More security for broadway audiences? — Page 6

I had my tickets to the first showing of the Hunger Games at the Chinese Theater in Hollywood and this was immediately after the Paris attacks. I still went out as I normally would but I can't deny that I was scared. Hollywood Blvd (which is LA's Times Square) is usually packed with people but it was empty that evening. I was more than vigilant. Upon entering the theater, they had metal detectors installed. I know those won't really do much for suicidal gun or bomb wielding maniacs but it did calm my fears down a little.

HogansHero said: "As has been rehearsed here several times already, metal detectors or bomb sniffing dogs offer no security for what happened at Bataclan. And bombs powerful enough to do significant damage cannot be carried in under human power. It seems people like window dressing and worrying about the wrong threats.

"

Personally I don't mind people wanting to talk about it and wanting to have a civilized discussion. As has been "rehearsed" on this board in many threads; if you don't want to talk about something then simply ignore it or don't click on the thread.

Updated On: 12/1/15 at 02:27 PM

Jane2 said: "I agree with you, Dame. If you don't feel at all threatened, then please don't give it a minute's thought.

Those who quote that they don't want to be affected by what "could" happen - well, it' more than "could" happen. It's happened, it's happening, and probably will continue to happen. By definition, terrorism takes place when and where it is not expected. So, no, I don't give it much thought when a terrorist threat consists of when and where they will strike. That only serves to frighten, and that's what they want to do,

Since it "could" happen at any time and any place, there's not a thing wrong with doing what we can to protect ourselves.

"

That is right. Nothing wrong with being vigilant, smart and aware. That doesn't mean living in fear and not going on with your life.

Dame, I don't want not to talk about it. What I want it rational discussion, rational precaution and rational protection. Metal detectors and dogs at Broadway theatres is window dressing-substituting meaningless action for effective action. I can't stop the paranoid for being that way, but if we discuss what the priorities are and should be i think it helps us all.

Seeing that most sidewalk-located orchestra doors (used for exiting) are a few feet from patrons, I guess I'm not clear why someone would need to get a bomb into a theater?

But if people want a dog to sniff them to feel safe anyway, go for it!

I get that for an airplane you need to get stuff through security, but not sure why people think you have to get inside a theater to do damage. Not to mention, they are often suicide bombers. So, they aren't packing C4 around a door and getting a timer rigged up... you just need a pickup truck, pull up onto the sidewalk, and boom.

That is the problem with a lot of this discussion, since we're inventing parameters to feel safe, without any context for actual safety.

Of course, any security system immediately just gives people something to work around, more than anything:

There is no use in speculating about whether it will be a bomb, suicide bomber, gas, machetes, whatever. Stop wasting your time on that. There's no way of knowing what will be used. The only thing we can do, since the govt. isn't interested in doing anything, is trying our best to be protected. You call it paranoid, I call it wise. vive le difference!

Can we revisit why metal detectors are meaningless?

snark--

metal detectors are not meaningless, they are important where they are rationally related to the risk. But they are irrational in theatres, They won't stop gunmen like at Bataclan. That would require an armored fortress to be built in front of every theatre. And it won't stop bombers because, as I said, and as haterobics elegantly explained above, a bomb you can bring into a theatre without being noticed is of minimal effect-a bomber would just drive up the street and blow themselves up-or plow right into the doors and straight into the auditorium. Interdicting small bombs makes sense on planes, where it takes minimal explosion to do horrific damage. Not in a theatre. And yes if you need to imagine what looks irrational, you need look no farther than this very thread.

New York is unquestionably the most secure city on earth and suggesting that our government doesn't do anything to protect us is both unfounded and insulting.

Updated On: 12/1/15 at 04:37 PM

Liza's Headband said: "New York is unquestionably the most secure city on earth and suggesting that our government doesn't do anything to protect us is both unfounded and insulting.

It is hyperbole but it's definitely not "unfounded" (many lobbyists and corporations, who donate to politicians, profit off ineffective security measures -- do your own research for more on this...). It doesn't make it insulting just because you are not as educated on the corporatization of public/private national security as others. We cannot control that. Sorry. "

Huh? I'm all against security profiteering, but to suggest that we are not better protected than any other city on earth is arrant nonsense.

You wanted added security for free? Allow concealed carry permit holders to carry in NYC and in the theaters. I have a CCP and I carry all the time in theaters across the country except NYC. I feel naked in NYC as CCP holders cannot carry in NYC.

If people were allowed guns in Paris, I can assure you it would never been as bad. Without guns in the audience, you are sitting ducks.

Updated On: 12/4/15 at 12:29 AM

haterobics said: "There is nothing safer than crossfire.

"

Maybe. Maybe not but it beats sitting in a fetal position waiting to die. At least you have a fighting chance to save people and get out alive.