[News] Loaded gun found on Disney World ride

[DarkAudit]

Link

If you're at the point where you feel sufficiently threatened that you have to be packing heat at fucking DISNEY WORLD, then you need to give some serious thought to the path your life has taken to this point.

And before anyone starts bellowing "right to bear arms!", keep in mind that Disney World is private property. They are perfectly within their rights to ban weapons on the premises, permit or no permit.

 

[Shawn]

Hey. You never know when the government is going to rise up against you. It would be just like them to do it when you're on vacation.

 

[sixpackshaker]

So, what are you supposed to do when somebody cuts the line?

 

[Bubble181]

I'd imagine there are more pickpockets in Disney World, where there's "security" instead of actual police and a LOT of tourists who're all looking around at the pretty sights instead of minding their pockets and purses, than in an average shopping mall, let alone a regular street. If you accept the premise of carrying a loaded gun for protection in case of a mugging or someone picking your pocket, than I'd say it makes sense to carry it even (especially) to Disney World.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

I'd imagine there are more pickpockets in Disney World, where there's "security" instead of actual police and a LOT of tourists who're all looking around at the pretty sights instead of minding their pockets and purses, than in an average shopping mall, let alone a regular street. If you accept the premise of carrying a loaded gun for protection in case of a mugging or someone picking your pocket, than I'd say it makes sense to carry it even (especially) to Disney World.

nah

 

[GasBandit]

It was probably just in case the "Small World" ride breaks down, trapping the gun's owner inside with that song for hours. How long could YOU last before craving that sweet release?

 

[DarkAudit]

I'd imagine there are more pickpockets in Disney World, where there's "security" instead of actual police and a LOT of tourists who're all looking around at the pretty sights instead of minding their pockets and purses, than in an average shopping mall, let alone a regular street. If you accept the premise of carrying a loaded gun for protection in case of a mugging or someone picking your pocket, than I'd say it makes sense to carry it even (especially) to Disney World.

Did you miss the part where park policy expressly forbids weapons on Disney property? The 2nd amendment does not give one the right to carry a gun wherever they please and the hell with everyone else. You want to carry a gun? Fine. But you can't come in here. They are a private entity, and the constitutional guarantees do not apply here.

 

[Gilgamesh]

It was probably just in case the "Small World" ride breaks down, trapping the gun's owner inside with that song for hours. How long could YOU last before craving that sweet release?

I always thought that ride was perfect for an On Rails Shooter.

 

[Dave]

No guns on private property. The guy should be charged, for two reasons. First, he's a terrible gun owner because he thinks he can just do what he wants with his weapon. Second, he's a fucking terrible gun owner because he left his fucking gun on a children's ride!!!

Seriously, charge this idiot.

 

[Eriol]

Did you miss the part where park policy expressly forbids weapons on Disney property? The 2nd amendment does not give one the right to carry a gun wherever they please and the hell with everyone else. You want to carry a gun? Fine. But you can't come in here. They are a private entity, and the constitutional guarantees do not apply here.

IANAL but I agree with your interpretation of constitutional law. That said, I do believe that "gun-free zones" just make a helpless and target-rich environment for those who already are breaking the law by shooting people. It just makes places advertised as "hey, you won't get shot back at here! Power trip away!" That's what weapons are really: power. By taking it away from the average person, you're making them less safe from criminals, not more. The criminals are still criminals. Making it illegal isn't a deterrent when they're already doing something massively illegal, which is attempting to kill people.

 

[Gilgamesh]

Yeah that death toll in Disneyland from all those murderers is pretty insane.

 

[DarkAudit]

IANAL but I agree with your interpretation of constitutional law. That said, I do believe that "gun-free zones" just make a helpless and target-rich environment for those who already are breaking the law by shooting people. It just makes places advertised as "hey, you won't get shot back at here! Power trip away!" That's what weapons are really: power. By taking it away from the average person, you're making them less safe from criminals, not more. The criminals are still criminals. Making it illegal isn't a deterrent when they're already doing something massively illegal, which is attempting to kill people.

I feel far safer when the only ones allowed to have guns in a high-traffic area such as this are people properly trained in their use. If the shit hits the fan, I don't want some misguided idiot trying to be a hero around. I'm more likely to get shot by THAT guy.

This is the mindset I called into question in the first place. What brings one to such a sad view of the world that they can't even go to Disney World without being armed?

 

[Dave]

IANAL but I agree with your interpretation of constitutional law. That said, I do believe that "gun-free zones" just make a helpless and target-rich environment for those who already are breaking the law by shooting people. It just makes places advertised as "hey, you won't get shot back at here! Power trip away!" That's what weapons are really: power. By taking it away from the average person, you're making them less safe from criminals, not more. The criminals are still criminals. Making it illegal isn't a deterrent when they're already doing something massively illegal, which is attempting to kill people.

Man I hate this argument. Like saying that because there are bad guys out there we should do nothing at all about anything. We shouldn't have speed limits because bad guys will speed! No laws against murder because bad guys will do it anyway!

