Subscribe now to get the latest news on guns, gear, gun rights, and personal defense delivered straight to your inbox daily!

Required fields are bold...

Email Address:
First Name:
Zip Code:

Quote of the Day: Massad Ayoob Common Sense Cinemark Boycott Edition

“Debate over whether a court would determine that the ‘guns forbidden’ policy carried power of law seems moot: we’re talking practical reality here. Most of us go by the common sense precept, ‘Do not go where you are not wanted.’ Armed citizens who could have stopped the killer were clearly notified by the company policy that ‘they were not welcome there.’ When you make potential rescuers unwelcome, do not blame those potential rescuers for not being there when the disaster happens, and the death toll mounts because what could have stopped the killing has been banned from your establishment.” – Massad Ayoob,


  1. avatar Ralph says:

    Mas Ayoob is right on target, as always. Hey, vendors, google, stores, establishments: Love my money? Love my gun, or ESAD. Your choice.

    1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

      ESAD? Don’t sugar coat it Ralph, tell us how you really feel 😉

      I agree, if they don’t want “our kind” there, then they won’t get our money, simple. Although if their policy is “no guns allowed,” did they at least have armed security and / or metal detectors there? (I know, I know, the guy went out the back door to get his stuff, so does it really matter?).

      1. avatar Taurus609 says:

        M.P. Shouldn’t an alarm have gone off when the coward opened that door? And shouldn’t the off duty LEO security guards they employ have responded to said open door? And if they had, even if they had stopped for donuts, they should have arrived before he suited up, and loaded up for his cowardly act! So where were the security folks when this all started to go down?

    2. avatar Accur81 says:

      Voting with your dollars and your business contacts. Excellent!

    3. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

      Ayoob is conveniently forgetting about Loughner, who WAS NOT stopped by all those “rescuers” in the crowd.

      1. avatar Mark Horning says:

        What are you talking about? Laughner was tackled and taken down by a CCW holder. He chose not to shoot because of the crowd, but he definitely took action.

        1. avatar Brian.Z says:

          Yes, but to mention that would be to show a CCW using good judgement and not acting like the lunatic they were attempting to stop, and we can’t have that, can we?

        2. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          What are YOU talking about? Are you saying that incident was an example of how armed citizens make us safer?

          Besides there were several others in the crowd who for one reason or another took no action whatever. Your hero was too late because that’s the nature of those sudden and unexpected attacks. You concealed carry guys don’t help.

        3. avatar tdiinva says:

          Well Mr. Bonomo, what about the Williams guy in the Florida internet cafe or the spree shooting that didn’t happen 9 months ago in Aurora because of the presence of a CHL holder? Not every situation has to be preventable for CCW to be a positive factor.

          When a CHL holder doesn’t stop a crime because he exercise judgement you say it’s useless. In other places you say that CHL holders will just blaze away causing more damage than the actual shooter. So wbich is it?

          Michael Bonomo: always on the side the gang banger, rapist and spree shooter.

        4. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          You’re making shit up again, td.

          “In other places you say that CHL holders will just blaze away causing more damage than the actual shooter.”

          I usually point out the impotence of gun owners like you.

        5. avatar Matt in FL says:

          You didn’t answer the question, mike.

          What’s your answer to the guy in Ocala or the interrupted spree in Aurora?

        6. avatar tdiinva says:

          Come now Mr. Bonomo, certainly you saw the you tube video where Mr. Williams deals with the hoodied thugs. July 13, 2012. Just in case you haven’t …

          and the earlier Aurora church shooting….

          I guess you were wrong.

          As far as potency I’m not the one on Viagra!

          Michael Bonomo: always the criminals best friend — it takes one to know one.

        7. avatar The Pit Boxer says:

          Oh, this is just ridiculous. Because concealed carriers weren’t able to stop the 100 or so spree murders in the last 10 years, they are impotent and shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns? If a carrier stops a would-be spree killer (such as the Aurora church shooting) it’s a bonus. The reason most carry is to protect themselves and their family, and they do this every day.

