News New security measures

[matt9112]

Why do you bring God into this? Is he/she/it/whatever/none-of-the-above responsible for your actions?

As long as private citizens can own weapons of mass murder, people are going to die.

I think we should do something about this.

me too kill terrorists and glass them from this earth. quite simple really. and if i believe in god or not is none of your concern but i am well within my rights to bring him into this of he is a part of ny life.why must you belittle?

 

[Mr Ferret 75]

Yeah both semi and automatic weapons predate the second amendment....soooo pickle gun ect. sure different mechanism but same effect the founding fathers KNEW weapons capable of discharging lots of munitions in short order exsisted but would likely become for frequent.

also fully automatic weapons are highly regulated in America and a normal citizen would likely never get there hands on one. class 3 stuff.

Thanks

 

[matt9112]

I wonder what the innocent people injured and killed by accidental use of those tools think of that statement.

as they are human and in a very extreme scenario i would imagine therethere judgement is quite awful really.

 

[photomatt]

The flaw in your premise is that I don't accept that gun control laws reduce the problem in the case of guns. At all. I think they are absolutely, 100% ineffective.

Facts do not support your claim.

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Homicide-rates-across-all-countries.jpeg

http://26t4l93f9dhe439yxm286lpv.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Graph-1.png

I found that by doing a quick search. If you don't accept the credibility of the source, let me know and I will find something more credible.

Regardless, though, if someone truly thinks that we can eliminate guns, fine. But let's have an honest debate about passing a constitutional amendment to either repeal or significantly modify the 2nd amendment. Until such time as the political and societal will can be mustered to do that, though, the 2nd Amendment is the law of the land. And the US Supreme Court has declared that it protects an individual right to keep and bear arms, not a societal one. So you can't just pass legislation. If we're being honest, we need to be talking about changing the constitution.

I agree.

 

[RSoxNo1]

The issue is that Isis and their twisted ideology are so strong globally that they continue to inspire people to join their cause

Try to ban one tool and they will just find another. And so on and so on.

I'm not willing to cave to any terrorist group by restricting any of my liberties. Speech, religion, guns. That's exactly what they want.

The weapon used was the most effective weapon for the job, but you're argument about other possible weapons is somewhat valid. Having said that, this is still all about mental instability. Terrorist groups are composed of mentally unfit people. As a society we do an awful job of identifying these people for a variety of reasons, many of them ironically related to political correctness. I agree with not wanting a terrorist group to restrict any of your liberties, but I also don't want anybody who is mentally unstable to have access to weapons.

I don't have answers here, I don't own firearms but have several friends that do. They have them for protection after being robbed at gunpoint or because their job is in an unsafe area. My friends have individually told me they support stronger background checks. Personally I feel that I don't want anyone that doesn't support a background check to have a firearm. It's my opinion, but I am admittedly largely ignorant on this. I defer to gun owners who I trust to help formulate that opinion.

I know this site has policies against political discussion, but this is a safety discussion that is 100% relevant to Walt Disney World and the nature of these boards. I know it's asking a lot for us to be able to have a civil conversation about this without it degenerating into something political, but I sincerely hope the moderators on these boards will allow the conversation the chance to remain civil.

 

[Nubs70]

How is mental instability not the issue here?

A part of the issue is perspective.

His actions may seem and be rooted in mental instability from a Western Judeo Christian perspective. However, from a Salafist perspective, his action are absolutely rational and lauded. How is it that an Imam in Orlando can state that gays need to be killed "out of compassion" and not be condemned?

 

[matt9112]

Thanks

very welcome but to answer your question bluntly no the second amendment has no changed however gun laws as a whole have.

little history lane moment the first (strong gun laws) came with the rise of crime in prohibition when gangsters had enough money for fully automatic weapons and such. so lets think.....goverment creates prohibition. prohibition leads to rise of organized crime. goverment passes first set of laws in the GCA to fight said crime.

 

[Jon81uk]

What about bombing a subway. Or an airport.

Terrorists always find a way.

Yes, but its about making things harder. Its pretty hard to get the ingredients to make a bomb. In America its not that difficult to get a gun.

That's why gang-related stabbings happen in London, whereas in New York it would be a gang-related shooting. Knives are slightly easier to get hold of as they are needed to carve the roast turkey. Not sure why anyone outside the military would ever need to get hold of an assault rifle.

 

[photomatt]

If this guy had driven a modified vehicle through a crowd killing 50 plus people would we be demanding sensible auto legislation?

How would we know? Why use a car when it's so much easier to use an assault rifle?

 

[Matt_Black]

Statistics don't support your statement.

Statistics have a liberal bias.

 

[matt9112]

The weapon used was the most effective weapon for the job, but you're argument about other possible weapons is somewhat valid. Having said that, this is still all about mental instability. Terrorist groups are composed of mentally unfit people. As a society we do an awful job of identifying these people for a variety of reasons, many of them ironically related to political correctness. I agree with not wanting a terrorist group to restrict any of your liberties, but I also don't want anybody who is mentally unstable to have access to weapons.

I don't have answers here, I don't own firearms but have several friends that do. They have them for protection after being robbed at gunpoint or because their job is in an unsafe area. My friends have individually told me they support stronger background checks. Personally I feel that I don't want anyone that doesn't support a background check to have a firearm. It's my opinion, but I am admittedly largely ignorant on this. I defer to gun owners who I trust to help formulate that opinion.

