LETTERS: Movie theater security policy flawed

Movie theater security

It was interesting to read the article regarding Regal Cinemas' new policy of checking all bags prior to patrons entering its theaters ("Movie theaters tighten security," Aug. 22 Review-Journal). The article implied moviegoers are OK with new policy. I am not OK with it, for several reasons.

First, unlike airports, which screen all flyers (men, women and children), Regal Cinemas only screens individual carrying a purse, bag or backpack. This policy does not include a significant portion of patrons. Couldn't an individual without a bag or backpack bring weaponry into a theater?

Second, this screening does not take place prior to the purchase of tickets and concessions, but rather just before one enters the theater. What steps are in place to protect patrons prior to entering the theater? Couldn't an individual do harm to patrons at the time of purchasing a ticket and concessions? If Regal Cinemas truly wants to protect its patrons, it should review the current policy and put stronger steps in place.

I recognize Regal Cinemas' new policy is a knee-jerk reaction (what took so long?) to avoid past issues when a gun was brought into theaters. But name one instance in which a woman or child brought weaponry into theaters and caused loss of life? Yet those same individuals are the ones Regal Cinemas targets with its new policy to search "bags."

Before implementing a policy that provides a false sense of protection, let's look at what is being done and why, and ask the question, "How can all individuals be better protected?"

Robin Arndt

Las Vegas

Gun legislation

I read the article on the shooting death of William Snider ("Man shot dead had history of neighbor disputes," Aug. 28 Review-Journal). The article mentions police had been called to Mr. Snider's residence 40 times for a myriad of reasons, including him accusing neighbors of planting razor blades in his car's engine and cameras in his residence.

Yet with all the information known to the police, neighbors and others, Mr. Snider had a rifle and deliberately caused two Metro SWAT officers to shoot him. The victims here are the officers, not Mr. Snider.

Add the recent shooting of the two reporters in Virginia, and now the comprehensive gun legislation folks are out in full force. What does "comprehensive" mean? What do these advocates specifically want to legislate? Just as with comprehensive immigration reform, what do they want?

All these shooters have pretty much the same thing in common: some level of mental health issues. Are we going to make mental health issues illegal? Can we revise the HIPPA laws? Can we change the reporting requirements to include treatment?

The gun control crowd always comes out of the woodwork but is never specific as to what it would legislate. Get some courage and tell all of us what you really want.

Doug Manookian

Las Vegas

Nuclear non-treaty

We have been snookered with the Iran nuclear deal, which doesn't even have the status of a treaty. It is not at all unreasonable to draw parallels between this and British Prime Minister Neville Chamberlin's ill-advised appeasement of Adolf Hitler in September 1938.

What doesn't the current administration understand about Iran's statements of "Death to America" and "Death to Israel"? This is not empty rhetoric, but rather the stated policy of Iran, a country that always puts its self-interests first and has now, through flawed oversight, achieved from a position of weakness the ability to build a nuclear weapon.

All that's left is for President Barack Obama to stand in the Rose Garden, waving a piece of paper and declaring "peace for our time" as he gloats over another "win" for him and the Democratic Party. But sadly, this is a big loss for international stability. Perhaps the president can further quote Mr. Chamberlain as he tells us this is the best deal for America: "Go home and get a nice, quiet sleep."

Don Brady

Henderson