Knott's Berry Farm adds metal detectors

Tekwardo said:

THAT is the real argument.

For some, sure. But that's not the only argument against it.

It's the biggest argument here tho. And none of the arguments accomplish anything.

I went to a high school where we went thru metal detectors, wanding, and Pat downs back in the 90s. It was in response to a school shooting. Did it make me feel safe? Nope. But I didn't complain at ever mention because I knew they weren't going away. Did I lije standing in the cold rain or cold snow during the winter for 30 minutes waiting to get in? Nope. But there was no point in whining about it.

So regardless of what the argument is, it isn't going to change things. Private companies respond to bad PR and loss of money. They don't care that enthusiasts feel inconvenienced because of something they've had a good reason (whatever said reason is) to put it in place.

Once again, you don't get it. The argument isn't about enthusiasts being inconvenienced. It's about the whole flawed thinking and reasoning to put those magnetometers up in the first place. The crowding, time and inconvenience is just a side effect that inconveniences all guests. We are talking about the concept, not whining enthusiasts.

You have someone from a park saying that they have a reason. It's obviously not A reason he can discuss beyond what he said.

So what more do you want? What do you want to accomplish? Because they aren't going away.

And making the same argument every time it's mentioned just gets old. Everyone hears you. Nobody cares or is willing to do something about it.

Tekwardo said:

It's the biggest argument here tho. And none of the arguments accomplish anything.

But there was no point in whining about it.

So regardless of what the argument is, it isn't going to change things.

Damn accidental vote-up. Second time I've done that today...

I think you want it to be the biggest argument, but I'm not seeing it. What you perceive as whining, I've read as logical rationalizations on why metal detectors are ineffective. Just because you may disagree doesn't mean it's all just enthusiast whining because they don't want to stand in line. In fact, I visit amusement parks so infrequently anymore that aside from reading this thread, or the once or twice a year (if even that much) I encounter amusement park metal detectors, they rank pretty damn low on the list of things I'm concerned about.

I will add that the first time I saw metal detectors at a park (many years ago at Kings Dominion), regardless of their potential effectiveness, I thought they gave the gate a look and feel that was the opposite of a fun, family-oriented place of entertainment. These are things I'd expect to see at a courthouse or other government building, not an amusement park. At least back then. Sure, nowadays they're commonplace, but I still don't find them particularly effective at keeping people safe.

You said yourself that it's a CYA move based on insurance and potential litigation and not actual security. I agree. Still doesn't make it a good decision, necessarily. Regardless, we're just supposed to throw our hands up on any subject we have a dissenting opinion on because it won't change anything? And who actually thinks they will change anything by arguing on a coaster forum anyway?

I don't think anyone here really thinks they're effective. So everyone is on the same page.

Then it comes down to are we going to treat this like pay to cut and the same people complain fir a solid decade any time it comes up? The arguments have been made ad nauseum. It's one thing to discuss a dissenting opinion. It's another when it's discussed with no changes every time it's mentioned.

I could start complaining about trump and politics every thread, but why? It's been discussed.

No differing points of view have been brought up. And it oft feels like some people itch just to bring it back up and get their point across every time security stories come up.

Has this thread really pushed the discussion further, or is it more noise? Sounds like mostly noise to me, and I like hearing myself talk.

So originally it was just that the "main" argument was dumb, but now it's that no argument matters because nothing will change. Great, got it. Maybe move on and let others discuss it then?

Interesting...now it might seem like I'm arguing to argue, but I'm not seeing where everyone's on the same page. Read back a bit and you'll find some who have said metal detectors are effective at least to some degree. I even concede they can be and perhaps have been a deterrent. The discussion is happening, yet the "noise" I hear is from one corner telling everyone else to stop arguing because it's futile...over and over again.

djDaemon said:
So originally it was just that the "main" argument was dumb, but now it's that no argument matters because nothing will change. Great, got it. Maybe move on and let others discuss it then?

You're oversimplifying and know it. Nice try tho. You're barely even discussing it with anyone to boot.

Vater said:
Interesting...now it might seem like I'm arguing to argue, but I'm not seeing where everyone's on the same page. Read back a bit and you'll find some who have said metal detectors are effective at least to some degree. I even concede they can be and perhaps have been a deterrent. The discussion is happening, yet the "noise" I hear is from one corner telling everyone else to stop arguing because it's futile...over and over again.

I forget it's.coasterbuzz and I have to be completely literal, but I should have worded.that as most here realize that metal detectors arent the most effective at a park.

