Security always a concern at a Central Florida theme parks

I've never had to pass through a metal detector to visit a theme park outside of the United States. Not once.

Just a thought.

Tekwardo said:
It isn't a thing designed to increase security....It's a thing designed to make people feel a certain way.

So you're conceding that it's not effective as a security measure, but should be done to make people feel better? Let me drag out that Ben Franklin liberty/security quote.....

It's interesting how people's perception of risks plays out. I've had plenty of conversations with people who would never ride a roller coaster because it's so dangerous, and hauled out a "you're more likely to die in the car on the way to the park/get hit by lightning/have a date with Channing Tatum where he wears a Speedo two sizes too small and nothing else than getting hurt on a roller coaster" statistic.

I suppose because a terrorist attack or a death on a roller coaster are such uncommon occurences while deaths in automobile accidents are, sadly, all too common skew people's expectations. They can rationally appreciate that statisitical likelihood of something happening may be miniscule, but seeing news coverage elicits a more visceral response.

If a park has it setup where the security checkpoint is set up well so you can get through it quickly it doesn't bother me too much even though I'd rather not have it.

When a park has it setup poorly, then I really don't like it. I'm going to use Dorney Park as an example since they don't have regular metal detectors and have the handheld wand metal detectors. In the fall, they are only used at night once Haunt begins so it doesn't make me feel safer that they start using them at 6:00 when someone who entered at opening or in the afternoon and didn't have to stop at the metal detectors. Otherwise they only use them when there is a threat. Friday of 4th of July weekend it supposedly took people 2 hours to enter the park because they only had 1 table set up with 2 guards checking bags and 3 people with the metal detector wands for the entire bag check line (http://dorneyonline.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=2290). Even for a holiday weekend, that is unreasonable.

Lord Gonchar said:

I'd be curious looking at it from a purely academic standpoint. Would it be more effective to mow a bunch of people down or blow a bunch of people up and what it would entail to get into position with either intention?

I thought about that, but went that way for two reasons.

First: I'm going to guess that most large stadiums have security in place that, collectively, can cover most if not all of the seating area. If someone with bad intentions opens fire in that setting, they probably don't have a lot of time before someone on the security team takes them out. A bomb is one-and-done, no time for security to react and limit the damage.

The second is access. It seems like it is a lot easier to wear a bomb vest under a bulky sweater than it is to sneak in an assault rifle. So, even if you could do less damage with the bomb overall, you have a better chance getting one (or many) people into the stadium armed that way.

But, really, I went that way because the Paris attacks planned for guns in the theater/on the street, but bombs in the stadium. They're the "experts" and I was just trying to reverse engineer why they made that decision.

You know, you could probably cause a riot and empty a stadium with one of these nowadays.

Jeff said:

What bothers me is how everyone has lost their ****ing minds around terrorism. Your lifetime odds of dying in a car crash are 1 in 77, which is pretty grim if you ask me. Your lifetime odds of dying in a terrorist attack are 1 in 20,000,000. If 9/11 happened every single year, you're still at greater risk of death by driving. People need to get a grip, and reject the fear mongering that people running for office are throwing out there.

That is an interesting way to look at it. I'm still a punk and even went as far as foregoing the Daughtry concert at Universal a few weeks back. Yes, I know that is what the terrorists want, but I'm too cute to take a bomb to the face :) I know Universal's security is top notch though. I remember once on city walk a fight broke out. The security guards appeared out of nowhere like ninjas, and the perps were whisked away in seconds.

It is somewhat terrifying that so many fall so readily into the trap of "Muslims are the ones perpetrating violence" mythology. As if Americans would be "safe" if Islam were to suddenly disappear from the map.

Engaged in just such a disturbing discussion on FB right now, and it saddens and frightens me. Those who recruit for Daesh couldn't have asked for a better Christmas present than the one Donald Trump gave them yesterday.

Except that they don't believe in Christmas.

So they don't know its Christmas time at all?

Will there be snow this Christmas time in Africa?

The purpose of terrorism is to change our way of life and create fear in the population. People feel safer being wanded and having strangers stick their heads in their bags during ineffective security theater? All that means is the terrorists have won. GAME OVER. Mission accomplished. In the mean time mass shootings are more prevalent then ever. The terrorists have turned us into a society that is pleased to stand in line to be searched and questioned without any suspicion of wrong doing (insert Ben Franklin qoute).

As far as the Carowinds fight, people get into a fight, cops come to break it up and make arrests. That's how it always was done. Implementing "stronger security" would do nothing.

I'm sure this thread is being collected as "data" by the NSA goons because of how many time "terrorists", " security ", and "shooting" is mentioned.

Exactly. Queuing up for a security "show", seeking to ban all Muslims -- many Americans are doing the work for the terrorists; they're being terrified. Win for the terrorists.

Just returned from a 5 day WDW trip and remarkably I didn't get shot or blown up...

It was interesting to see the ramped up security, mostly at the entrance areas with a lot more presence from Disney security and multiple law enforcement. They even had a cop and A K-9 unit stationed at the Epcot international gateway entrance. The bag checks were pretty much the equivalent of a colonoscopy.