        8. avatar Mikeb302000 says:

          I didn’t say you shouldn’t be allowed to carry guns.

          I say you shouldn’t be allowed to claim that we’re so much safer with you sheep-dogs out there. We’re not.

        9. avatar Matt in FL says:

          Still didn’t answer tdiinva‘s question, Mike.

        10. avatar mikeb302000 says:

          You caught me again not answering the question. It must have been because it was too tough for me and I was totally stumped by it, after all tdiinva is an incredible intellect with those searing interrogatives.

          Or maybe it was because it was such a stupid question that I though it required no response. It seemed to suppose that I’m saying NO concealed carry guy EVER stopped a crime. I don’t say that.

          What I do say is it’s so rare that you guys should not continue to claim all the benefits of concealed carry like you do.

        11. avatar tdiinva says:

          Mr. Bonomo:

          It’s so rare that there are almost daily examples.

      2. avatar Lemming says:

        There are certainly examples of civilians stopping armed maniacs.

        I’m unclear, however, as to why anyone, particularly MikeB, would expect that every single spree killer would be stopped by someone carrying? I don’t think anybody proposes that increased ability of folks to defend themselves would _eliminate_ this sort of thing.

        1. avatar BuddhaKat says:

          At least they could try. Better than throwing popcorn at the bad guy.

  2. avatar jwm says:


  3. avatar .9mm says:

    And that’s the bottom line.

  4. avatar Michael B. says:

    We really should get a widespread boycott of Cinemark going. It’s high time that we stopped tolerating and supporting (if you haven’t already) establishments that would have us potentially be sheep to the slaughter in exchange for a few hours of entertainment.

  5. avatar irock350 says:

    The question I have been asking myself is what was the likelihood that there was an audience member who has a concealed license and left their gun at home. I think it’s very low that someone had a chl in the theatre and left their gun, I also don’t think it’s very likely that the no guns policy kept anyone from going to see the midnight showing. But that’s my thoughts, I haven’t heard of any of the victims having a chl or not.

    1. avatar Scott Henrichs says:

      I haven’t gone to a theater in years for exactly this reason. Why should I support a business that doesn’t want me there?

    2. avatar Matt in FL says:

      irock350: The question I have been asking myself is what was the likelihood that there was an audience member who has a concealed license and left their gun at home.

      I’m also curious about that, and about something I’m else that I’m certain we’ll never know. That other thing is if someone was there, was armed in defiance of a stupid rule, and did not take a shot. There are any number of reasons that could happen, anything from proximity to the door and just getting TFO, or panicking and forgetting they had their own weapon, or lack of preparedness (not enough realistic thought/training) to actually use it, or simply not having a reasonable shot from where they were hunkered down.

      I don’t believe that we’ll ever hear about it, if there was someone, and I wouldn’t blame them for speaking up. If they exist, they likely feel bad enough without all the scorn and derision that would be heaped on them by all the Internet Tough Guys who are already talking about what “they would have done.” They don’t need to hear from others about “what you should have done.”

  6. avatar GOOFA says:

    “Words of wisdom” yes, Massad is right on.

  7. avatar Sanchanim says:

    I think the local theater for us in CA is AMC, and surprisingly they don’t post anything about CCW. ha!!!
    I guess they figure it is CA so no one carries right…
    i should clarify it isn’t posted on their doors in plane sight, not saying there isn’t a corporate policy.

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      Maybe it’s better to ask forgiveness than permission?

      1. avatar LongPurple says:

        It’s not always better.
        As long as you do something good, you can be certain of forgiveness. If it is a neutral result, most likely you can get away with it. But if something bad happens, pucker up your anus and brace yourself.

        1. avatar girlswithguns says:

          “As long as you do something good, you can be certain of forgiveness.”

          Not in CA. Here it’s “use a gun, go to jail” and zero tolerance.

