I feel as though the joke movie inciting shootings is something that we have no proof would actually happen, personally I wouldn’t worry about it, but if you are worried that’s understandable. So get tickets for like a Saturday morning, that’s a safer time and the tickets are cheaper:)
1 Like
@Batjamags I’ll put it even more bluntly: I could make way more money than I do now if I started selling illegal drugs. But those public authorities would try to stop me from doing that! At some point (whether we like it or not) public safety overrides profit motives, and I find it somewhat strange (though not very) and frustrating how far an industry can go. I mean, just what is the situation here? A branch of the US government (the military no less) is there, we have enough reason to believe that this movie screening will cause a horrible thing to happen that we issued a warning. But, the screenings are going to happen anyway because money?
We live in an overreacting culture. Im gonna see it this weekend. I have no more fear of seeing it than i do any other movie. If i had to place my money on it, somewhere there might be a sighting of a possible shooting but nothing will happen. However even the chance of it happening and being stopped will make the media report on it and they feed this fear mongering more then they already have.
2 Likes
I’m not scared. That said, I am absolutely worried. I think from a statistical perspective, it’s unlikely that my theater will be one (of hopefully none) to get hit, but I can’t help but fret for the safety of everyone going to see the movie. I’m going with a friend, and I’m going to have a good night (even if the movie is garbage) and I’m going to eat popcorn and I’m not going to be scared. But like I said, I am absolutely worried. All the best to those going to see the movie.
2 Likes
If the authorities knew with certainty that an attack would happen, movie theaters still wouldn’t be at fault for opening. I dislike that our society has a bad tendency of blaming people who did nothing wrong and expecting the government to stop innocent people from going about their business. The only person to blame for a violent act is the perpetrator. Everybody who conducts their business civilly deserves zero blame. There’s a 100% chance that someone will be murdered today by something. Should all businesses shut down just to be safe? Should authorities keep everyone confined to their homes? Do individuals have no responsibility to decide what risks they incur?
3 Likes
Isn’t the whole “someone will be killed today no matter what” a bit of a false equivalency? This isn’t a car crash or some other accident. This is an individual acting out in extreme and preventable violence. Yes, the blame falls on the perpatrator, but theatres should try to be as prepared as possible given the society we live in. That’s why schools are increasing security and various other changes. The perpatrator is at fault, but the lack of preparation falls on the theatres after an explicit warning was put out by the government. And this is coming from someone who is seeing it opening night and think something most likely won’t happen.
1 Like
Every situation is unique, and granted, my example was taking the line of thought to an extreme, but it’s the same basic premise. Possible threats exist around us constantly. Just because one particular one has been raised in our awareness, that doesn’t mean every possible measure must be taken to avoid it. To respond to any threat of violence targeted against a certain business would give the terrorists the ability to shut down all of society with a few words, and people can make an informed choice about whether or not they want to risk going to a targeted film. I’m not sure what gives people the impression theaters aren’t increasing security.
1 Like
I don’t think it gives them the ability to shut down society. It’s moreso about ensuring we are prepared for the dangers that our society has to deal with. Gun violence/violence in general has become more extreme and common over the past three years. It’s not about shutting down theatres or any other business, it’s about ensuring that all businesses are prepared to keep their customers safe and the police are capable of ending threats as quickly as possible. America, for whatever reason, has been resilient to gun reform. So until something can be done to keep weapons of mass harm out of people’s hands, society must be prepared to protect itself.
Actually BatWatch isn’t far off the mark. We know liquor stores and gas stations are the most held up locations, with generally the most violence. Should they be closed in the name of public safety? Should those businesses be held responsible for those deaths?
Is it an “accident” if someone is killed in a car by a drunk driver? Or someone texting while driving? And yes, we know the statistical probability of fatal car crashes. We also know the statistical probability of being killed by a mass shooting/terrorist attack.
I’m all in for serious gun control. However, they can move from guns to car bombs, to running down people with cars. You might slow violence down, but, if you really want to create terror, you can. Not having access to guns didn’t stop the IRA from committing a large number of terrorist attack in the UK.
Even the military, in its communication said, be cautious and aware. Not don’t go.
If you want to prevent more deaths than terrorist attacks, remove all cars from the road. You’ll save a lot more lives. By putting kids in prison lockdown (aka: scool) are we really preparing them for the outside world? People seem to think school shootings are a new thing. They aren’t. It was only until Columbine, which occurred in an upper middle class and (yeah I’ll say it) mostly white neighborhood, stuff like that didn’t make the national news. When these same school shootings were happening in “da hood”, they weren’t very news worthy. Compton and Watts installed single entry, with metal detectors, and armed cops on campus back in the early 80’s. Did it lessen school shootings…some. But there was a noticeable uptick in mall shootings and neighborhood drive-byes.
The illusion that “the government cane keep people safe” is really that…an illusion. Can surveillance, intelligence gathering, and gun control lessen your odds of being killed in a terrorist attack. A bit. But, it’s not going to stop them. Ask the UK.
My sister was studying in London and was head back the her flat. She stopped into a Sansbury’s Express (think 7-11) for a pack of cigarettes. After picking them up she was taking her same path home, and was a block away from the Chelsea Barracks Bombing. If she hadn’t of stopped for that pack of cigarettes she would have been on the same block on the same side of the street as that car bomb.
My former employer asked me in August of 2001 to move my scheduled trip from September to October. (save on Q1 expenses). So I did. Our offices were in WTC 2. My original return date was 9/12. I would have been in WTC 2 on that fateful day. A decent chunk of people I knew in that building made it out, more than a couple didn’t.
