Man caught trying to enter Magic Kingdom with gun

[G00fyDad]

They have one giant official policy on that by saying "No Weapons Allowed". I understand that many people feel safe because they have a gun, however, the statistics have shown in the past, that you are not safer and in a situation like a Terrorist action, we all would be a lot less safe if some loose cannon were firing his weapon into a crowd. And if they didn't do that it would be like having a cap pistol instead of a gun. As a person that really doesn't fear things like that, I really would rather take my chances with a terrorist then to have bullets flying from all directions. The help from a private citizen that I crave is to not create situations that are worse then what we are dealing with anyway. Death from friendly fire is no less dead than from hostile people.

You basically just restated everything I have already said. My question was more to what does Disney security do if a lawful gun is brought to the park gates?

 

[Goofyernmost]

You basically just restated everything I have already said. My question was more to what does Disney security do if a lawful gun is brought to the park gates?

I wasn't addressing that part, it was the statement that you didn't know what Disney's policy was concerning firearms, but, I might have misinterpreted that statement. If so, sorry, but, I'm pretty sure that right now, in todays world it is confiscated, tagged and returned at the end of the day. Unless they have some extra reason to not allow the person in, nothing else happens. Of course, that depends on how obnoxious that person is to security, in which case, if it's bad enough they might be denied access to the park and/or turned over to the authorities. In my mind, anyone that feel it necessary to carry a weapon into a theme park, is going to have some pretty heavy duty paranoia problems and will put up a verbal fight with security. That will probably not end well.

 

[TheGuyThatMakesSwords]

They have one giant official policy on that by saying "No Weapons Allowed". I understand that many people feel safe because they have a gun, however, the statistics have shown in the past, that you are not safer and in a situation like a Terrorist action, we all would be a lot less safe if some loose cannon were firing his weapon into a crowd. And if they didn't do that it would be like having a cap pistol instead of a gun. As a person that really doesn't fear things like that, I really would rather take my chances with a terrorist then to have bullets flying from all directions. The help from a private citizen that I crave is to not create situations that are worse then what we are dealing with anyway. Death from friendly fire is no less dead than from hostile people.

..and I LIKE this. All personal opinion, I'm not right, no one else is wrong.....

Hogwash. Were this enforced EXACTLY this way? No armed Police Officer could enter. "NO firearms" means "NO firearms".
.... and that would likely be a big mistake.

So - clearly, there is a difference between "the right people, and the wrong people". All that remains is to distinguish between these two classes.

I have no idea what the REAL rules are.... no problem if they say "uniformed law enforcement". JUST SPIT IT OUT.

For reference - I have a CCW. I would DIE before I brought a weapon to a Disney park. Just me, I would not even ATTEMPT this sort of thing. I guess I'm a bit foolish - to ME? There appears to be a significant difference between WDW and downtown Detroit .

Again, All personal opinion, I'm not right, no one else is wrong.....

 

[Tony the Tigger]

So do you avoid the side walk because at any moment someone could drive on it? I buckle my seatbelt when I drive my car, not because it is a law, but because I am preparing myself for a possible unavoidable disaster. Some people choose to carry a gun in the case they are confronted by someone who wishes to do harm to them with a deadly weapon. I am not saying that people should carry in a theme park because shooting in a crowd is a bad idea even if you're trying to stop someone with a gun. Very few people, even police could accurately shoot in that situation. I am saying that this country is one where random violence is not uncommon, if you do not wish to be victim of violence but still wish to go about your life, you should be able to protect yourself if the need arises. It is not your business if someone chooses that method of protection. I do not carry my gun ever, I don't go where I don't feel safe but i understand that some people do feel that need. I would gladly share a bus seat or a park bench with someone who did.

I would not share a bus seat or a park bench, and I would walk out of a restaurant.

Your sidewalk analogy is more appropriate for someone who won't leave the house without a gun (i.e. is afraid of everything.)

The chances of getting shot in life, depending on where you live and with whom you associate, are generally pretty low. The fear outweighs the reality.

Of course, that is changing, as more and more people are scared into carrying guns, or are doing it to prove a political point.

There may be some rational people who have a reason to be afraid and carry a gun to traditionally non-threatening places like restaurants and malls, but I suspect a lot are just irrationally afraid, convinced by the internet that everywhere is more dangerous than it is, and caught up in Tea Party nonsense and vigilantism. These are the people making things less safe, IMO, just as the people who are afraid to drive and go 50 miles an hour in the left lane of a 70 mph highway are the ones who cause accidents.

