Man Arrested after trying to bring gun into Epcot

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony the Tigger

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
s8film40 said:
Exactly! When you create a known gun free zone you have a responsibility to make sure it is actually gun free. Disney has failed miserably at this. WDW is less safe with their security checkpoints than if they did nothing at all. Look at Universal for example they send EVERYONE through a metal detector and can ensure a level of consistency. At WDW if someone wanted to do harm they have a really decent chance of not being randomly selected, and even if selected they can simply return to their car and try again another day or a little later.
Click to expand...

I'm fine with more screenings. No guns, no exceptions other than law-enforcement. People can leave their mental issues home.
 
CaptainAmerica

CaptainAmerica

Well-Known Member
Musicman20 said:
Thank god this was caught. I won't say much as we have differing laws in the UK, but weapons DO NOT belong anywhere near these types of places regardless, unless they are concealed by well trained staff/security/police.
Click to expand...
If the entire populace were well trained, it wouldn't be an issue.
 
ABQ

ABQ

Well-Known Member
Well, I guess it's "news" so it warrants a post, but does anyone think this thread is going to do anything but go the way the number of others covering similar topics, or in the case of the guy caught at the MK, the same topic?
 
Jon81uk

Jon81uk

Well-Known Member
egg said:
I assume, with all fairness, that if someone is trying to get a gun past security, they are attempting murder. That is, unless or until we know otherwise.
Click to expand...

It might be becuase I am British but I would also make a similar assumption. There are no gun ranges, or game for shooting in the parks. So I assume anyone (including law enforcement) is carrying a gun with the intent to harm another human being. In the case of law enforcement this is usually a good thing, they will not shoot to kill (in general) and will only shoot if they have to. But even if you are going after the " I carry a gun so I can shoot back at someone else with a gun" line then you are intending to cause physical harm to another human with your firearm. So yes the assumption of murder might be a little far, but every gun carrier in a public place must be intending to cause harm to someone, otherwise why carry the firearm.
 
s8film40

s8film40

Well-Known Member
Tony the Tigger said:
I'm fine with more screenings. No guns, no exceptions other than law-enforcement. People can leave their mental issues home.
Click to expand...
Someone who carries a gun doesn't automatically have "mental issues". I don't by any means condone carrying a gun to WDW, but to broadly characterize people in that way is just plain ignorant. There are a vast number of responsible people who carry weapons for protection, off duty police and veterans are perfect examples. All that being said I don't think this is a discussion about wether guns should or shouldn't be allowed, they obviously aren't however this is very weakly enforced.

I find it amusing that so many people's response to this is something along the lines of "thankfully they were caught". The reality is that anyone's odds of getting "caught" is probably not even 1in 5. Additionally those who are caught that have permits are simply turned away and the incident is never heard of. So doing some simple math tells us that there is essentially an absolute certainty that there are in fact armed individuals in the park. To me this security check points should be all or nothing, there's really no point at all in disarming a fraction of the population.
 
s8film40

s8film40

Well-Known Member
Jon81uk said:
It might be becuase I am British but I would also make a similar assumption. There are no gun ranges, or game for shooting in the parks. So I assume anyone (including law enforcement) is carrying a gun with the intent to harm another human being. In the case of law enforcement this is usually a good thing, they will not shoot to kill (in general) and will only shoot if they have to. But even if you are going after the " I carry a gun so I can shoot back at someone else with a gun" line then you are intending to cause physical harm to another human with your firearm. So yes the assumption of murder might be a little far, but every gun carrier in a public place must be intending to cause harm to someone, otherwise why carry the firearm.
Click to expand...
I'm avoiding addressing most of this because I don't feel this is valid part of this discussion, but I wanted to make one point that a lot of people look at the wrong way. Police to not shoot to kill or harm, they are trained to shoot to stop. The intent isn't to kill the person involved in violence but to stop them from continuing.
 
Jon81uk

Jon81uk

Well-Known Member
s8film40 said:
I'm avoiding addressing most of this because I don't feel this is valid part of this discussion, but I wanted to make one point that a lot of people look at the wrong way. Police to not shoot to kill or harm, they are trained to shoot to stop. The intent isn't to kill the person involved in violence but to stop them from continuing.
Click to expand...

Yes, the difference between the police having firearms in public and joe public having them is very different. And if Joe Public did shoot to stop, they are still going to cause harm of some form.
 
s8film40

s8film40

Well-Known Member
Jon81uk said:
Yes, the difference between the police having firearms in public and joe public having them is very different. And if Joe Public did shoot to stop, they are still going to cause harm of some form.
Click to expand...
Well again this isn't really part of the discussion, but there are people in the general population who do take on the responsibility of taking the training to be as effective and responsible as the police. Police officers aren't magical beings that are the only ones that posses the power to use guns safely, they're ordinary citizens who've been trained to do a job. That training is available to anyone who wishes to pursue it. There are a great many examples where ordinary citizens were able to save lives and were appreciated by the fellow citizens they protected and the police who couldn't be in the position they were. Again none of this matters, Disney has rules against this and those rules should be respected and that's what this is really about. My biggest issue is that if they are going to have these rules they should enforce them consistently. When children enter rides they don't randomly select which ones to height check, this shouldn't be any different and in fact should be taken more seriously.
 