Most of the time things fall into the dumb luck category. We all live with risk. Sometimes you’re just in the wrong place at the wrong time. Most times you ain’t. What did the 72 Munich massacre, the Manson family murders, the Zodiac killer, the Chelsea bombing & 9/11 teach me or reinforce, always be aware of what is going on around you. Ultimately, that’s my job, not the job of the government. They can do only what they can do. And the truth is, that ain’t much. That’s the truth. That’s reality.
Let’s stop teaching kids the only way to be safe is to be in lockdown. Let’s stop bs-ing our citizens that the government can keep them safe and admit they can mitigate a small portion of risk, but that’s it. Let’s put the responsibility of safety on to the people, where it actually is. We can do that and still have strict gun control. The two are not mutually exclusive. Ask most of Europe.
But, gun control or not, we all live with risk. The answer to the question how much risk are you willing to take is different for each person and there is no right or wrong answer. But, to make an informed decision, honesty and transparency are the standards we need to use.
1 Like
Okay, so there’s a lot to address there. It seems to go off topic a bit, so I’m not going to respond to everything. (I read it though, do think I’m disregarding your points. I just don’t want to stray from the main concept of the thread.) Okay, so, I never said to shut down the theaters. I am saying we need to increase the amount security, precautions, and safety plans should anything happen. Perhaps a patrol car in area. Yes, mass shootings aren’t new, in fact they haven’t even increased. According to the standard (4 or more lives lost in one tragedy), we’ve remained at the average. However, the amount of extreme mass shootings such where we see upwards of 10 or more lives lost/injured have increased. (This may have changed, but this was what I saw last year when I wrote my thesis paper on the topic of legislative reform regarding mass shootings). I agree that it’s ridiculous that the gun violence of low income areas aren’t covered more, but there has been a shift. The reason why we should be focused on this film in particular possibly increasing risks of violence is undoubtedly tied to the Aurora shooting, as well as the overall obsession people may have with the character. This isn’t the equivalent of a car crash (drunk driver or not), as this would be a premeditated attempt to take a high number of lives. At the end of the day, statistics shouldn’t be used to take away from the tragedy of any life lost. Go see the film if you want (I’m going opening night), but be cautious and report anyone who may be suspicious. (I probably won’t respond any further. I don’t like spamming threads, especially with long essays between two people since I know it can be a turn off for people who want to try and jump in. But feel free to respond to any point I made and I’ll be sure to read it. Or reach out to me on the Discord server for a longer private message conversation.)
I haven’t seen anybody suggest theaters shouldn’t increase their security. I’m arguing against those that suggested that the movie should bypass showing it in theaters and that theaters were being evil by not sacrificing their business for the sake of eliminating all risk.
As far as I’m concerned when people start suggesting that we should lose our civil liberties or shut down businesses for fear of what might possibly happen, then society is breaking down.
3 Likes
I think it’s stupid there have been tons of violent movies over the years most people will see this movie and not feel like going on a killing spree I’m just not a believer in violence in movies and video games affecting people to the point that they try to act that violence out in real life if some one is mentally unstable it’s a matter of time before they do something to them selves or others any way the only way to stop it is human intervention
Basically what I’m saying is if you are too afraid to see this movie your to afraid to live life in general which is sad
Okay, this is my actual last comment, sorry. But that is just completely false. Being afraid of possibly dying in a mass shooting doesn’t make you ill-equipped for life. The dangers we face in everyday life is not even equivalent to that fear, and I think it’s insulting to the victims who have lost their lives because of it. Once again, the Aurora shooting shows that there is a link between this character and violence. I love the Joker, I’m super excited for this film, and I’m not saying the film wants you to sympathize with the Joker or is trying to promote violence. But there is a link, a clear one, that people with mental illness will link onto this character and try to manipulate it to justify their actions (the Sandy Hook shooter did this with the story of Travis the Chimp). I’m not saying if you like or love the joker that you’re a threat, I’m saying there is a justified reason to fear how mentally ill people may use this character. No one really wants to boycott the film or make theaters close, most people just want everyone to be safe. I’m sorry, I won’t respond again. (I’m keeping to it this time lol).
1 Like
Also, it’s important to remember that people with mental illness or mental health issues aren’t a threat. I don’t want to propagate that fear/misjudgment. These are just sick people; it’s not just because they’re depressed or mentally ill because there’s many reasons why people may want to commit mass violence.
2 Likes
Listen I’m not saying that I don’t have compassion for the people or loved ones of people who have been involved in mass shooting events obviously it is aweful and horrible and my heart goes out to them but my point is a mass shooting can happen any where any time and if you are afraid that a event like this is around any corner your always gonna be afraid to live your life which in my opinion does make you I’ll equiped for life if your constanly afraid you will end up going no where and doing nothing what kind of life is that just go live your life you can’t be worried your going to die at all times what would happen if you didn’t go and enjoy things in life and a mass shooting happens right out side your house and you get shot through your window are you gonna be happy you lived your life terrified and hiding from the world or are you gonna regret never having done the things you wanted to do with your life I for one rather do what I want when I want and if I die so be it at least I lived life the way it should be lived doing the things that make me happy
2 Likes
Also I’m my opinion the only people who would commit such violence are mentally ill I don’t think I know a single sane person who would want to shoot/kill dozens upon dozens of innocent people if you think there is somebody out there that is sane but still want to commit such acts maybe you need to rethink your own mental health
@OmniLad, I respectfully disagree. People who do these terrible things are mentally ill. People do crimes because they come from bad situations.
2 Likes
@redhood.lots of numbers
I agree
1 Like
Not all people who choose to end the lives of others are mentally ill, nor have they come from bad backgrounds. All it takes is a small push for someone to do wrong. “All it takes is one bad day.” There are plenty of people in history who weren’t mentally ill or from bad background who have done terrible things.
1 Like