I can't live life afraid of everything. If you have faith, you don't have to (which is a big ironic point to me in that those who are loudest about guns right now are also loudest about their religion, yet don't exemplify it.)

That doesn't mean I'll walk into Compton as if it's the Hamptons. I just won't go to Compton. For people who live there, they may need a gun. I don't live there, and I don't want to turn my neighborhood into it, either.

The more people carry guns, the higher the probability of getting shot will go. The average person is not smart or skilled. They can barely drive cars successfully, but we're supposed to trust them with weapons...because their fear makes them honorable or something?

None of this squares.

Hunt. Keep a gun in your nightstand. Go to a firing range. But if you have to carry a gun through everyday functions like going shopping, I think therapy may be in order. Or deprogramming from right-wing propaganda.

And in a theme park? Or a theme park parking lot? Jeez, just stay home.

 

[Matthew]

As a Brit this thread has been very enlightening since i am fascinated with (and i mean no disrespect to anybody) what we over the pond see as America's obsession with Guns (I know its a second amendment right and all that) and many of us simply do not understand it since even a majority of our police are unarmed and we see very little gun crime.

Anyway I think it is good that this man was stopped... nobody except himself knows for what reason he wanted to take that gun into MK for... interestingly i would of liked to know WHO he was entering the park with as perhaps that would of given a better understanding of his intentions (i.e. grown man with a gun trying to enter a theme park alone would set my warning bells going).

IF (and we don't know) his intention was to kill or injure people then perhaps the image of people killed or injured in front of Cinderella's castle would be more long lasting than the same at the entrance to the park.. this could be why he didn't just open fire at the security check point. Also in this scenario as his primary aim would of been to get his weapon into the park once he realised he would'nt get in undetected he turned to what was possibly a desperate backup plan to get into the park... as a result of trying this security would of been in to close a proximity to him for him in my opinion to carry out an attack at the entrance.

 

[Goofyernmost]

We have people here that watched to many John Wayne movies and feel naked if they don't have their metal security blanket on them at all times. Rest assured that isn't the majority of Americans. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with owning a gun, and that is the just of the 2nd amendment, but, the fantasy that these people have that if threatened they will draw their weapon, save the day and become a hero is just that, a fantasy. A handgun will have very little affect on a suicide bomber who isn't expecting to walk away anyway. Just one of many Rambo-esque mentalities that are roaming about.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

We have people here that watched to many John Wayne movies and feel naked if they don't have their metal security blanket on them at all times. Rest assured that isn't the majority of Americans. I'm not saying that there is anything wrong with owning a gun, and that is the just of the 2nd amendment, but, the fantasy that these people have that if threatened they will draw their weapon, save the day and become a hero is just that, a fantasy. A handgun will have very little affect on a suicide bomber who isn't expecting to walk away anyway. Just one of many Rambo-esque mentalities that are roaming about.

Completely agree.

 

[Vaughn4380]

A handgun will have very little affect on a suicide bomber who isn't expecting to walk away anyway.

Seriously? Shooting a suicide bomber before he can detonate is "very little effect"? I try to stay out of gun debates online, but your comment just makes no sense. It is my hope that any attempted suicide bombing is stopped immediately. Either by trained police using the handgun they carry every day, or by any CCW holder that might be in the area (although I will admit the police are probably better trained for such a scenario).

Why are you in favor of doing nothing to stop a suicide bomber? You have already given up should such an event happen.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Seriously? Shooting a suicide bomber before he can detonate is "very little effect"? I try to stay out of gun debates online, but your comment just makes no sense. It is my hope that any attempted suicide bombing is stopped immediately. Either by trained police using the handgun they carry every day, or by any CCW holder that might be in the area (although I will admit the police are probably better trained for such a scenario).

Why are you in favor of doing nothing to stop a suicide bomber? You have already given up should such an event happen.

I'm guessing they were assuming the suicide bomber would not be noticed until it was too late, which is a reasonable assumption.

Also, if they are holding a grenade, shooting them will detonate them, anyway.

 

[Vaughn4380]

many of us simply do not understand it since even a majority of our police are unarmed and we see very little gun crime.

Unfortunately for us, our criminals are much more violent than yours. Unarmed police in America would just be targets. I would love to see gun violence drop to zero. But I have serious doubts that our criminal element would allow that.

