Disney revises guns-to-work policy (myFOXOrlando)

Status
Not open for further replies.

imagineer boy

Well-Known Member
Sorry if this has been brought up, I'm too lazy to read the whole thread.

But how about tasers? I can understand why they'd want a gun, because rough customers come to Disney a lot, but I think only security guards should have guns. I think it would be frair if CMs could have tasers.
 

EPCOT.nut

Well-Known Member
Sorry if this has been brought up, I'm too lazy to read the whole thread.

But how about tasers? I can understand why they'd want a gun, because rough customers come to Disney a lot, but I think only security guards should have guns. I think it would be frair if CMs could have tasers.

The tasers are only for use on the Brazilian Tour Groups. I established that last year.

:lol:
 

dox

New Member
Just curious, why does Disney have the right to dispute a public law? If every other company in Florida has to uphold the right to carry a concealed weapon in car why not Disney?

Ummm I don't know. Maybe its a guess...but just maybe because this is the United States of America and the Constitution grants us the right to challenge any law in Court we feel violates our rights as citizens. I don't know just guessing. :brick:
 

mkt

When a paradise is lost go straight to Disney™
Premium Member
Sorry if this has been brought up, I'm too lazy to read the whole thread.

But how about tasers? I can understand why they'd want a gun, because rough customers come to Disney a lot, but I think only security guards should have guns. I think it would be frair if CMs could have tasers.
I think that is the worst idea ever said on these message boards. Ever.
 

dandaman

Well-Known Member
My opinion (again, feel free to substitute your own!) is that giving a person a taser in lieu of a gun basically invites them to use it freely because it's "less dangerous". Heck, as far as I can remember, in the past year there have been at least two, possibly three taser-related deaths in Canadian airports. Handing these devices to untrained CM's would bring more poential danger than security.

The security guards with guns? I say no as well, though perhaps tasers could be implemented only with extensive training.
 

sbkline

Well-Known Member
I think security guards should always have guns. What happens if/when someone actually packs a gun with them to WDW with the intent of harming someone and they come up to the gates to have their bags checked by these unarmed guards? Security doesn't make me feel very safe when they don't even have weapons with which to defend themselves or enforce their authority if needed.
 

Vince3

New Member
Call me old school but, I think everybody should be packing.
People would think twice of doing something rash if everybody carried a gun.
If not, it would be an ideal way to weed out the stupid people.
The threat of force helps keep people in line.
 

Club Cooloholic

Well-Known Member
Call me old school but, I think everybody should be packing.
People would think twice of doing something rash if everybody carried a gun.
If not, it would be an ideal way to weed out the stupid people.
The threat of force helps keep people in line.

Old school? When in our history did everyone carry a loaded gun?
And how would that weed out the stupid people? I live near Philadelphia where gun violence occurs nearly every other day. A lot of the people killed were innocent bystanders, childeren, etc.
It takes no time at all to pull out a hand gun and pull the trigger. So how could I take my gun out if somebody pulls one on me already and shoots me?
I really don't see the logic of this at all, but then again, I am also someone who could take care of himself without needing a gun to compensate for anything.

As for the threat of force keeping people in line that sounds like a quote from a dictator.
 

dandaman

Well-Known Member
^Not to mention the first shot would start a chain reaction of people knee-jerking their weapons... not good.
 

fosse76

Well-Known Member
Not having read the ENITIRE thread, but I swear, some pro-gun people act as if they live in the middle of a war zone. The odds that the average person will need a gun for protection are lower in places with gun bans, and having one may end up being worse than not having one. That said the odds that the average person will need a gun for protection in places that allow guns isn't much higher than without. Either way the odds of the average person needing a gun for protection are pretty low. Arming "innocent" people isn't going to make anyone safer. It may cause petty crime to decrease, but won't have much affect on intentional violent crime (in other words, a mugger most likely wouldn't kill you unless provoked, so might not mug you if he thinks you are armed. But if you are specifically targeted, it won't stop him).

Pro-gun people act as if in the good 'ol days people walked around packing heat...well it was illegal at the founding of our country so it should be now. We had no national military...the average citizens needed weapons in case the country to went to war or there was an uprising. They had the added benefit of protecting ones home and hunting for food. The idea that you need to travel around the country with one is ridiculous, and you most certainly don't need to bring one with you to work.

Yes there are bad people out there. No gun bans won't stop them from using guns. But ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to do what is right. Unfortunately there are bad people in this world who are going to always do what they do. Arming the citizenry isn't going to stop them. How long before we hear about teachers shooting students in Texas because they were reaching for a cell phone but the teacher thought it was a gun?
 

yankspy

Well-Known Member
Not having read the ENITIRE thread, but I swear, some pro-gun people act as if they live in the middle of a war zone. The odds that the average person will need a gun for protection are lower in places with gun bans, and having one may end up being worse than not having one. That said the odds that the average person will need a gun for protection in places that allow guns isn't much higher than without. Either way the odds of the average person needing a gun for protection are pretty low. Arming "innocent" people isn't going to make anyone safer. It may cause petty crime to decrease, but won't have much affect on intentional violent crime (in other words, a mugger most likely wouldn't kill you unless provoked, so might not mug you if he thinks you are armed. But if you are specifically targeted, it won't stop him).

Pro-gun people act as if in the good 'ol days people walked around packing heat...well it was illegal at the founding of our country so it should be now. We had no national military...the average citizens needed weapons in case the country to went to war or there was an uprising. They had the added benefit of protecting ones home and hunting for food. The idea that you need to travel around the country with one is ridiculous, and you most certainly don't need to bring one with you to work.

Yes there are bad people out there. No gun bans won't stop them from using guns. But ordinary citizens cannot be trusted to do what is right. Unfortunately there are bad people in this world who are going to always do what they do. Arming the citizenry isn't going to stop them. How long before we hear about teachers shooting students in Texas because they were reaching for a cell phone but the teacher thought it was a gun?
There are many valid arguments to this issue on both sides. You are not going to come up with the answer in three paragraphs.
 

fosse76

Well-Known Member
There are many valid arguments to this issue on both sides. You are not going to come up with the answer in three paragraphs.

Since you clearly had nothing to say, why did you even bother replying...or am I not allowed to even reply to a thread because you don't think my response is long enough?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom