New Security Measures At The Parks

[TwoMisfits]

Yes

Yes, thank you for emphasizing that he was in fact in very close range to the toy gun and still couldn't tell the difference (I missed that in my above post)so how can any officer watching from a window or via camera be expected to tell the difference ie if a dad is walking about with a toy gun - say kids at toilet/ shop/ ride with mum - leaving dad on his own - As I said a no brainer

At 1:30 am in a darkened area after the cop had gotten off a long shift...and the gun was used in the course of a violent crime by a grown man, where the man himself is a danger (with or without the fake weapon)...I don't think a Star Wars blaster in broad daylight being held by a random dad is gonna cause the same confusion.

Another thing that is never mentioned is that people themselves are deadly weapons - a weaponless motivated grown man could probably kill me with his fists in about 2 minutes - the weakest of people are the ones with the most to lose in "gun safe" zones (slight women, handicapped, older people, children, etc)...and these are the same people who gain the most with the ability to protect themselves with more than just their internal strength and muscle mass.

 

[mackay_j]

JL - you had better do a bit of back ground work before ship travel again as I would hate for you to turn up at some port somewhere to now find that many now also do scanning before boarding- I traveled through many in the EU over the last few years - only a few very small lines now do not scan at initial boarding. And as time marches on I fear your civil liberties will be breached on many international travel routes regardless of where in the world you are.

 

[Angel Ariel]

JL Traveling -I answered you - If disney ends up like airports I would be ok with it- needs must

It would be totally fine to be subject to a pat down or body scanner to go to disney?

Definitely going to have to agree to disagree here.

 

[mackay_j]

twomisfits -I am disabled and I disagree. Statistics show I am more likely to be shot in the US ( guns allowed) than in the UK (no guns) - I need no further information to draw my conclusions.

 

[Billinaz]

Sorry, but the no toy guns thing is just stupid. Bubble guns, really? Any officer who cannot tell a bubble gun from a real one shouldn't be doing the job. All toy guns sold in the parks, and most sold elsewhere have a bright orange tip that mark them as a toy, not to mention the fact that anyone who has ever handled a real gun should be able to tell the difference on sight very quickly. it's more about following the right politically correct trend of the moment than really about security.

You should see REAL guns with an orange tip painted on it to look like a toy, and the opposite also happens all the time. The toy guns with the tip pained to hide the orange.

But I do agree that the toy guns sold at WDW don't resemble actual firearms. A Buzz lightyear blaster, bubblegun, pirates flintlock, etc are not likely to get confused for a real firearm.

 

[Billinaz]

They pulled Buzz Lightyears blasters?! The world has gone mad and people will just accept this as "the world we live in". Not me and nor should anyone else. Taking away toy guns and costumes DOES NOT make us safer, geez people educate yourselves and stop falling in line like sheep.

I think the appropriate term is sheeple.

 

[TwoMisfits]

twomisfits -I am disabled and I disagree. Statistics show I am more likely to be shot in the US ( guns allowed) than in the UK (no guns) - I need no further information to draw my conclusions.

No, you're not. UK homicide rates are known to be under-counted (some think drastically), since they only count a homicide once they get a conviction. Think how many US homicides never get solved or get a conviction and if we counted that way, how many fewer official homicides we'd have. Again, you feel safer b/c someone gave you a stat that tells you so. Feeling safer is nice, but it doesn't make you safer.

And if you, yourself, got a weapon, got training, and got comfortable carrying and took responsibility for your personal safety, you would be safer. Would it be a guarantee nothing would ever happen to you - no. But you would be factually safer with an ability to defend yourself that you don't currently have.

 

[Billinaz]

Other unintended consequences. Every day hundreds, if not thousands of off duty Law Enforcement ignore the no guns signs and carry into the parks anyway. By installing metal detectors, you are preventing hundreds to thousands of trained men and women from being able to effectively deal with an active murderer when one slips into the parks. If you don't think the terrorists don't under stand that, you haven't been paying attention, they only attack soft targets and now having a 100% guarantee that none of the good guys can defend themselves, WDW just became a much more tempting target for terrorists.

You are very correct. I can attest to that unintended consequence.

I dont think the masses understand that after enactment of the LEOSA act, they have been surrounded by a lot of active and retired police officers who are carrying their firearms. The reason you dont know it is because the guns remain concealed unless needed. The Supreme Court has ruled that the police do not carry a duty to protect anyone. By the time law enforcement responds to an incident, they likelihood it is over is pretty high. Having the extra trained police officers in the background is a valuable resource. Considering they are only running a random number of people thru the WTMD, dont you think that the bad guys will send many more in armed if that is their intent? You may get one but the other 5 get through.

Much like the TSA (who I don't think could catch a cold with their 90% failure rate at detecting weapons) this 'security theater' does nothing but give the uninformed a false sense of security.

 

[mackay_j]

No, you're not. UK homicide rates are known to be under-counted (some think drastically), since they only count a homicide once they get a conviction. Think how many US homicides never get solved or get a conviction and if we counted that way, how many fewer official homicides we'd have. Again, you feel safer b/c someone gave you a stat that tells you so. Feeling safer is nice, but it doesn't make you safer.