All these gun people are so worried that someone is going to take away their toy that they forget that Disney has rights as well. Disney doesn't want weapons on their premises? That's their right. But no! Some bad guy might get in and start a bloodbath! So we have to arm the children! It's such bullshit. The murder rate is going DOWN, not up. What is going up? Suicides by guns. Mass shootings. Copycat idiocy. You know, things that would be lessened as well with a gun registry and some fucking accountability by gun owners. There's a registry for cars, for animals, for businesses! Why not one for guns? What makes you so damned special that you think it's okay to hide your deadly weapon?

What a spurious argument from start to finish.

 

[GasBandit]

It may take some people by surprise to hear me say this, but clearly the gun's owner is in the wrong here. The constitution does not override private property law (in fact, it's supposed to protect it), so Disney is entirely within their rights to enact a no-guns policy in their parks. Just like being banned from a message board isn't a first amendment issue, this isn't a second amendment issue.

 

[sixpackshaker]

I bet that some Disney employee will get fired for missing that gun at the checkpoint.

 

[Ravenpoe]

I'd imagine there are more pickpockets in Disney World, where there's "security" instead of actual police and a LOT of tourists who're all looking around at the pretty sights instead of minding their pockets and purses, than in an average shopping mall, let alone a regular street. If you accept the premise of carrying a loaded gun for protection in case of a mugging or someone picking your pocket, than I'd say it makes sense to carry it even (especially) to Disney World.

There are police, EMS and fire fighters inside Disney World. While the park does have its own security division, they also have police officers provided by the Florida Highway Patrol, and the Orange County Sheriff's Department has an entire section that operates purely within the various parks. I'm sure something similar is in place for Disney Land as well.

Living in Florida, I've been to Disney World a ton of times. I've never had any problem with pick pockets or any other type of criminal activity. It's a pretty safe place overall, not to mention that security is fucking -everywhere-.

 

[strawman]

Ooh, a free gun with every teacup ride? Are you sure we're not in Texas?

 

[CrimsonSoul]

I bet that some Disney employee will get fired for missing that gun at the checkpoint.

There are no checkpoints

 

[sixpackshaker]

There are no checkpoints

Lista said he thought the security checkpoint at the entrance was just to check for bombs and explosives.

While I've never been to Disney World, every large event I've been to the security patted me down. Also I imagine there are several columns that you pass through on the way to the entrance that holds the metal detectors.

 

[Eriol]

Man I hate this argument. Like saying that because there are bad guys out there we should do nothing at all about anything. We shouldn't have speed limits because bad guys will speed! No laws against murder because bad guys will do it anyway!

I never said this. It's different from making a crime illegal versus the means to commit it (but can also be 100% legal) illegal. Different arguments, different things. Nice try straw-manning my argument.

All these gun people are so worried that someone is going to take away their toy that they forget that Disney has rights as well. Disney doesn't want weapons on their premises? That's their right. But no! Some bad guy might get in and start a bloodbath! So we have to arm the children! It's such bullshit.

Private property means they can do as they wish. Different than in public I agree. I think their reasons for doing such are misguided though. But it is their choice. I will point them out for making what I think is a bad decision, but I agreed that they have the right to do so. That was the first part of my post, where I was saying that I think the decision was a bad one.

The murder rate is going DOWN, not up. What is going up? Suicides by guns. Mass shootings. Copycat idiocy. You know, things that would be lessened as well with a gun registry and some fucking accountability by gun owners. There's a registry for cars, for animals, for businesses! Why not one for guns? What makes you so damned special that you think it's okay to hide your deadly weapon?

And gun registries and such catch the lawful people. They don't cut crime at all. Criminals aren't registering their guns, and somebody with no record who goes out and shoots up (you name it) aren't caught by such either. And given that you don't seem to understand the point of your own 2nd amendment (right to armed citizenry against government tyranny, essentially), trying to explain such myself seems like there's little point.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

. And given that you don't seem to understand the point of your own 2nd amendment (right to armed citizenry against government tyranny, essentially), trying to explain such myself seems like there's little point.

And you don't understand the gap in weapons technology that occurred somewhere around the 2nd World War that makes the 2nd amendment a moot point

 

[GasBandit]

And you don't understand the gap in weapons technology that occurred somewhere around the 2nd World War that makes the 2nd amendment a moot point

Actually, you're wrong on two levels. First, of course, that your purported weapons tech gap has no actual bearing on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Second, world war 2 definitely wouldn't be the turning point of any such gap - as illustrated by the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which is a government program dedicated to getting military weapons into the hands of civilians so that the draft pool has better potential shooters in it, has long used Garands, Springfield and Enfield rifles as well as M1 carbines for its purposes - all WW2 era military weapons. You might have said "somewhere around vietnam era" and retained a modicum of arguable feasibility, but let's face it - we both know that you're just full of it on every level.

