These same people have gone faster than the speed limit (broke the rules) stopped in front of a store to pick up or drop someone off even though the sign prohibits it (broke the rules), called in to work sick when they were not (broke the rules )... etc.
I used to obey the speed limit as strictly as possible, until I read a decent article on how variations in speed between drivers was a bigger risk factor than speed alone. I still do obey limits on surface roads, where at least in my area on surface roads (but apparently not limited access roads), posted speed limits are required to be close to the actual average speeds.
But I don't stop in no stopping areas and never called in sick when I wasn't.
The problem I have with the "guns for self defense" issue is that I'm just not seeing the data or analysis. I've seen collections of anecdotal evidence on both sides - and that's fine, as far as it goes. I even remember a story from an uncle who lived in Greenwich Village and who was able to frighten off at least one robber with his gun. The same uncle, when he came to visit, once stored his gun in the top drawer of my dresser (or maybe it was my brother's dresser) - something that would be considered horribly irresponsible today, but I was a pretty trustworthy kid with no interest in guns, nor in breaking rules. The point here is that I believe the
theory that guns can be protective, because I have it from a first-hand source that's trustworthy to me (but not to you).
What I haven't seen is the rational analysis that takes into account
everything: reasonable use of weapons to prevent crimes; irresponsible use of weapons that cause or at least risk injury to innocents when trying to prevent crime without proper training; accidental injuries or deaths; and so on. I've a vague recollection of some articles that at least tried to take an honest, statistical approach, but nothing that felt comprehensive.
That leaves me looking at raw risk data - things like how many guests at WDW have been killed or injured by guns. Is that number 0? Big? Maybe I'm ignorant of all the things that have happened there, but I just don't see enough danger within the park boundaries to even justify entertaining the discussion of bringing guns into the park in violation of rules.
And it's not merely blind allegiance to rules. You want to carry a weapon in the dangerous parts of Chicago, in violation of the law - I'm not going to jump up and down and say you're being unreasonable. WDW, I'm going to ask for much stronger data than I've seen so far.
The rules are there for reasons, not for guests to pick and choose which they will follow. LEO above all should respect that. If one doesn't feel safe to the point they must carry to protect their families and break the rules, then don't go if you fear it that much. It simply amazes me how people feel thst they can do as they please regardless of rules and regulations. ....that is why society is the way it is ...sad
I have no idea what's up with the Harlequin make up either!