The noise I hear (or in Pete's case don't here) is the constant argument that it's totally pointless security so parks shouldn't have them because...reasons. He's not the only one, but he does seem to refuse to acknowledge that the pulse shooters wife said such things were in fact a deterrent.

Is the discussion from the same people going to change in ten years? We all want here and did the same thing to pay to cut. It didn't stop us from arguing about it every chance we got. The story never changed. We still have pay to cut. We'll still have metal detectors too.

But feel free to keep talking about it, it's a forum. I think it's a pointless argument but I don't pay the bills here. If people are going to bring it up all the time, then I'm gonna argue how pointless the argument is.

Arguing that a lack of understanding is the source of disagreement is cyclical and non-constructive.

Tekwardo said:

The noise I hear (or in Pete's case don't here) is the constant argument that it's totally pointless security so parks shouldn't have them because...reasons. He's not the only one, but he does seem to refuse to acknowledge that the pulse shooters wife said such things were in fact a deterrent.

Since the Pulse shooters wife was under investigation as an accomplice, I don't take what she says as being credible. I would bet she said whatever she thought would keep the authorities from pressing charges against her.

Matter of fact, I did a quick search and found that they did arrest her in Jan. 2017 for obstructing an investigation.

In her original interview with the N.Y. Times, the article said that "In April 2015, Mr. Mateen took his wife and son to Disney World." Further the article said that "officials suspect that Mr. Mateen went there to see if it would be a good target" and further "Salman’s lawyer would not let her discuss what Mr. Mateen said at the amusement park." Hardly solid evidence that he planned to attack Disney, even sick people like Mateen may just want to go to Disney to have a good time, especially if he was planning an attack on the night club and suspected his time with his family on earth was limited.

The recent article said "Investigators interviewed Ms. Salman for hours after the attack and came to believe she was not telling the truth about her husband’s plans to carry out the rampage." So, now she can't be believed and Mateen is of course dead and no one will ever know what he was actually thinking.

The Salman arrest article is here: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/16/us/politics/noor-salman-arrested...ateen.html

So you were part of the investigating team and are trained on how to interrogate, making you an expert on what parts of her story to believe and what not to? Because that's hilarious.

Your argument was that only the media speculated, which was wrong, and when it happened your argument was the media reported it and regardless of whether it was true, the media is too unreliable.

Make a decision and stick to it.

I'll just put it out there again that what you read in the news does not qualify or disqualify the effectiveness or necessity for security measures. You don't know what you don't know. The parks, do.

Besides, what the media says now is only relevant because it might fit his narrative more. Back when it happened the media was not trustworthy.

Tekwardo said:

Besides, what the media says now is only relevant because it might fit his narrative more. Back when it happened the media was not trustworthy.

There is more media than just the NY Times, which had a nicely balanced article that seemed to stick to the facts. Certain other media made it sound like he definitely wanted to strike Disney, hardly something that could be inferred from what actually was said.

Anyway, if you want to believe you are safe because of metal detectors and you would be at risk without them, go ahead. To each their own. My thinking is parks put them up for the same reason MLB put them up, vague suggestions from the Dept. of Homeland Security for no specific threat, just CYA security.

And if CYA is all it is, why care? We already let TSA happen. This has happened. Sporting events too.

As humans, we tend to want to complain about stuff until we want said stuff and it's available for the low price of metal detectors. Heck, during the Boston bombing we let the goverent search our houses without a warrant and it didn't make us safer. Bad guys still got caught.

But if this is what a private company must do to cya, okay. I want my coaster fix.

Going to hire a bunch of really good poker players to read people's faces and pick out those who might pose a hazard.

Mental detectors.

Tekwardo said:
....when the overall real reason is because they feel it inconveniences them. THAT is the real argument.

I can't speak for anyone else, but that isn't my argument. Are they inconvenient? Yes. Do I stop going to parks? No.

My reason? I think they're not the most effective deterrent. And I think that the myriad shortcomings of TSA are worth noting here. If TSA has a failure rate in excess of 90% (and they do) on tests they are warned are going to take place, I'm not convinced that these types of devices at entertainment venues are going to be more effective.

But it sounds less whiny when we argue about how its unnecessary according to a quote we found online.

I can't speak for anyone else, but my opinions were formed through a decade and a half of research.

It's not going to change regardless.

No, it's not. But one of the reasons I enjoy Cbuzz are the conversations, which can go off in interesting directions. I mayn't always agree with other folks here, but the journey is half the fun.

Cedar Point is adding metal detectors this year:

http://www.news5cleveland.com/news/local-news/oh-erie/new-security-...017-season

Can we all just stipulate to the same comments made with respect to the KBF metal detectors to avoid a multi-page beaten dead horse discussion? :)