Tony the Tigger

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
Jon81uk said:
It might be becuase I am British but I would also make a similar assumption. There are no gun ranges, or game for shooting in the parks. So I assume anyone (including law enforcement) is carrying a gun with the intent to harm another human being. In the case of law enforcement this is usually a good thing, they will not shoot to kill (in general) and will only shoot if they have to. But even if you are going after the " I carry a gun so I can shoot back at someone else with a gun" line then you are intending to cause physical harm to another human with your firearm. So yes the assumption of murder might be a little far, but every gun carrier in a public place must be intending to cause harm to someone, otherwise why carry the firearm.
Click to expand...

There's been a brainwashing (or lack of brain washing) in the US in the last few decades; suddenly the right wing thinks everyone should be armed at all times, romantic notions of the "Wild West" and Steven Seagal. They don't realize how many of them will NOT WIN every gunfight, and it only takes one. It's mind-blowing the way people think sometimes. It's grown into a political issue, a machismo issue, and to me, in many cases, a racial issue, and a mental issue. (Actually, "mental" covers most of those bases - it doesn't have to mean stark raving mad, just having psychological defects, insecurities, irrational fears (phobias) etc. So what that boils down to is the "other" reason for carrying a gun to the park, besides murderous intent, is a distorted notion of self-protection, no matter how irrational.

s8film40 said:
Someone who carries a gun doesn't automatically have "mental issues".
Click to expand...

...unless they think they need to carry it into Walt Disney World.
 
Tony the Tigger

Tony the Tigger

Well-Known Member
s8film40 said:
Well again this isn't really part of the discussion, but there are people in the general population who do take on the responsibility of taking the training to be as effective and responsible as the police. Police officers aren't magical beings that are the only ones that posses the power to use guns safely, they're ordinary citizens who've been trained to do a job. That training is available to anyone who wishes to pursue it. There are a great many examples where ordinary citizens were able to save lives and were appreciated by the fellow citizens they protected and the police who couldn't be in the position they were. Again none of this matters, Disney has rules against this and those rules should be respected and that's what this is really about. My biggest issue is that if they are going to have these rules they should enforce them consistently. When children enter rides they don't randomly select which ones to height check, this shouldn't be any different and in fact should be taken more seriously.
Click to expand...

If such level of training were mandatory for every not-so-smart person with a gun, you might (might) have a point.

The rest of us are supposed to trust that anyone with a gun has training? Isn't reckless? Has good intentions?

Does everyone feel the same about all races doing that?

Think of how many fools can't drive a car properly. Now put a gun in their hands. The former is bad enough.

Think of how many men with tiny egos feel they have to prove something. Think of how many racists who are afraid of a person of color walking towards them. But society at large is supposed to trust that anyone with a license to carry/conceal/whatever is magically a good guy and a good shot? Just stop.

If I have to carry a gun in my daily life for fear of safety, then I would consider myself living in a hell hole.

If I carry it just because I can, then I would consider myself a different kind of -hole.

The vast majority of people get though this life without ever owning a gun, concurrently without ever getting shot or threatened to be shot.

Anyone else who isn't hunting for sport or keeping a handgun in their nightstand for protection is suspect in my book.
 
s8film40

s8film40

Well-Known Member
Tony the Tigger said:
There's been a brainwashing (or lack of brain washing) in the US in the last few decades; suddenly the right wing thinks everyone should be armed at all times, romantic notions of the "Wild West" and Steven Seagal. They don't realize how many of them will NOT WIN every gunfight, and it only takes one. It's mind-blowing the way people think sometimes. It's grown into a political issue, a machismo issue, and to me, in many cases, a racial issue, and a mental issue. (Actually, "mental" covers most of those bases - it doesn't have to mean stark raving mad, just having psychological defects, insecurities, irrational fears (phobias) etc. So what that boils down to is the "other" reason for carrying a gun to the park, besides murderous intent, is a distorted notion of self-protection, no matter how irrational.



...unless they think they need to carry it into Walt Disney World.
Click to expand...
Well I would love to debate you on this because you clearly have a lot of misinformation, but this is way off topic.
 
WildcatDen

WildcatDen

Well-Known Member
Tony the Tigger said:
romantic notions of Steven Seagal?
Click to expand...
To each his own, I guess.

For the most part, didn't Segal usually kill or disable using only his hands or feet?

One more sort of irrelevant point. What was it called when the US and USSR built up their nuclear missile count? Something along the lines of mutual assured destruction. If someone knows someone else is carrying a gun, how likely are they to start something with that individual. As the Mom said, different topic for a different time, but in no way am I going to demonize someone from owning or carrying firearms.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

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

Back
Top Bottom