Is Disney World Safe

[draybook]

Now this is an idiotic statement if I ever heard one.

Im unsure why you think its idiotic.

Indeed, I'd like to know how his factual statement is so idiotic.

 

[brifraz]

Ok. I know I said I was out, but I just have 1 last question. What is the purpose of a semi-automatic assault rifle? How about hollow point bullets? Handguns for protection, I understand. A regular rifle for hunting, I understand. I don't know what kind of crazy deer live around you guys, but who hunts with a semi-automatic rifle? The real answer is outside of military or law enforcement use (where trained professionals handle these weapons) semi-automatic guns are only used for 1 thing, to kill people. The kicker is in 35 states you can buy 1 at a gun show without even the mandatory background check. The gun rights people and the NRA are so hell bent on stopping any restrictions on guns that they refuse to budge even on these issues. You can list a thousand different incidents involving attacks with knives, baseball bats or even fists that resulted in deaths and use that as a defense against gun control, but hands have a ton of uses beyond killing, so do baseball bats and kitchen knives. Semi-automatic guns, no practical use but to kill.

I think this is one of the best spoken comments in this (considerably off topic) discussion. As you said, a handgun for protection or a rifle for sport are reasonable and what I think the NRA should be focused on protecting and promoting. I cannot understand the need to protect the right of the average citizen to own assault weapons with high capacity ammo magazines. I doubt that the writers of the 2nd amendment, as they took approximately half a minute to reload before each pull of the trigger, expected their words to defend a piece of machinery that to them would be a weapon of mass destruction.

On the actual topic at hand - as a public school teacher for the past 18 years - I feel much safer at Disney than in the school in which I teach. But I don't feel unsafe in either.

 

[Beholder]

Pro-gun, anti-gun, the one thing that, I believe, differentiates between the low vs high gun violence stats in relationship to the relevant gun laws is culture. Something is just "wrong" with a society that covets and admires violence to the point of glorification and entertainment. The gun is not the problem, just as the knife, chainsaw, metal pipe, or fist is not the problem. Factoring in our penchant for violent entertainment, a world that continues to sink even lower in it's depravity, and the cheap price of human life, it's no wonder things are getting this way. My father used to take a .22 rifle to school (1950's) to may hunt or just shoot cans on the way home. Can you even imagine that scenario now? I'm expressing a viewpoint based on personal observation and experience, I'm not preaching or "knowing it all", but things HAVE changed. I choose to have the means to protect me and mine with whatever is legally available to me. It's my choice to do so, I do that with an extreme amount of caution and respect for the potential power of a firearm.

To touch on a question posed earlier about the "need" for a semi-automatic rifle. Most people use them for sporting, such as plinking, target competition and even hunting. I guess no one NEEDS one per say, just as no one NEEDS 625 HP street car, or a motorcycle that will go 250 mph. The responsible use and ownership poses little or no problems, it's the .001% with psychological issues that create the danger. And outside of giving everyone a mandatory psych profile, profiling on that basis just isn't going to work.

 

[FettFan]

Ok. I know I said I was out, but I just have 1 last question. What is the purpose of a semi-automatic assault rifle? How about hollow point bullets? Handguns for protection, I understand. A regular rifle for hunting, I understand. I don't know what kind of crazy deer live around you guys, but who hunts with a semi-automatic rifle? The real answer is outside of military or law enforcement use (where trained professionals handle these weapons) semi-automatic guns are only used for 1 thing, to kill people. The kicker is in 35 states you can buy 1 at a gun show without even the mandatory background check. The gun rights people and the NRA are so hell bent on stopping any restrictions on guns that they refuse to budge even on these issues. You can list a thousand different incidents involving attacks with knives, baseball bats or even fists that resulted in deaths and use that as a defense against gun control, but hands have a ton of uses beyond killing, so do baseball bats and kitchen knives. Semi-automatic guns, no practical use but to kill.

1. Hollow point ammunition is made so that if you are ever in a situation where you need to shoot someone, the round will spread enough that when it goes in them, it stays in them, unlike a Full Metal Jacket round, which has a greater risk of passing through their body and hurting someone else.
That's why Bonded Hollow Points are standard rounds for police officers.

2. There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifle". The term "semi-automatic" simply means that when you squeeze the trigger, the round is fired. The gun's action will racket back, expel the spent cartridge and automatically load a new cartridge. From that point, it is ready to fire again, when the shooter squeezes the trigger. The rate of fire depends solely on how often the shooter pulls the trigger.