  8. avatar Brian.Z says:

    I went to Cinema De Lux in MA today and didn’t see any signs. Also on the plus side is the assigned seating and concessions delivered right to your seat. Not a bad way to roll. They’ve got my business.

    1. avatar Ralph says:

      I’ve never seen a “no guns” sign at a private business in MA. Well, not yet, anyway. BTW, “no gun” signs have the force of law in MA.

      The Commonwealth is a kooky place — consistent with Democratic Party orthodoxy, it’s generally antigun, but without excessive restrictions on where a licensed person can carry. Kooky.

      1. avatar Rich says:

        >> BTW, “no gun” signs have the force of law in MA

        I don’t believe that is correct.

  9. avatar LLARMS says:

    Boycott of the movie theaters?

    Consider it done, because I haven’t paid those highway robbery prices but once (Act of Valor) in the last 5 years.

    I would give them WAY more patronage if I could get some popcorn, a soda, and a ticket for under $20 for me and my wife. lol

    1. avatar Nathan says:

      Supply and demand. Most people don’t have a problem with paying $10 for a ticket alone. Why charge less than what people will pay?

  10. avatar إبليس says:

    Mr. Ayoob nails it again.

  11. avatar tdiinva says:

    No gun polices are often a condition of getting insurance and while I might not like it I understand why businesses prohibit guns. Look at it from their perspective. If there is an incident and they allowed guns then they would get sued. If a mall patron shot someone as collateral damage they get sued. If they hire someone and give him gun and he shoots someone they get sued. Why do you think that mall security is unarmed? Now if the cops come in and shoot the wrong person they are off the hook. They are already off the hook if a bad guy shoots someone because they posted the no guns. The only way to change the equation is if someone sues and wins becasue they were injured or a loved one killed who had a CHL but complied with the no guns policy. At that point they might as well let legal guns in the establishment.

    1. avatar Greg Camp says:

      They can’t buy insurance if they don’t have customers. As others have said above, I don’t often go to theaters these days. There aren’t many movies worth spending that kind of money to go see. Add to that the obnoxious audience members who shoot their mouths off, either yammering on a phone or commenting on the film, and it’s just rarely worth the bother. When I do go, there’s a theater nearby that doesn’t have signs posted, although it would be a typical response to put some up now that this incident has happened.

    2. avatar Sammy says:

      Do you think they will not be sued? A court could very well decide that the theater was screening a violent movie and did not provide adequate security. People have sued, and won, because of coffee being hot. Just sayin’

    3. avatar BuddhaKat says:

      So you think the theater isn’t going to get sued by some of the victims? According to the gossip, the fire door exit wasn’t alarmed. They were talking about it on the local radio yesterday and one of the people on said that the alarm itself costs about a thousand dollars per door. Hindsight is 20/20 I guess. They’ll pay through the nose for that cost saving decision.

    4. avatar Rich says:

      Maybe Ralph can chime in here…

      The no gun rules created by establishments will continue until they get sued for not providing adequate security. When it becomes more expensive to ban guns than not, guns will continue to be banned.

      It would seem to me that by banning guns, they are creating an implied warranty of security. If bad stuff happens, they could conceivably be on the hook for some kind of specific liability.

    5. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      trial whores, I mean lawyers, will sue for anything. A business with a no guns sign is NOT off the hook just because they post. What happens is their insurance carrier will settle the suit quietly and pay something. There is a cost/benefit analysis they have done to value your life and the likelihood of something to occur that causes a payout. What we really need is a victim or family that refuses the bribe and goes to trial so the company execs are put on the stand and have to explain their position.

    6. avatar Totenglocke says:

      Except that a theater is MUCH more at fault if they ban guns and something like Aurora happens. Sure they “might” get that .0000000001% of CCW holders who misuses their gun, but the odds are far greater that someone who is a criminal will ignore their stupid signs and then everyone who’s not a bad guy is left defenseless.

      I hope they get sued to hell and back for banning CCW.

