Man tried to bring loaded gun into (Six Flags) Great America (amusement park)

http://newssun.suntimes.com/news/5320923-418/man-tried-to-bring-loaded-gun-into-great-america.html

A northwest Indiana man faces felony gun charges after he allegedly tried to enter Six Flags Great America with a loaded .40-caliber handgun.

Arthur Olvera, Jr., 21, of Hammond, Ind., was charged with aggravated unlawful use of a weapon, a Class 4 felony.

Gurnee police said that at 9:41 a.m. Sunday a man and woman handed in their admission tickets and were in line waiting to enter the main gate of the amusement park through a metal detector all Great America guests have to pass through.

Upon approaching the detector, the couple started looking very nervous and refused to go forward, police said. The man eventually jumped out of line and went back toward the parking lot.

<more>



They need to pass a law so that 21-Y.O.s can bring their stupid guns to amusement parks - where guns are needed for a good time.

Oh wait - the GOP/NRA is doing that as we speak

Just say no to gun-free zones!!!111

What horseshit

yup

Isn't it their choice if they want to allow gun owners to carry on their property?

They want to allow gun owners to bring their guns to work - even if the employer doesn't want guns on their property

They want guns in churches

They want guns in bars

and everywhere else

27/7

guns

guns

guns

yup

But oh, I know, it's being completely paranoid in your book to think that way (you know, realistically and rationally). At least Six Flags actually does something to try and ensure that nobody brings a firearm into their property. The same cannot be said for most workplaces, churches, schools, etc., where they ban the law abiding from effectively defending themselves then provide little or no means of ensuring their safety and security.

When it comes to guns and ammo, the only thing to do is make it all scarce.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

and locked in worker's car in a parking lot is not the same as on person on the job. But you knew that.

a) They don't want your employer (you know, the inhuman legal construct called a "corporation"?) telling a person what they may or may not have on or in their private vehicles

b) They want the churches themselves to decided if guns are allowed inside. You know, churches? Builds where people gather on a weekly basis at an exact time and place, huddle together in a crowded open room with limited emergency exits, then all turn their backs to the doors?

c) If you're not drinking, then why not?

That's the only thing that could explain the bitter attitude.

Constant anger and resentment is a fucking sad way to go through life. They need to move along.

Funny how alleged polar opposites end up acting in the same manner, innit?

Some people just have to have an enemy, I suppose...

Even gun friendly Texas outlaws the carry of guns in an amusement parks that has rides. I don't know about Indianna and don't feel like looking it up.

yup

:evilgrin:

There is no blanket ban on carrying in amusement parks, they are only off limits if there is a properly sized and worded sign referencing Texas law 30.06.

An amusement park must be properly posted in order for it to be off limits to carry.

Texas Penal Code Sec. 46.035 (http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.46.htm#46.035). UNLAWFUL CARRYING OF HANDGUN BY LICENSE HOLDER.

(b) A license holder commits an offense if the license holder intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly carries a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code, regardless of whether the handgun is concealed, on or about the license holder's person:

...
...
...

(5) in an amusement park; or

...
...
...


(i) Subsections (b)(4), (b)(5), (b)(6), and (c) do not apply if the actor was not given effective notice under Section 30.06.

What exactly is the purpose of a firearm?

...to accelerate a projectile at high velocity. What that projectile is aimed at and what purpose it is serving is dependent on the user and their intent.

The function of a device is not its purpose. What is the purpose of a firearm?

Hell, I even said as much in my post, by stating clearly that the purpose of the function is dependent on the intent of the user. I can be to stop an intruder, to disable an enemy combatant, or to harm an innocent person. It's all depending on the intent of the user.

From Wikipedia: "Purpose is a result, end, mean, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken,<1> or of an object being brought into use or existence, whether or not the purpose was a primary or secondary effect."

the purpose of a firearm is to kill what it is used against. To insist a secondary purpose of "stopping someone" or "defending something" is to acknowledge that your intended means of doing so use a lethal weapon to kill or maim another person. If your intent is not to fire a gun then why own one at all instead of a facsimile?

At beast, you could argue that the purpose is to punch holes in what it is used against (though I still argue that this is an oversimplification). Can this result in death? Absolutely. Does it always? Not even close. In fact, more often than not it doesn't. But that you can't distinguish the difference in intent says a great deal about you.

exists for only a single purpose and that is to cause bodily harm to a living being. The only caveat to that being target weapons designed and manufactured for maximum accuracy and handling on a range, but that is the same as saying that a hot-rod is meant to be looked at in a car port. The purpose of a car is to be driven by people to convey them from one point to another, just like the purpose of a firearm is to be fired at a target which the user intends to inflict harm on.

