You aren't looking for theater regulation, you are looking for gun regulation.

Of course, but like any weaponry guns have no business being inside a movie theatre, especially when children frequent there as often as adults do. The onus is on the theatre company to safeguard those inside which would involve the penetration of hazards (i.e. guns). The behaviour of those carrying them is an uncontrollable variable for the company but that isn’t.

There has been a steady decrease in violent crimes in general, this is simultaneous with a general increase in gun ownership (I am not claiming a causal link, rather claiming that a negative link does not exist). If you wish to see government solutions to madmen with guns, you should seek solutions to madmen.

Indeed, I suppose this does delve into the larger question regarding gun ownership in general. Granted guns are not the exclusive cause of violent crime, but they seem to represent far more of a threat to the general public than other instruments used. The primary purpose of their invention is to kill and their construction is such that murder is far more effortless to achieve on a broad scale than say, a knife (this is why it makes for the ideal weapon of choice for someone with annihilable intentions). I would not say that sole concern with perpetrators presents an overall solution either. The execution of such villainous acts is a manifestation of depraved fantasy which guns accommodate more successfully than other means: instant death = instant gratification.

If you look at a quick timeline of mass shootings, you'll find they cross national borders regardless of the gun regulation of said country (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/timeline-worst-mass-shootings-globe-article-1.1220608)

Be that as it may, what differentiates them all is the frequency. According to your link the US has notably more instances of said occurrences than any of the other countries mentioned in this timeline and each within a closer time frame as well.

I don't know how many theater shootings there have actually been lately, but 2 doesn't make a trend (does Lincoln make 3?). We don't have enough indication that this is even a problem, or actually ever will be. You can't actually think the odds of getting shot in a theater is 50/50, that's ridiculous.

Yes I will concede that was quite an exaggeration on my part; nevertheless I think this sort of tails off from my earlier statement which was that this is an issue that needs serious attention. Once could be dismissed as an anomaly (twice is pushing it) but America has had more than two occasions of this nature in movie theatres and even that aside the recurrence of gun related crime in general makes it even more pressing in installing tighter measures.

There is not even a reason to think that metal detectors would stop a crazy person (didn't Adam Lanza come in through the back exit door?)

Hence the need for a review of the laws. In Lanza’s case the background was pretty lamentable: here was someone whose multiple mental health issues and homicidal tendencies had already been identified…and yet his parents knowing this were heedless of exercising appropriate measures to safeguard/monitor him e.g. removing potential weapons from the house (his mother’s rifle). This is not to say doing so would eradicate Lanza’s obsession, but the chances of it manifesting would have been far less probable.

However, I suppose the ultimate impediment to progress here would be the common attitude of the public and an overwhelming number of Americans appear to favour guns and recalcitrate any manner of restriction on them. So with that to consider it seems difficult to determine whether the situation at hand can be ameliorated.