- Messages
- 346
- Reactions
- 342
It's all just PR. It's their (perhaps misguided) way of saying 'Hey look! We care about the public and are doing everything we can to keep another catastrophe from happening!'...despite the fact that all they're doing is annoying folks such as these forum members. It's just like when they canceled the Batman premieres in other countries immediately following the shooting. Of course they didn't really believe that another shooting was going to take place..they simply wanted some sort of PR way of saying they were being proactive about a solution, despite there being nothing they could really do. They wanted to appear in control to ease the anxiety of the general public so they would feel 'safe' attending their films and parting with their $$. Regal's just following suit. If this new policy of theirs becomes financially burdensome from lost revenue, they'll stop...but only if the loss of $$ from boycotters outweighs the savings in insurance premiums. I think the member who mentioned the anti-gun policy being the brainchild of the insurance company hit the nail on the head. I have found with businesses it's rarely about the well being of the consumer and typically about the liability and profit margins of the company. This policy is case and point.. if someone gets shot on their property, they can say they took reasonable measures to keep firearms out and in doing so it limits their liability. Whether they actually keep firearms out or not, I believe, is hardly their main concern.