...between WHY somebody may want to inflict harm on a target. Is it for malicious intent, or in defense of ones self or another? Thus my previous statements on purpose being ultimately determined by the intent of the shooter.

as we are discussing the firearm and not the owner, something that YOU seem to be unwilling to see.

...and it still hasn't sunk in. Purpose is a result, end, mean, aim, or goal of an action intentionally undertaken. If you honestly believe that the ONLY purpose somebody may have to shooting a gun is to inflict harm, and that the reasoning behind the need to do that is immaterial to the discussion of purpose, then really, i don't think we have anything more to discuss here. To be frank, I question your grasp on reality in general, and the usefulness of any further discussion with you seems minimal at best.

Personally, I think that if you need to resort to swinging your dicktionary to make your point, your argument lacks persuasiveness. When you need to insist on a particular definition, excluding others in common usage, your argument is simply garbage.

There's no question a firearm is an implement of lethal force, but it can be used not only to inflict trauma, but also to coerce compliance (be it for lawful or unlawful purposes) through threat of same, or punch holes in cardboard targets, etc. etc.


con·tin·gen·cy
–noun, plural -cies.

1. dependence on chance or on the fulfillment of a condition; uncertainty; fortuitousness: Nothing was left to contingency.

It is possible that, while you might prefer not to shoot in self-defense, the contingency may arise that the only way to protect yourself or others is by shooting. At that point, a replica is worse than useless. Moreover, various self-defense experts have opined that it is not the firearm itself that deters the criminal; it is the apparent willingness of the wielder to use it. But how convincing a performance are you going to give if you know the weapon in your hand is a fake that, if things come a head, won't do any good?

Jesus, talk about tendentious "reasoning."

Is to allow me to effectively defend mysel from a person who is bigger and stronger than I am

as are any number of self defense techniques which don't require that a person draw a weapon, aim, then fire.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


Yes, of course, a "kick to the groin" is MANY TIMES MORE reliable as a means of defense than a fire arm. Maybe you should have told that to the woman who was killed in her home while on the phone with 911 after a couple of guys broke in. All she needed to do was run around and kick them all in the groin, which of course the assailants were going to simply stand there and let her do with zero resistance. Wow, just wow man. You simply aren't living in reality. End of story.

that if she had a firearm, she would have not been killed.

...oh wait, no, I didn't. But do I think she would have had a better shot defending her self with a firearm than with her mad groin kicking skillz? Absolutely!

if she had a flamethrower. Your implication is that her having a firearm would have made the difference when there is no amount of worthy supposition that you can provide that would make it so.

...not that it would have with 100% certainty. I would point to the many DGU's to underscore the increase in chances she would have had against several larger attackers. But clearly, you're not willing to acknowledge DGU's even exist it would seem.

After all, those belts are so damn heavy with the gun, and spare magazines on it.

...seen your reply before I wrote mine. It's late. (yawn)

...all of law enforcement must turn in their weapons and learn to groin-kick.

After all, we would have many fewer wrongful death suits to pay off if the cops just couldn't kill anyone. ;)

in Sierra Vista, Arizona SHOULD have kicked this sucker in the groin, eh?

Video at link:

http://www.kvoa.com/news/82-year-old-fights-off-attacker/

SIERRA VISTA - An 82-year-old woman takes matters into her own hands after she's attacked in a Wal-Mart parking lot in Sierra Vista.

Police said the suspect Stephen Prickett beat the woman with her own cane until she grabbed her gun from her purse and started firing.

After a few days in the hospital, she's out and told News 4 all about it.

She said she was just walking to her car with some groceries when she was approached by the suspect. She said, "In a very mild voice he said, 'this is your day. You are too old to be alive anyway.'"

Moments later she said he grabbed her cane and started beating her and she's got the bruises to prove it. She said, "I got boo boos where I didn't know I had a place to put boo boos."

She eventually went for the gun in her purse and opened fire. She didn't hit him but said it still saved her life. She said, "In the long run I think it saved me because if I hadn't shot the thing no one would have known there was anything wrong and come running."

Wal-Mart employees came to her rescue and police weren't far behind.

Police said the victim did absolutely everything right. As for the suspect, they said he made a big mistake. Tracy Grady with the Sierra Vista Police Department said, "He picked the wrong woman. She was the wrong target."