It might surprise you that the majority of hunting rifles and shotguns manufactured today are in fact semi-automatic.
Here is a girl with a Mossberg 930 semi-auto shotgun.


Concordantly, a true Assault Rifle is fully automatic, and will shoot in three-round bursts. And despite what the politicians like to claim, these weapons are only legal in the civilian market if one is willing to go through numerous federal background checks and are issued a special (and expensive) permit by your local State Police. It is impossible to simply walk into a Dicks, Cabelas, or Gander Mountain and buy one same-day.

The media and politicians love throwing out the term "semi-automatic assault rifle" because it's a buzzword. They also do not know a thing about guns, and are describing the gun by how it looks rather than how it functions. If a gun LOOKS scary, then it must be bad news and should be banned. For example, there was proposed legislation to ban guns with "Barrel Shrouds". The pol. who introduced the bill even admitted to not knowing what a barrel shroud is. (btw, it's a piece that surrounds the barrel to keep the shooter from burning his or her hands, akin to the handpiece or pump on wooden or polymer stock guns)

Before you argue the pros and cons of gun control, I would urge you to learn a little bit more about guns, perhaps even go to a local range and actually get some shooting time in with an instructor. It might not change your mind, but at least it will show you the other side of the argument.

The issue isn't as black and white as the media and politicians want you to believe.

 

[FettFan]

Like I said in a previous post. We will never see meaningful gun reform in this country in my lifetime so no worries.

And I will argue that we will never see a decrease in gun violence in this country if the politicians and mass media continue to keep the general population either ignorant or misinformed about firearms.

 

[ratherbeinwdw]

1. Hollow point ammunition is made so that if you are ever in a situation where you need to shoot someone, the round will spread enough that when it goes in them, it stays in them, unlike a Full Metal Jacket round, which has a greater risk of passing through their body and hurting someone else.
That's why Bonded Hollow Points are standard rounds for police officers.

2. There is no such thing as a "semi-automatic assault rifle". The term "semi-automatic" simply means that when you squeeze the trigger, the round is fired. The gun's action will racket back, expel the spent cartridge and automatically load a new cartridge. From that point, it is ready to fire again, when the shooter squeezes the trigger. The rate of fire depends solely on how often the shooter pulls the trigger.

It might surprise you that the majority of hunting rifles and shotguns manufactured today are in fact semi-automatic.
Here is a girl with a Mossberg 930 semi-auto shotgun.


Concordantly, a true Assault Rifle is fully automatic, and will shoot in three-round bursts. And despite what the politicians like to claim, these weapons are only legal in the civilian market if one is willing to go through numerous federal background checks and are issued a special (and expensive) permit by your local State Police. It is impossible to simply walk into a Dicks, Cabelas, or Gander Mountain and buy one same-day.

That's not where most people get them. I watched a show where anyone was able to look online, find a seller, and meet them in a parking lot. No ID. No oversite at all. They were able to do this over and over. The people who could get the guns bought tons of them and then resold them to anyone who had the money. And, contrary to what you will say, most people who bought them were not criminals who would get them anyway. They were people who collect guns. However, stealing them from these people is one way the criminals got their hands on the guns to commit crimes. They may not be able to afford them, but they surely can steal them.
No human can walk into a classroom with two teachers and 20 children and kill them all within 2 minutes without one of these guns. At least some of these little children could have gotten away. Guns do kill people.

The media and politicians love throwing out the term "semi-automatic assault rifle" because it's a buzzword. They also do not know a thing about guns, and are describing the gun by how it looks rather than how it functions. If a gun LOOKS scary, then it must be bad news and should be banned. For example, there was proposed legislation to ban guns with "Barrel Shrouds". The pol. who introduced the bill even admitted to not knowing what a barrel shroud is. (btw, it's a piece that surrounds the barrel to keep the shooter from burning his or her hands, akin to the handpiece or pump on wooden or polymer stock guns)

Before you argue the pros and cons of gun control, I would urge you to learn a little bit more about guns, perhaps even go to a local range and actually get some shooting time in with an instructor. It might not change your mind, but at least it will show you the other side of the argument.

The issue isn't as black and white as the media and politicians want you to believe.

 

[FettFan]

I'm sorry but I quit listening when you said "I watched a show". Television programs (especially "documentaries") are edited only show you what they want you to see, and advance their own viewpoint.

