Loaded gun found on Animal Kingdom ride

[dadddio]

Jumping into this, I'd be in favor of good guys with guns shooting back. But not tourist civilians with whom we have no idea how good or mediocre they are. I'd prefer to have Disney have a security protocol in place to handle this so civilians were not required to prove their worth here. If Disney does not have a protocol in place, they are foolish. I don't want a firefight to take place that does not have at least one side of the equation having trained and prepared to operate in this sort of a situation.

You know, it occurs to me that our country has been in a shooting war for the last dozen years. As such, loads of our 'tourist civilians' know exactly how good or mediocre they are. In a psycho shooter scenario, I welcome some of these 'tourist civilians'.

Of course, the debate in this thread is completely silly, since it is actually verboten for anyone other than on-duty LEOs whose juridiction is WDW to carry a firearm on WDW property.

 

[bsiev1977]

You know, it occurs to me that our country has been in a shooting war for the last dozen years. As such, loads of our 'tourist civilians' know exactly how good or mediocre they are. In a psycho shooter scenario, I welcome some of these 'tourist civilians'.

Of course, the debate in this thread is completely silly, since it is actually against the law for anyone other than on-duty LEOs whose juridiction is WDW to carry a firearm on WDW property.

Exactly, on both your points.

 

[bubbles1812]

I think that's a false dichotomy, though, is what I am saying. I am, again, assuming without inside knowledge that TDO and nearby law enforcement have entertained the possibility that the world's most famous vacation destination *could* be an attractive target for a murderous psychopath terrorist, and that they have a plan to respond should such a situation occur. And I'm assuming these trained professionals would be better equipped to handle the situation than the tourist who goes hunting or to the shooting range once a month. And I'm assuming that a situation in which the professional responders are incapacitated while the bad guy goes on an indefinite rampage is such a remote possibility that it's not realistic.

Stop using logic! That's not allowed round' these here parts... You are distracting me from the varmits I need to take out.

 

[c-one]

I would venture that it's a lesser amount than that of idiots who are driving around you when visiting. Btw, you have a better chance of dying in an auto accident than you do in a firearm related death.

There are risks to just about everything. Most people would say the benefit of timely, reliable transportation outweighs the risk of dying in a car crash. I'm of the opinion that there are not enough benefits to carrying a loaded gun in a theme park to outweigh the risk of what might go wrong in that scenario. Others disagree there.

 

[draybook]

There are risks to just about everything. Most people would say the benefit of timely, reliable transportation outweighs the risk of dying in a car crash. I'm of the opinion that there are not enough benefits to carrying a loaded gun in a theme park to outweigh the risk of what might go wrong in that scenario. Others disagree there.

I would agree. In most public places I would see some advantage, but not a theme park.

 

[sshindel]

Wait. It's staring us all right in the face. Disney DOES have armed security officers in place right now:

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Some people want to be prepared for anything. You say he doesn't need a gun at WDW. Look at the incident today. The guy who lost the pistol in AK didn't have any ill intent toward anyone, he was just stupid. But, he was able to carry his weapon into the park. Therefore, someone WITH bad intentions can just as easily get a weapon into the parks.

This is still not a valid excuse to break the rules and take a gun into the parks.

 

[dadddio]

I said they exist quite well without a lifestyle that include guns - so no guns in the private sphere. Huge difference.

Also, the USA do have the huge advantage of being a very difficult place to invade. So geography might have a lot to do with that - as well as economic strength.

Don't forget guns of all types and sizes. They certainly are effective at keeping the bad guys at bay.

 

[Animaniac93-98]

Wait. It's staring us all right in the face. Disney DOES have armed security officers in place right now:

Since when are those guys capable of hitting anything?

 

[PhotoDave219]

AGREED!!!
Agreed. Better, IMO, to at least try to stop the bad guy, though.

"Just let him kill as many children as he wants" seems, on it's face, a little more foolish than trying to stop him.

Hey. There's an astroid coming to. I saw the movie once.

 

[sshindel]

Since when are those guys capable of hitting anything?

They lightly singed Leia's arm once. Killed them a few Ewoks. I think Pooh and the Country Bears should be a little afraid of some of the crossfire if they were ever called into duty.

 

[bsiev1977]

This is still not a valid excuse to break the rules and take a gun into the parks.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with that thought.
The post you responded to I was commenting on the idea that "bad guys" can't get weapons in the park, negating the need for "good guys" to carry theirs.

 

[dadddio]

I think that's a false dichotomy, though, is what I am saying. I am, again, assuming without inside knowledge that TDO and nearby law enforcement have entertained the possibility that the world's most famous vacation destination *could* be an attractive target for a murderous psychopath terrorist, and that they have a plan to respond should such a situation occur. And I'm assuming these trained professionals would be better equipped to handle the situation than the tourist who goes hunting or to the shooting range once a month. And I'm assuming that a situation in which the professional responders are incapacitated while the bad guy goes on an indefinite rampage is such a remote possibility that it's not realistic.

I think that those professionals would be better equipped and trained to deal with the situation several minutes into the attack. In the first minute or two, an armed citizen is the best bet because he's the only bet. If he/she can save child five through twenty-two from getting killed, then yippee.

That being said, the point is moot since WDW is a no-carry zone.

 

[bsiev1977]

Stop using logic! That's not allowed round' these here parts... You are distracting me from the varmits I need to take out.

Now, you wouldn't be trying to lump all legal gun owners in with a certain segment of the American population, are you?

 

[dadddio]

I'll bet that Grandma is pretty happy that she was the one sitting on someone's loaded gun, not her grandson.

I'll bet that she is. However, let's not overhype the danger. As I understand it, the weapon had no round in the chamber and the safety was engaged. Chances are, her grandson would not have been able to fire off a round before someone stepped in.

 

[G00fyDad]

I'll bet that she is. However, let's not overhype the danger. As I understand it, the weapon had no round in the chamber and the safety was engaged. Chances are, her grandson would not have been able to fire off a round before someone stepped in.

I wouldn't take that bet.

I fired a round off into my uncles wall in his living room once when I was a child. It was unchambered and the safety was on when I picked it up too. Its amazing what kids learn on television.

 

[JimJam]

He had obviously taken it on Dinosaur! to take down the T-Rex...

 

[G00fyDad]

He had obviously taken it on Dinosaur! to take down the T-Rex...

Isn't the lack of upkeep killing that ride already?

 

[dadddio]

I wouldn't take that bet.

I fired a round off into my uncles wall in his living room once when I was a child. It was unchambered and the safety was on when I picked it up too. Its amazing what kids learn on television.

I hope that you missed the last few words of my post. Otherwise, I'm scared of you.

 

[Lord_Vader]

Like I said, it was dumb and careless of him, and yes it is serious. And, IF someone had been injured by it, then YES, I would want him held fully responsible for the damages/injuries caused, but the fact is that the gun was not fired, and nobody was hurt. However, in this country, we only charge people when an actual crime has been committed, and while this was careless, it was not a crime, except maybe of stupidity.

Exept the fact that a crime may have been commited, he carried a conceiled weapon onto private property that states no weapons allowed. At the least he should be charged with carrying a conceiled weapon and if he had a permit, it should be promptly revoked.