You just can't. Hand-waving about how something needs to be done is just a waste of time. We even have a smiley for it - :flail: (Edit: I guess that's on the other forum)

if he doesn't preent a profile as a threat, you do nothing, which should be obvious. if he does commit a shooting, you update the profile. If he presents a threat, the further investigation dictates your action? mentally ill? then send him to a mental hospital. actively planning a shooting? have cops waiting for him to stop him before he enters with the guns.

How do you send him to a mental hospital without violating his right to due process?

[s_stabeler]

nekojin:

as for your frst point, you're right, there is a possible slippery slope. which is why you say we are comfortable doing this, and no more. note I said reasonable- you simply have to decide what you deem reasonable. I think some increased protection is reasonable (I do agree that putting guards on the exits is unreasonable, by the way) however.

as for your second point, involuntary committment to a mental hospital is already legal if someone is showing signs of being a danger to others. as a general rule? the person is committed for 72 hours, to be seen by a psychiatric doctor. if he thinks the perosn needs to be committed, then they go before a judge, who rules on if someone should be kept committed for a longer term ( usually, it is reviewed by a judge every 6 months) is it a breach of rights? that's debated, but it has generally been ruled that where someone is a danger to others, they can be.

[Andara Bledin]

not being a CCW holder myself (I'm in the UK), i can't be sure, but I thought that avoiding hitting someone innocent was a priority for CCW holders? Again, if I'm wrong, i will accept that.

While that is a priority, it is also a priority to protect others. It is up to the individual in the situation to make the judgment as to when one priority supersedes the other.

What I posted earlier was actually based on the comments of two people who are CCW holders weighing in on whether the situation could have been altered by having a CCW holder present.

One of them made a point that if they were there with family/friends, their number one priority would be to get those with them to safety regardless of other considerations. Only after that would he then assess the situation for possible solutions and while it would be terrible if he were to hit a bystander while attempting to take down the shooter, just the act of him firing back would allow many others to escape as the shooter would then focus on the potential threat instead of picking off random individuals.

In the various ways he surmised that it could play out, there was very little downside to acting that wasn't dramatically over-shadowed by the downside of not acting at all.

^-.-^

[s_stabeler]

in that case, I'll admit I was wrong there. As I said, i don't know any CCW holders myself.

[Nekojin]

as for your frst point, you're right, there is a possible slippery slope. which is why you say we are comfortable doing this, and no more. note I said reasonable- you simply have to decide what you deem reasonable. I think some increased protection is reasonable (I do agree that putting guards on the exits is unreasonable, by the way) however.

I'm always willing to entertain ideas for improvements in the system. I even gave several suggestions back on page 10, to whit:

1.) Schools need to start being more aggressive in dealing with bullying. Quite a few of the School Shooting people (Loughner, Cho, Harris and Klebold - for starters) were bullied in school. While it's only a correlation so far, it's a very strong one.

2.) Schools could perform periodic psychological evaluation starting at a fairly young age, and hopefully spot sociopaths before they learn how to camouflage themselves. This one, admittedly, is very unlikely, as most people would view it as a gross invasion of privacy.

as for your second point, involuntary committment to a mental hospital is already legal if someone is showing signs of being a danger to others. as a general rule? the person is committed for 72 hours, to be seen by a psychiatric doctor. if he thinks the perosn needs to be committed, then they go before a judge, who rules on if someone should be kept committed for a longer term ( usually, it is reviewed by a judge every 6 months) is it a breach of rights? that's debated, but it has generally been ruled that where someone is a danger to others, they can be.

Sure, but that still requires action on someone's part - several someones, actually - to get to the point that they're committed. Detective So-and-So says that Johnny Perp fits the profile and has been making suspicious purchases. But he hasn't committed any crimes yet, and you don't know where, when, or even IF he's actually planning to do anything. That's too flimsy for a judge to even issue a search warrant, much less a psych commitment. And even if you do get to the point of a court hearing, you still run the risk of him coming across as stable and reasonably upset at having been arrested on flimsy grounds.

[HYHYBT]

I've seen exit doors that would do the trick: a revolving door, made of horizontal bars like the teeth of a comb, built to turn only one way and with a complementary comb the bars have to pass between on what would otherwise be the entry side. You'd need a standard door inside it to keep light out and AC in, but they do work and they do exist.

This is still, of course, such a rare event (and almost as easily done using the regular entrance anyway) that it's not worth doing.