For example, if we were to believe Chris Hansen and Dateline NBC, there are at least a hundred child molesters living on every American suburban block.

 

[Skibum1970]

Like I said in a previous post. We will never see meaningful gun reform in this country in my lifetime so no worries.

Gaining familiarity might cause people to change their minds and thus won't happen. Believing that the media will present anything fair and intelligently is way too much to expect.

I would also point back to Prohibition. Drinking alcohol was illegal and yet the federal government was powerless to stop it and criminals found it easy to obtain. I firmly believe that if ownership of firearms was outlawed that the criminals would still be just as well armed through illicit sales and the honest people would be easy prey. Plus, look into the Fast and the Furious operation (not the movie) and see how well thought out the government handles things.

As was also brought out, anything can and will be used by nutjobs with the intentions to do bad things. 9/11 was actually carried out with box openers. The horrible bombing in Oklahoma City was done with fertilizer and other easily obtained chemicals. Bad people will do bad things. Hopefully, we never see anything horrible like this happen at any theme park and yes, the bag checkers should actually check bags. However, I don't want to through screening like TSA just to get into Disney.

 

[luv]

Like I said in a previous post. We will never see meaningful gun reform in this country in my lifetime so no worries.

That poster made a good point. Before you go on a diatribe against something, you might want to make sure it exists.

People are much more likely to listen and possibly be swayed when you aren't talking gibberish.

If you just want to spout off and have anti-gun people agree with you, you need not make any sense at all. But if you want to present an honest argument that could change minds, you should learn at least basic terminology.

 

[FettFan]

I don't think either of us will change each other's minds on this. How about at least a limit on the magazine capacity? How many rounds are needed to take down a deer?

Limiting magazine capacity is a useless, symbolic gesture that won't really stop anything if someone is hell-bent on mass murder. Can't get a 30-round mag? No worries, just pick up five six-rounders off the shelf.

 

[disney fan 13]

Limiting magazine capacity is a useless, symbolic gesture that won't really stop anything if someone is hell-bent on mass murder. Can't get a 30-round mag? No worries, just pick up five six-rounders off the shelf.

Exactly, if you know how to use your gun, it can only take 5-10 seconds to reload ( unless we're talking about a shotgun)

 

[flynnibus]

I doubt that the writers of the 2nd amendment, as they took approximately half a minute to reload before each pull of the trigger, expected their words to defend a piece of machinery that to them would be a weapon of mass destruction.

tell that to the indians.. who had perfectly fine bow and arrows for hunting.. that were no match against an invader/dominator with far superior weapons.

The 2nd admendment was not about protecting the right to hunt or be a target shooter. It was to prevent the government from de-arming the public so it could not stand-up to the federal government.

The idea of comparing muskets vs assault weapons has no real meaning today. The government isn't going to suppress it's people with muskets today either.

 

[FettFan]

tell that to the indians.. who had perfectly fine bow and arrows for hunting.. that were no match against an invader/dominator with far superior weapons.

The 2nd admendment was not about protecting the right to hunt or be a target shooter. It was to prevent the government from de-arming the public so it could not stand-up to the federal government.

The idea of comparing muskets vs assault weapons has no real meaning today. The government isn't going to suppress it's people with muskets today either.

Exactly, Flynn. I could also use that same "founding fathers" logic as a tool to limit freedom of speech.

Example: The Internet was not around in 1791, so therefore it is not bound by the First Amendment and needs stricter regulation to prevent online sexual predators and Facebook bullies.

 

[Jo DeVil]

That is it. The bag search is an illusion of safety and nothing more. So the only ones who would plan on doing something bad are going to bring a bag? No chance. You can walk right in with your pockets full and without a second look.

The bag searching is seen as a deterrent, if you have chance of being searched ie caught they will move on to an easier target. Disney does what they can. We know from tours in the Gulf and Afghanistan, being safe is a state of mind. If you spend every day thinking what could happen you would never get out of bed.
Yes Hatter Dunblane was 1996 and for us in the UK we couldn't believe it. It was a very say day in our history.
Our hearts go out to those in Cincinnati.

 

[brifraz]

tell that to the indians.. who had perfectly fine bow and arrows for hunting.. that were no match against an invader/dominator with far superior weapons...The idea of comparing muskets vs assault weapons has no real meaning today. The government isn't going to suppress it's people with muskets today either.