And if you, yourself, got a weapon, got training, and got comfortable carrying and took responsibility for your personal safety, you would be safer. Would it be a guarantee nothing would ever happen to you - no. But you would be factually safer with an ability to defend yourself that you don't currently have.

Wrong - quote from UK crime stats "Homicide Index is covered by the de-designation of all data based on police recorded crime". Not now based on convictions and hasn't been for over 10 years It also now includes (murder, manslaughter and infanticide). This is when someone is killed without plan ie a fight/ a car crash where rules broken - speeding ect thus should in fact bump up the uk stats.

 

[Billinaz]

mackay_j said: ↑
twomisfits -I am disabled and I disagree. Statistics show I am more likely to be shot in the US ( guns allowed) than in the UK (no guns) - I need no further information to draw my conclusions.


Well, then you have been reading and believing bad statistics.

From the UK:

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz3uuAxIfES
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

 

[mackay_j]

mackay_j said: ↑
twomisfits -I am disabled and I disagree. Statistics show I am more likely to be shot in the US ( guns allowed) than in the UK (no guns) - I need no further information to draw my conclusions.


Well, then you have been reading and believing bad statistics.

From the UK:

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.

doubles from what (your post looks like its come straight out of a political rag paper)

Its up to me to decide where and what makes me feel safer - I agree with this disney stance and would like it to go further - every one scanned - If you do not like what they are now doing - the solution is easy - don't go - you don;t have too take your money elsewhere

True UK crime facts from police source (non political like me!)

• Over recent years, the number of currently recorded homicides has shown a generally downward trend and the numbers for 2012/13 (551) and 2011/12 (530) were the lowest since 1989 (521).
  
  
• In 2012/13, there were 9.7 offences per million population. As in previous years, children under one year old had the highest victimisation rate (30 offences per million population).
  
  
• In 2012/13, as in previous years, more than two-thirds of homicide victims (69%) were male. However among those aged under one victims of homicide were just as likely to be male as female.
  
  
• In other age groups there were differences between males and females in the pattern of relationships between victims and suspects. Women were far more likely than men to be killed by partners/ex-partners, and men were far more likely than women to be killed by friends/acquaintances.
  
  
• With the exception of those aged under one year, adults generally had higher victimisation rates than children, with adult homicide rates peaking at 14 per million for those aged 30 to 49. For children aged one or over, homicide rates were higher for one to four year olds (8 per million) than for five to fifteen year olds (3 per million).
  
  
• In 2012/13, there were 67 homicide victims aged under 16 years. In line with previous years, the majority of these victims were killed by a parent or step-parent (60%, or 40 offences) and 8 (12% of victims) were killed by a stranger.
  
  
• The most common method of killing continued to be by sharp instrument (such as a knife or broken bottle). In 2012/13, there were 194 victims killed in this way, accounting for around 1 in 3 (35%) of all homicides.
  
  
• In 2012/13, 29 homicide victims (5% of the total) were killed by shooting, 11 fewer than the 40 recorded in 2011/12 and the lowest number since 1980 (19 homicides).

I have not got 2014/2015 yet yip somethings have got worse somethings much better - but sats show no were near the US rates- guns kill - the less there are the better

From the gov web site www.gov.uk - this web also shows the number of times they have been deployed over the recent years -

There were 5,875 police firearms officers as at 31 March 2014. This represents a decrease of 4% (-217) compared with the previous year and a fall of 15% (-1,031) since 31 March 2009. As Figure 2 shows, there has been a general downward trend in the number of police firearms’ officers over the last 6 years.

 

[disneyfan55]

We had friends living in London and crime is quite high. I seem to recall reading not that long ago they were. Trying to restrict knives now. I guess since guns have caused so much they will rid themselves of knives as well. Seems many eu residents are arming themselves with al the people walking into and making themselves at home in their countries.

 

[Billinaz]

As usual you dont have the real stats. The guns dont do anything. Put one on the table, bet it harms nobody.

The brainwashing fantasy that if we outlaw guns, we will all be safer is just that.... fantasy.

Evil people in this world will do evil. If its not a stolen gun, it is an explosive, a flammable liquid, edged weapon, etc.

The US rates of gun deaths are much lower than these biased statistics put out.

With the rates of death and injuries caused by cars every year, they should be banned.

The US States with the highest rate of gun murders are also the states with the strongest gun control.

 

[Magpie]

mackay_j said: ↑
twomisfits -I am disabled and I disagree. Statistics show I am more likely to be shot in the US ( guns allowed) than in the UK (no guns) - I need no further information to draw my conclusions.


Well, then you have been reading and believing bad statistics.

From the UK:

Gun crime has almost doubled since Labour came to power as a culture of extreme gang violence has taken hold.

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

In some parts of the country, the number of offences has increased more than five-fold.

In eighteen police areas, gun crime at least doubled.



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...e-Gun-crime-goes-89-decade.html#ixzz3uuAxIfES
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

Just fyi, the Daily Mail is not a reliable source for statistics (or anything else really - some of the Reddit news sites now block linking to it altogether). However, if you're looking for unverified celebrity gossip, it can be a fun read.