And the self proclaimed "stubborn, old broad" said you can say that again. She said, "If I go naturally or to a sickness or something, fine. I'm ready to go, but I'm not ready to let some idiot like that take me out."

The victim said owning a gun isn't for everyone but added with the proper training it's a good idea particularly for elderly people like her that are becoming victim's more and more often.

The suspect was arrested shortly after the attack. He's facing multiple charges including attempted murder.

And please only include EFFECTIVE means of self-defense.

Stun-guns, tazers, mace. And before you come back with "but those aren't effective", I can assure you, having experienced most of those, they damn well are effective at disabling a person.

the statement that none of those options are as effective at having the ability to STOP a person from what they are doing immediately without considerations of wind direction, clothing barriers, etc?

Why should a 120lb. woman or a 60 year old man have to get close enough to an attacker to use a tazer when they can stop the threat from 20 feet away?

I prefer the most effective defense for myself and my family. Not some lowball piece of shit that will only be effective a percentage of the time.

He won't agree with you most likely. My guess is that people need to rely on their "natural ninja skillz" which are in reality far more reliable than firearms at stopping an attacker.

If you are dissatisfied with your end of the conversation we were having then I invite you to kindly fuck off. But good show being a child and dragging to another person with whom I was having a discussion.

and maybe you can stop an assailant that is walking briskly toward you.

Draw, aim and fire your mace at me at 20 feet, and I'll demonstrate how utterly ineffective it is.

is worlds more reliable at stopping an attacker than a 9mm line of potential defense.

Have you ever been maced? Have you ever maced someone else, and then had them get to you, and share it with you?

It is certainly effective in some situations against some people. So is 9mm. Both solutions require proper placement of the material to be effective.

especially when the wind is blowing in the victim's direction.

Why the hell do police carry firearms if mace is all they need?

a. Quick-draw my pepper-spray/mace and blind the assailant before he shoots. If I am slow to draw he may miss, but I will be sure to spray him unless the wind is against me. Once he's been sprayed he'll still be able to shoot but even less likely to be able to aim.

b. Quick-draw my 1911, aim, neither the wind, superman nor anything except some Kevlar is stopping that round, (during this short moment I can reserve the decision to fire if my assailant retreats and I feel confident that the danger has passed).


As my cousin Vinny said: "I'm goin' wit' option B."



Concisely and to the point, "Anything worth shooting is worth shooting twice. Ammo is cheap. Life is expensive."
"Only hits count. Close doesn't count. The only thing worse than a miss is a slow miss."
"Decide to be aggressive ENOUGH, quickly ENOUGH."
"The faster you finish the fight, the less shot you will get."
"Your number one Option for Personal Security is a lifelong commitment to avoidance, deterrence, and de-escalation."

You are very wrong. I hope you never have the misfortune to find out just how wrong you are.

Arthur just wanted to feel good, like all the other patrons.

According to the article, he did the right thing in returning the gun to his truck. "aggravated unlawful use of a weapon" - either the cops had to trump up a charge, or the article is greatly lacking in facts.

Are hardly felonious acts , nor grounds for probable cause . One or both were being dickheads .

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

My guess is the guy is a CCW permit holder and decided to take the family to Great America near Gurnee Illinois.

Probably forgot that Illinois doesn't recognize the entire constitution and when he saw the sign tried to put it back in his car. Unless the guy turns out to be an illegal carrier, or has a criminal background, the charges will probably fall apart but he won't make the mistake of coming to Illinois again if he's smart.

But hey, no sense in letting something relatively innocent like that go to waste when you can twist it around and vilify the crap out of the guy. My money is on the charges being significantly reduced, if not tossed out completely (do to the aforementioned probable cause issues).

edit for spelling issues

A young man with Tatoos running through a parking lot isn't enough probable cause?

:sarcasm:

These two really need to learn how to NOT talk to police. http://www.panamalaw.org/should_you_talk_to_law_enforcement_officials.html

Brown skin, tattoos, obviously the Security Guards and Police had probable cause. <sarcasm>

The sad part is that at least some people here seem to feel that way too just because he was carrying, just like 10 million other law abiding, voting citizens that must all be "GOP/NRA Morans".

File this under another Jpak "Man with Gun - Nothing Happened" story.

...another thread to exercise the Unrec button. Like all jpak's threads.