I know this site has policies against political discussion, but this is a safety discussion that is 100% relevant to Walt Disney World and the nature of these boards. I know it's asking a lot for us to be able to have a civil conversation about this without it degenerating into something political, but I sincerely hope the moderators on these boards will allow the conversation the chance to remain civil.

i agree about the civil discussion its quite healthy. granted everyone who LEGALLY buys a firearm goes through the NCIS check....this guy should have been put on a list if the FBI had him on radar since 2013...but i dont know how he got weapons ect and he was a us citizen so without a criminal record he would have been cleared to buy the guns.

 

[matt9112]

How would we know? Why use a car when it's so much easier to use an assault rifle?

you know cars will kill more people today than this shooter right?

 

[BrerJon]

because we have no desiree to be like you europeans. if one thinks so they are free to move there themselves. france has strict laws and look at that. Australia and Britains bans have done nothing to curtail crine. Glasgow smile anyone? parts of london are far more dangerous than chicago in per capita violent crime but the lack of guns mean yay we solved the problen....

That's a joke about parts of London being more dangerous than Chicago. In the last year London has 1662 incidents of gun crime. That's not just murders, but includes any incident involving guns, including arrests for posession, threatening someone with one, as well as actual shootings.

Chicago? 2996 actual shootings - not including other offences - with 507 homicides. There's no comparison.

If your point about Glasgow implies that because people can carry knifes they should also be allowed to carry guns... well it's a lot easier to disarm someone with a knife, and a lot harder for them to kill a lot of people.

If you ask any citizen of a pretty much gun free country whether they'd prefer to be gun free, but at a theoretical greater risk of crime, or be like the USA, and have open access, I think you'd find it hard to find any country that would prefer the American way.

Surely it's better to live in a society where there's a miniscule chance of not being able to defend yourself, but an equally miniscule chance of being shot, rather than one where shooting is almost expected and killing others is celebrated.

 

[Andrew C]

Yes, but its about making things harder. Its pretty hard to get the ingredients to make a bomb. In America its not that difficult to get a gun.

That's why gang-related stabbings happen in London, whereas in New York it would be a gang-related shooting. Knives are slightly easier to get hold of as they are needed to carve the roast turkey. Not sure why anyone outside the military would ever need to get hold of an assault rifle.

For protection. For sport. Because we have a constitution that allows it. Again, not willing to give up my liberties to make it harder for terrorist to get a gun. Mainly because it isn't going to prevent them from doing what they want.

So ban assault rifles?...then they either find a way to get their hands on one anyways or they use a different tool,...then what? What else do we ban? What else do we limit for ourselves?

You know what would make things harder for terrorists? Not allowing groups like Isis to have a safe haven to spew their beliefs and inspire people around the world to commit these acts. Or interrogating terrorists by capturing them instead of just killing them with drones.

 

[Andrew C]

you know cars will kill more people today than this shooter right?

Yep. But we don't ban cars. We require a license.

 

[matt9112]

That's a joke about parts of London being more dangerous than Chicago. In the last year London has 1662 incidents of gun crime. That's not just murders, but includes any incident involving guns, including arrests for posession, threatening someone with one, as well as actual shootings.

Chicago? 2996 actual shootings - not including other offences - with 507 homicides. There's no comparison.

If your point about Glasgow implies that because people can carry knifes they should also be allowed to carry guns... well it's a lot easier to disarm someone with a knife, and a lot harder for them to kill a lot of people.

If you ask any citizen of a pretty much gun free country whether they'd prefer to be gun free, but at a theoretical greater risk of crime, or be like the USA, and have open access, I think you'd find it hard to find any country that would prefer the American way.

Surely it's better to live in a society where there's a miniscule chance of not being able to defend yourself, but an equally miniscule chance of being shot, rather than one where shooting is almost expected and killing others is celebrated.

i said violent crime not gun crime....pull up the violent crime for london...and im sure you are all very happy with your system. enjoy it. dont push your views onto us or how we should act. i never go around saying i wish british folks could have guns now do i?

 

[Matt_Black]

i agree about the civil discussion its quite healthy. granted everyone who LEGALLY buys a firearm goes through the NCIS check....this guy should have been put on a list if the FBI had him on radar since 2013...but i dont know how he got weapons ect and he was a us citizen so without a criminal record he would have been cleared to buy the guns.

Actually, I'd read something that said he had a history of domestic violence. Even if no arrest ever came, that should have been reported.

 

[matt9112]

Yep. But we don't ban cars. We require a license.

and even that licence process hasnt curtailed any of it...

 

[matt9112]

Actually, I'd read something that said he had a history of domestic violence. Even if no arrest ever came, that should have been reported.

you start to enter gray areas now. some states like my former Massachusetts likely would sieze his guns if what you said is true. but its such a slippery slope...domestic violence can range from legit beatings. to overly loud and angry arguments punching a wall.

 

[Hakunamatata]

How would we know? Why use a car when it's so much easier to use an assault rifle?

I think you would know because there would be a bunch of injured or dead and a vehicle involved, but that's just a guess. My point being when guns are banned (and I think I will live to see that day unfortunately) there we something just as powerful to take its place.