(Not meaning to argue with you, just pointing out there are more respectable sources.)

 

[mackay_j]

We had friends living in London and crime is quite high. I seem to recall reading not that long ago they were. Trying to restrict knives now. I guess since guns have caused so much they will rid themselves of knives as well. Seems many eu residents are arming themselves with al the people walking into and making themselvIn 2012/13, there were 194 victims killed in this way, accounting for around 1 in 3 (35%) of all homicides. es at home in their countries.

Yes you are correct knife crime is bad especially in the inner cities - It is a really unfortunate and situation that is leading to quite a few deaths of very young adults every year (the stats for this are in my above quote "In 2012/13, there were 194 victims killed in this way, accounting for around 1 in 3 (35%) of all homicides"). This nearly always a gang issue and is such a sad waste of young lifes- so far no-one has had a good solution for this issue. However, this rarely is a stranger/non gang killing. but still sad

 

[prudence64]

If anyone is sneaking fire arms into the parks I hope they are caught and banned for life. Don't care about their motivation.

 

[disneyfan55]

As usual you dont have the real stats. The guns dont do anything. Put one on the table, bet it harms nobody.

The brainwashing fantasy that if we outlaw guns, we will all be safer is just that.... fantasy.

Evil people in this world will do evil. If its not a stolen gun, it is an explosive, a flammable liquid, edged weapon, etc.

The US rates of gun deaths are much lower than these biased statistics put out.

With the rates of death and injuries caused by cars every year, they should be banned.

The US States with the highest rate of gun murders are also the states with the strongest gun control.

Yes all true. For the most part people either get it or don't. I think those that don't understand may if caught in a place where they wish they could defend themselves or family. No one even realizes you don't have to shoot to stop a crime. Some criminals mearly will get away. Some may not. But for sure they will go for crime where they are most certain the good guys are disarmed.

 

[mackay_j]

As usual you dont have the real stats. The guns dont do anything. Put one on the table, bet it harms nobody.

The brainwashing fantasy that if we outlaw guns, we will all be safer is just that.... fantasy.

Evil people in this world will do evil. If its not a stolen gun, it is an explosive, a flammable liquid, edged weapon, etc.

The US rates of gun deaths are much lower than these biased statistics put out.

With the rates of death and injuries caused by cars every year, they should be banned.

The US States with the highest rate of gun murders are also the states with the strongest gun control.

My kids could probably out run an evil man with a non evil knife (they are runners) but the same evil man with a non evil gun - a different story.

And with that thought I will leave to your gun culture- no point discussing any further- If you don't like Disney's changes don't go- simple

 

[disneyfan55]

But many panic and don't think clearly in a situation of horror and panic. Look what happened in Paris. The people were basically murdered one by one. People panic and freeze many times. Very few will act and run into danger to try to stop it.

 

[akadada]

I posted elsewhere that I think the primary reason they're ending costumes is due to bio-metrics and face recognition security management similar to casinos and government security agencies. I believe (hearsay) Disney uses this technology and so adults wearing costumes screw that up. Further, costumes can cover up threats that a metal detector wouldn't pick up. Metal detectors should have been in place a decade ago, so that's a no-brainer.

If the poster stating it was sudden and a third party operation is running the metal detection is accurate in their observation, it's likely due to Disney outsourcing this to higher qualified agencies combined with the fact they're in the busiest Christian-Holiday season and couldn't possibly roll this out quickly on their own. Disney isn't in the business of geopolitical threat monitoring and security even though it's a necessity of their operations; so it's best they find a group who is on top of this. It's also likely a reaction (very necessary by the way) to the recent geopolitical risks around the world. This is smart and should be applauded.

In fact, it's possible these changes are being mandated by investor groups, insurance companies, and possibly even government agencies. For instance, depending on what insurance Disney has in place (likely Lloyds or reinsurance), many commercial policies do not cover terrorism since terrorism is often considered an unknown and not a risk. Risks are covered, unknowns are not. So if something happened that there was no risk protection for, beyond the obvious and unthinkable human tragedy of the situation, Disney could be on the hook financially for reconstruction and liability in addition to the destruction of brand image and goodwill. It's beyond thinkable in it's possible fall out. I can't think of a possibly bigger risk to Disney's future than the mishandling of a threat event.

I struggle finding any logical argument in defense of keeping costumes going if it meant being wrong on security management. Offending a handful of people (relative to the 100k - 400k+ people a day that attend all of their parks around the world) who can't wear costumes is so insignificant that it warrants no serious executive level thought relative to the consideration around possible fallout of a serious threat if Disney did not do all that it could do to prevent such a scary possibility. You can complain all you want, and I understand why some families might be disappointed, but if one were to pause for just a minute and think about the larger issue, it's hard to disagree with Disney's decisions here.

I'm personally glad Disney is absorbing and dealing with this reality the way it needs to be dealt with. Knowing what "I think I know" about geopolitical issues, I personally feel safer going there with these changes in place, not less.