...otherwise why else post all the BS he/she does?

yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup yup

They really don't know he was carrying.
The article states that the gun was found under the seat.
Nowhere does it say that he was actually carrying, while standing in line.
Did anyone actually see him carrying on his person?
Of course his idiot girlfriend probably ratted him out at her first opportunity.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

It illustrates exactly why we need to get rid of our patchwork of different CCW laws and finally pass national reciprocity to make permits like drivers' licenses - recognized in every state the same way.

The Thune-Vitter bill a couple of years ago would have done that but failed in the senate by TWO VOTES. The bill received 58 votes and needed 60 to pass. It was supported by several democrats, including Harry Reid. But I guess he's just a GOP/NRA Moran too right?

nope
nope
nope

Look at all these "D's" with a Yea next to their name!

Senate vote tally:

Akaka (D-HI), Nay
Alexander (R-TN), Yea
Barrasso (R-WY), Yea
Baucus (D-MT), Yea
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Begich (D-AK), Yea
Bennet (D-CO), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Nay
Bond (R-MO), Yea
Boxer (D-CA), Nay
Brown (D-OH), Nay
Brownback (R-KS), Yea
Bunning (R-KY), Yea
Burr (R-NC), Yea
Burris (D-IL), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Not Voting
Cantwell (D-WA), Nay
Cardin (D-MD), Nay
Carper (D-DE), Nay
Casey (D-PA), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Yea
Coburn (R-OK), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Yea
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Corker (R-TN), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Yea
Crapo (R-ID), Yea
DeMint (R-SC), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Nay
Ensign (R-NV), Yea
Enzi (R-WY), Yea
Feingold (D-WI), Yea
Feinstein (D-CA), Nay
Franken (D-MN), Nay
Gillibrand (D-NY), Nay
Graham (R-SC), Yea
Grassley (R-IA), Yea
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagan (D-NC), Yea
Harkin (D-IA), Nay
Hatch (R-UT), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Yea
Inhofe (R-OK), Yea
Inouye (D-HI), Nay
Isakson (R-GA), Yea
Johanns (R-NE), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Yea
Kaufman (D-DE), Nay
Kennedy (D-MA), Not Voting
Kerry (D-MA), Nay
Klobuchar (D-MN), Nay
Kohl (D-WI), Nay
Kyl (R-AZ), Yea
Landrieu (D-LA), Yea
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Nay
Leahy (D-VT), Nay
Levin (D-MI), Nay
Lieberman (ID-CT), Nay
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lugar (R-IN), Nay
Martinez (R-FL), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Yea
McCaskill (D-MO), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Yea
Menendez (D-NJ), Nay
Merkley (D-OR), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Not Voting
Murkowski (R-AK), Yea
Murray (D-WA), Nay
Nelson (D-FL), Nay
Nelson (D-NE), Yea
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Nay
Reid (D-NV), Yea
Risch (R-ID), Yea
Roberts (R-KS), Yea
Rockefeller (D-WV), Nay
Sanders (I-VT), Nay
Schumer (D-NY), Nay
Sessions (R-AL), Yea
Shaheen (D-NH), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (D-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Nay
Tester (D-MT), Yea
Thune (R-SD), Yea
Udall (D-CO), Yea
Udall (D-NM), Yea
Vitter (R-LA), Yea
Voinovich (R-OH), Nay
Warner (D-VA), Yea
Webb (D-VA), Yea
Whitehouse (D-RI), Nay
Wicker (R-MS), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Nay

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

After reading jpak's post, you will be ignorant and stupid and perhaps missing a few million or billion brain cells, so if you want to be educated on the issue keep reading. No gun zones that are not enforced attract mass shootings because anyone can still get in with a gun and there is at least some reassurance that no one else is armed there. My view is that if I am disarmed against my will in a no gun zone and the property owner fails to provide security, if I get shot I should be able to sue the hell out of them, although such zones should not exist. Private property that is used to conduct business is not the same as a private residence. There must be some laws that protect the people who need to enter that private property in order to conduct business. If the property owner cannot provide security at all points of entry and guarantee no one will be armed with a knife or gun, then they should not have the ability to disarm me when I conduct business on their property. If the property owner is able to provide security and everyone must pass through a metal detector at any point of entry, then I have no problem with disarming myself as long as I can leave my gun in my car. If I can be sure no one will enter with a knife or gun onto the property, then I have no problem with going disarmed. If the property owner does not want to provide security or allow law abiding and licensed individuals to carry on the property they also don't need to be conducting legitimate (and already government regulated) business on that property.

This is probably the way most gun owners feel on the issue.