I am fine with the metal detectors if they keep guns out of the parks. Concealed weapons are legal in this state, so a metal detector would not allow one to be admitted. I recently read of a man that was killed by his own concealed weapon while cleaning his car. So if the metal detectors keep out weapons that could even accidently discharge, bravo.

14 people will killed in San Bernadino. But MANY more have been killed by Americans who feel the right to bear arms means the right to massacre. The people that live IN this country seem to be more of a threat than the foreigners that the right wing is trying imbed fear of in order to control us.

First paragraph: mmm, maybe. If the metal detectors are properly calibrated. Or turned on, and not there just as part of the security theatre, providing the appearance of security.

Second paragraph: Agreed. Americans with guns, whether they're intending to kill or not, are a greater threat to Americans than the GOP's current gun-toting scapegoat.

14 people will killed in San Bernadino. But MANY more have been killed by Americans who feel the right to bear arms means the right to massacre. The people that live IN this country seem to be more of a threat than the foreigners that the right wing is trying imbed fear of in order to control us.

Americans with guns, whether they're intending to kill or not, are a greater threat to Americans than the GOP's current gun-toting scapegoat.

Wow, you guys both buy into the complete BS the left-leaning media spoon feeds you, eh? If you were to actually look at the statistics, nearly all the mass murders in the last 50+ years have occurred in places where it's illegal to carry a gun (i.e. the ironically named "gun-free zones"). I prefer to be in places that allow guns, that way if someone with bad intentions is stupid enough to start opening fire, there's a better chance someone might be able to reduce the body count.

Gun ownership is a protected right in this country for a reason. And I'm far more inclined to trust your average gun toting citizen than our "leaders" in government whose only interest is to stay in power.

It's funny...when anyone suggests we should maybe temporarily stop the influx of refugees because the FBI has told us it's impossible to vet them all, and that ISIS has actually said they've used the refugee program to infiltrate the US...they're accused of being racists, uncompassionate, and fear mongering. Yet those same people think guns and the climate are the biggest threats to humanity.

We need a "Vote Down" option.

I live in Chicago. We have strict gun laws. Indiana is next door. Indiana does not. One of the reasons Chicago has so many gun deaths is that people can pop over to Indiana, fill the trunk of their car with legally-purchased guns thanks to Indiana lawmakers making sure criminals have easy access to guns, bring them back to the city and sell them. It's not so much that gun control laws don't work as that Jihadi Wayne LaPierre and his NRA work so hard to make guns available to people who shouldn't have guns.

Guns are a bigger threat to the US than the notion that ISIS would go to the time and expense of attempting to get people into the US via the multi-year refugee vetting process when they can just put people on a plane and take advantage of the holes in visa waiver program; or, even easier, radicalize American citizens via social media.

At one of this year's mass shootings in California there were, in fact, people present in the "gun free" zone exercising their legal right to carry concealed weapons -- which they did not draw when the shooting started. Why? Because they understood that when the police arrived, the police would see multiple people with guns in their hands and would have to divert resources away from bringing down the active shooter in order to bring down all the apparent active shooters.

I'm going to copy and paste something I wrote on Facebook a week or so ago:

---

I've seen a lot of wacky posts, memes, lines of logic, arguments, anecdotes, theories, beliefs and rants from both sides of the issue - each more bat**** crazy than the last.

Here's why I think it's a never-ending debate with no real answer:

No one needs guns. But taking them away isn't going to solve anything.

Somehow both sides are kind of wrong (or right depending on how you look at it).

If you think you need a gun, you're a moron.

If you think more gun legislation gets rid of gun violence, you're a moron.

Basically, you're all morons.

---

The NRA works hard to defend our right to own guns, which is exactly what the 2nd amendment to our Bill of Rights guarantees. Calling Wayne LaPierre a terrorist is the same as calling the founders or myself or any number of responsible gun owners terrorists. I find it interesting that people who are so afraid of guns and hate the NRA seem to have no problem with government officials owning them or having armed security.

I don't recall a recent California shooting where there were concealed carriers nearby. You may be thinking of the college in Oregon (where it's legal to carry)...the few concealed carriers on the premises were not near the building where the POS started shooting, and by the time the cops and SWAT showed up they absolutely did the right thing in not interfering, for the reasons you mentioned. It would also make sense that they would avoid the location if they were not in imminent danger. As a CCW permit holder myself, I would not necessarily put myself in a situation where I could be shot if I didn't have to. My responsibility is to protect myself and my family. If I was within a reasonable distance from the active threat, however, and I could position myself to potentially take it out, I would attempt to do so.

Vilifying legal gun owners, most of whom are no threat to society, accomplishes nothing. You will always hear of the occasional idiot who shoots himself accidentally (almost 100% of the time due to negligence, not because the gun fired on its own), but those are few and far between in the grand scheme. And you rarely, if ever, hear of incidents where someone with a gun has actually saved lives...but it happens a lot more than most people realize. And in many of those incidents, a gun was never fired.

Lord Gonchar said:

[stuff about needing or not needing guns and everyone but Gonch who doesn't have any stance on the subject is a moron] ;)

I generally agree with your post. While I'm an obvious gun rights supporter I do not think we need guns. But as citizens we should have the right to own them if we so choose. I also encourage anyone who wants to own a gun to get training and practice often, for the same reasons that it would make no sense for anyone to own a car if they don't plan on learning how to drive.