 

[Charlie Don't Surf]

Actually, you're wrong on two levels. First, of course, that your purported weapons tech gap has no actual bearing on the intent of the 2nd amendment. Second, world war 2 definitely wouldn't be the turning point of any such gap - as illustrated by the Civilian Marksmanship Program, which is a government program dedicated to getting military weapons into the hands of civilians so that the draft pool has better potential shooters in it, has long used Garands, Springfield and Enfield rifles as well as M1 carbines for its purposes - all WW2 era military weapons. You might have said "somewhere around vietnam era" and retained a modicum of arguable feasibility, but let's face it - we both know that you're just full of it on every level.

I was referring to the fucking atom bomb

 

[Eriol]

Atomic weapons have essentially no role to play in any type of asymmetric war. State-vs-state they are a deterrent for MAD, and that's it. You really don't understand the purpose of them, and drawbacks therein, do you?

 

[GasBandit]

I was referring to the fucking atom bomb

In that case, you're also wrong because that disparity was already existing at the time of the framing of the constitution - as I pointed out in another thread. Also there, I pointed out that it is extremely unlikely that an oppressive washington government would use nuclear weapons on its own soil. Much less likely than oppressing by much cheaper conventional means. Here's the relevant passage for the convenience of the home viewer:

Spoiler

At the time of the drafting of the constitution (and thus the 2nd amendment), the musket was the most deadly and efficient military weapon ever devised to be carried by a single soldier. Our current implementation of the 2nd amendment is horrifically neutered. I'm not exactly popular in my sentiment here, but I believe the correct interpretation of the 2nd amendment is: if a soldier can carry it, it should be available to be purchased and owned by private citizens. (This is what heads off the next hyperbolic rebuttal about "well why don't we just let people own tanks and nukes then smart guy, huh?" because the 2nd amendment even in the 18th century didn't cover field artillery (they did have cannons back then after all) or things like warships.

But to answer your "what hope does Burt Gummer have" question, you frame the question either incorrectly or dishonestly - as does everyone I've ever heard who makes this argument. You assume that our military, at the behest of our government, would for some reason execute a scorched earth campaign against its own citizenry. Well, if for some insane reason that ever does come to pass, you're right, an AR-15 with a 30 round banana clip won't help against that. But that's the most unlikely of scenarios - it's unlikely that the most tyrannical of federal governments wants to preside over an ash heap. What is far less unlikely is repression and occupation, which can't be done just from the safety of another state, or from the inside of armored vehicles (which as has been shown in other conflicts isn't 100% safe from rabble infantry either). It means at some point, soldiers have to climb out of their tanks and maintain a presence. It means controlling the flow of citizens but not killing them all en masse - which means hidden among them might be combatants you don't know about until it's too late. The answer is always - if tanks, nukes and aircraft trumped infantry always, Iraq and Afghanistan would have been over in their first year. But they don't. Yes, armed farmers can't go toe to toe with military regulars, but they don't and aren't supposed to - even in the revolutionary war, the reason the British suffered so many casualties early on was because they still persisted in marching across fields in formation as in napoleonic wars while the American rebels ran away - until they got to some trees or walls to hide behind and shoot back. An armed guerilla resistance makes an occupation much, much more difficult, costly, and saps the will of the occupier - and the knowledge that a citizenry is armed makes the decision to make oppressive policy that much more difficult.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

I was referring to the fucking atom bomb

I think it's illegal to own one of those let alone strap it to your back and walk around in public

 

[CrimsonSoul]

I think it's illegal to own one of those let alone strap it to your back and walk around in public

But then again if north Korea has them I should be able to own one to protect myself from them!

 

[GasBandit]

I think it's illegal to own one of those let alone strap it to your back and walk around in public

His argument is not that private ownership of nukes should be the case, but that the fact that the government has nukes means that all armed resistance to tyranny is impossible and we should just surrender all our arms and take whatever is done to us, lest DC drop the bomb on us. My opinion of that sort of "thinking" is manifest.

 

[CrimsonSoul]

His argument is not that private ownership of nukes should be the case, but that the fact that the government has nukes means that all armed resistance to tyranny is impossible and we should just surrender all our arms and take whatever is done to us, lest DC drop the bomb on us. My opinion of that sort of "thinking" is manifest.

Well I agree. The government shouldn't be the only people that can make a state unlivable for thousands of years! I want in on that action!

 

[GasBandit]

Well I agree. The government shouldn't be the only people that can make a state unlivable for thousands of years! I want in on that action!

You're already doing that with your personality.

HEYOOOOOOO!

 

[CrimsonSoul]

You're already doing that with your personality.

HEYOOOOOOO!

I'm not cds...

 

[GasBandit]

I'm not cds...

Yeah but he didn't set me up for the zinger.

 

[PatrThom]

There are no checkpoints

There will be now.

--Patrick

 

[CrimsonSoul]

There will be now.

--Patrick

I doubt it because Disney tries to have a "family friendly" atmosphere and that would go against that principle imo. But I may be wrong

 

[DarkAudit]

I doubt it because Disney tries to have a "family friendly" atmosphere and that would go against that principle imo. But I may be wrong

*grabs the thread steering wheel*
*YANK*

Which brings us back to the original question. What brings one to such a point where they feel their safety is so compromised they must bring a gun onto a child's ride at Disney World? What were the life choices this man made that led him to this sorry state?