I totally agree, but I'm don't think I understand where you are going with that. My point was regarding the frame of mind of the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The point I was trying to make (albeit not very well, but that is why I teach music and not forensics) is at that time, I would assume that one of those gentlemen (who are far brighter than I) considered the possibility of misuse of said weapons. Even in misuse a single wielder of a musket on a full out rampage (assuming two loaded weapons to start) would likely take about 45 minutes to kill 26 individuals and during reload time could possibly be confronted and disarmed. A bow and arrow actually loads more quickly, but is less likely to provide an immediate kill shot.

The 2nd admendment was not about protecting the right to hunt or be a target shooter. It was to prevent the government from de-arming the public so it could not stand-up to the federal government.

Again, I totally agree with your point. But, in my opinion it has been over 100 years since the initial intent of the 2nd Amendment has been realized or even reasonable. One of the great things about our Constitution in the US is the ability to change it over time built into its very text. The problem is that we live in a culture unwilling to discuss and compromise with anyone who disagrees. I certainly don't have the answers and I appreciate the discussion, Flynn.

 

[flynnibus]

I totally agree, but I'm don't think I understand where you are going with that. My point was regarding the frame of mind of the writers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. The point I was trying to make (albeit not very well, but that is why I teach music and not forensics) is at that time, I would assume that one of those gentlemen (who are far brighter than I) considered the possibility of misuse of said weapons

The real difference is an armed society of independents vs a society of dependents. We have shaped our laws and society into a dependent community that relies on the government for everything from services to personal protection.

The inclusion of the 2nd amendment or not never hinged on safety - but about limited government and the concept that the people could not be subjugated by runaway government. Centralized government was a volatile concept - they didn't want a king, and they wanted powerful states. The right to remain armed and form militia were safeguards to ensure the federal government was kept in check.

Even in misuse a single wielder of a musket on a full out rampage (assuming two loaded weapons to start) would likely take about 45 minutes to kill 26 individuals and during reload time could possibly be confronted and disarmed. A bow and arrow actually loads more quickly, but is less likely to provide an immediate kill shot.

They were the deadliest weapons short of canon available in the world at the time. Guns were a way of life to ensure personal safety - from both nature AND other people. People had a strong desire for independence - and didn't want to be dependent on government for everything.

Again, I totally agree with your point. But, in my opinion it has been over 100 years since the initial intent of the 2nd Amendment has been realized or even reasonable

Really? Try telling that to the societies that have risen up against their governments over the last 100 years.. heck in the last 2 years. Our media has been free of government control for over 200 years. It was in part how our own country was able to start a civil war against its own federal government.

The problem is that we live in a culture unwilling to discuss and compromise with anyone who disagrees. I certainly don't have the answers and I appreciate the discussion, Flynn.

I don't think it's people are unwilling to discuss - its just some concepts shouldn't be compromised - because they are kingpins to larger ideals. It's why the amendments are generally ideals - and not just specific laws. Not everyone is passionate about the same ideals to the same degree. That's the difference.

Doesn't matter if its religion...
Freedom of press...
Racial issues...

Disparity in beliefs and passion.. always lead to what some believe to be stone walling.

 

[Florida_is_hot]

Guns do not kill people, people kill people is one of the dumbest pro-gun arguments I ever heard. Use facts time after these tragedies occur in the USA and NOT Canada because in Canada we regulate guns. Sure mentally sick people will always be around but Americans make it easy for them to buy weapons.

 

[draybook]

Guns do not kill people, people kill people is one of the dumbest pro-gun arguments I ever heard. Use facts time after these tragedies occur in the USA and NOT Canada because in Canada we regulate guns. Sure mentally sick people will always be around but Americans make it easy for them to buy weapons.

So you're saying that before guns there was no murder? So, thousands upon thousands of people die each year in DUI accidents, should we ban or severely regulate cars? Most cars can get up to 130mph, if not slightly faster. Why? There's no need for that since most states have a max speed limit of 70mph.

 

[Gabe1]

Its only the efficiency and ease that has improved.

And if you take away the guns then what is next they blow up buildings like Oklahoma? Fly planes into buildings?
Mass deaths in gas chambers, beheadings of large groups in Mexico? Heck, Gacy took 33 boys with a pen and string? Eliminating guns will stop it? think not.

 

[Gabe1]

Now this is an idiotic statement if I ever heard one.

Curious? It seemed to be a pretty accurate statement as that is how they gained control of the aircrafts. Where are you going with idiotic? You didn't follow you statement up. Again curious.