Be glad that your country is more civilized.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Unfortunately for us, our criminals are much more violent than yours. Unarmed police in America would just be targets. I would love to see gun violence drop to zero. But I have serious doubts that our criminal element would allow that.

Be glad that your country is more civilized.

It's not the criminals who won't allow sensible gun control. It's the second amendment extremists.

And they're not more civilized; they just don't have gu...oh...yep.

 

[Vaughn4380]

I'm guessing they were assuming the suicide bomber would not be noticed until it was too late, which is a reasonable assumption.

Also, if they are holding a grenade, shooting them will detonate them, anyway.

Still some assumptions on your part. Good security and policing won't catch at least some of the bombers? All of the bombers will explode immediately upon being shot? What about the bombs that have a button or switch that needs to be pushed to set them off? Again, a lot of assumptions from both sides of this argument.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Seriously? Shooting a suicide bomber before he can detonate is "very little effect"? I try to stay out of gun debates online, but your comment just makes no sense. It is my hope that any attempted suicide bombing is stopped immediately. Either by trained police using the handgun they carry every day, or by any CCW holder that might be in the area (although I will admit the police are probably better trained for such a scenario).

Why are you in favor of doing nothing to stop a suicide bomber? You have already given up should such an event happen.

Suicide bombers don't typically announce their intentions. It's supposed to be a surprise attack.

 

[Vaughn4380]

It's not the criminals who won't allow sensible gun control. It's the second amendment extremists.

And they're not more civilized; they just don't have gu...oh...yep.

Yeah, because criminals follow the gun laws we already have. We just need more.

And those darn law abiding second amendment supporters are just the cause of all the problems.

ETA: Why don't they just make it illegal to murder someone? Then the criminals will just stop.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Still some assumptions on your part. Good security and policing won't catch at least some of the bombers? All of the bombers will explode immediately upon being shot? What about the bombs that have a button or switch that needs to be pushed to set them off? Again, a lot of assumptions from both sides of this argument.

Including yours. Who said anything about security not screening for them?

 

[Matthew]

Unfortunately for us, our criminals are much more violent than yours. Unarmed police in America would just be targets. I would love to see gun violence drop to zero. But I have serious doubts that our criminal element would allow that.

Be glad that your country is more civilized.

I don't believe they are much more violent than ours... ours just don't have easy access to guns. We still have small amounts of gun crime but its small because its so much harder to get access to them.

I love America and if it was feasible I would gladly move there however I understand you have the 2nd amendment which protects the right to bear arms... which I don't think will ever change unfortunately... you can't even ban assault rifles... we had one school massacre using handguns and totally banned them for instance.

 

[Tony the Tigger]

Yeah, because criminals follow the gun laws we already have. We just need more.

And those darn law abiding second amendment supporters are just the cause of all the problems.

ETA: Why don't they just make it illegal to murder someone? Then the criminals will just stop.

You're not doing well with accuracy in reading comprehension. I choose my words carefully and deliberately as much as I can.

I specifically used the term "second amendment extremists," not "second amendment supporters" (of which I am one, and the vast majority of Americans are.)

The second amendment extremists provide cover for the criminals, who would otherwise have no voice in the argument.

It's OK to have higher standards for your country.

 

[Santa Raccoon 77]

I don't believe they are much more violent than ours... ours just don't have easy access to guns. We still have small amounts of gun crime but its small because its so much harder to get access to them.

I love America and if it was feasible I would gladly move there however I understand you have the 2nd amendment which protects the right to bear arms... which I don't think will ever change unfortunately... you can't even ban assault rifles... we had one school massacre using handguns and totally banned them for instance.

Please stop trying to use logic and reason. It is all down to the criminal element, nothing to do with how easy it is to gain legal weapons.

 

[Vaughn4380]

Suicide bombers don't typically announce their intentions. It's supposed to be a surprise attack.

So what? If given the opportunity (however limited) the police shouldn't shoot them?

 

[Vaughn4380]

You're not doing well with accuracy in reading comprehension. I choose my words carefully and deliberately as much as I can.

I specifically used the term "second amendment extremists," not "second amendment supporters" (of which I am one, and the vast majority of Americans are.)

The second amendment extremists provide cover for the criminals, who would otherwise have no voice in the argument.

It's OK to have higher standards for your country.

So who are the extremists?