    7. avatar tdiinva says:

      Only a direct ruling that failure to allow a CHL holder to carry a gun will change the economics of gun free zones.. Sure, Cinemark will get sued and lose for failure to provide adequate security but that isn’t going to effect a no guns policy. They will simply hire guards and put up metal detectors.

  12. avatar Greg in Allston says:

    As always, Mas is succinct and poignant; “Debate over whether a court would determine that the “guns forbidden” policy carried power of law seems moot: we’re talking practical reality here. Most of us go by the common sense precept, “Do not go where you are not wanted.” Armed citizens who could have stopped the killer were clearly notified by the company policy that “they were not welcome there.”
    When you make potential rescuers unwelcome, do not blame those potential rescuers for not being there when the disaster happens, and the death toll mounts because what could have stopped the killing has been banned from your establishment.” If anyone beyond the shooter has blood on their hands, it is the corporate officers that allowed and encourage such a reckless policy to be in place under their “guardianship”.

    Mas has the wisdom and experience to know of where he speaks. As he said, “: we’re talking practical reality here. ” Yes, indeed, we are. Don’t go where you are not welcome. Don’t compromise your safety to comply with some irrational edict. Don’t allow your rationality, integrity and honor to be undermined by foolishness and stupidity. Life is full of risks, act wisely to mitigate them as best as you humanly can. Do not be fearful of what “might” happen. Prepare your mind, strengthen your body and steel your resolve to face whatever may come your way with honor and dignity.

  13. avatar Know What I am Talking About says:

    I stopped going to movie theaters years ago because for the most part I can just wait a few months and the movies are out on various media outlets or Blue Ray or DVD or whatever. Besides, I got sick of sticky floors, crying babies, adults who act like children or can’t control their own kids, cell phone lights from texting, tweeting or facebooking, outrageously expensive soda, popcorn and candy, and what else . . . oh yeah, because they won’t let me carry my gun in there. Edit: I did anyway and ignored the signs.

    But I agree with Mr. Ayoob on this one 100%.

  14. avatar gc says:

    Went to the Galaxy 14 Cine inRochester Mn. this weekend, its a Wehrenberg Theater. Big Signs On the Front Doors NO GUNS. nothing about knives, forks or spoons or small atonic weapons. If I hadn’t been meeting other out of town family there would not have gone. Feels naked, flew out of Ca to Mn and backto Ca going back to Az so I can get dressed again. Agree with Mr. Asyoob completely.

  15. avatar Ian says:

    Meh, ignore the signs. in Texas its a crime for your concealed gun to become unconcealed so you take the same legal risk carrying. Its at worst.a class a misdemeanor. I’ve seen many people caught trying to get guns into an airport, never seen an arrest. Just say you forgot.

  16. avatar Joseph says:

    Hello everyone,

    I chose not to argue with mikeb, that would be a major waste of time like I just waist time to say it…

    I agree with “Massad Ayoob” statement completely. I maybe sounding callus but they chose to go into a place that publicly stated they did not want anyone who was able to defend themselves or others in there establishment. Beyond that no one can blame anyone or thing above and beyond their own chose and the actions of people. Folks that blame inanimate objects just refuse to face the facts and cower from the truth that every person on this planet is capable of doing something that would be deemed a horrible act to another person.

    I have traveled outside of America time and time again and it still amazes me at how clueless we citizens are as to how good we have it and how safe it is here. Compared to the rest of the planet I think that Canada and the Scandinavia countries are currently the only places safer and I attribute that to the cold and lower population densities. Though even Norway, voted safes country in the world with the lowest violence is not immune to those who can not control their emotions enough to stop them self from doing wrong. But this is also my opinion so it’s as good as a fart in a wind storm.
    Take care and just ignore or institutionalize those who have no grip on reality. Oh, and those who have done a large quantity of mind altering drugs from the 60’s & 70’s, you’ll get farther arguing with a brick….

    Best of luck all, keep safe, have fun, and always have a .40 withing 6″ ‘s and the world will be a happier, safer, and more polite place to live…

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email