[Info-vax] Nice printers for OpenVMS?

[Rich Jordan]

On Aug 6, 8:51 am, koeh... at eisner.nospam.encompasserve.org (Bob
Koehler) wrote:
> In article <0ae50f3f9c9f4efccd8047690ebee... at dizum.com>, Nomen Nescio <nob... at dizum.com> writes:
>
> > That was another odd thing. Open carry is legal in Colorado and so is
> > licensed concealed carry. People in the audience undoubtedly were armed. The
> > problem was (what I read anyway) they thought the killing and mayhem was
> > a stunt in the theatre to go along with the movie. By the time they
> > realized it was actually real it was too late.
>
>    No armed citizen present at the shooting has been found, except for
>    the culprit.
>
>    And just maybe, if there was one, he or she would have the bright
>    idea of not shooting without a clear line of fire.
>
>    I remind you that there was an armed security officer at Columbine,
>    and he did try to get off a few shots when he thought he had a clear
>    line of fire.
>
>    Didn't help.

The Cinemark theater chain has a "gun-free zone" policy.  Under most
states' concealed carry laws private institutions and buildings can,
by posting appropriate signage (usually spelled out in the law),
legally forbid concealed carry holders from carrying their weapons
into the facility.

So the reason there were no law abiding concealed carry holders in
that theater was most likely because they were law-abiding.  When you
jump through the hoops to get a permit, you're unlikely to risk losing
it.

Only the murderer ended up being 'allowed' to be armed.

There's a legal theory that may get tested now that any facility in a
state that chooses to disallow concealed carry must therefore take a
higher level of responsibility for the safety of its visitors, or face
legal consequences.  It will be interesting to see what happens.