PDA

View Full Version : Another national parks gun article



Lops
07-24-2008, 09:43
Came across this one this morning, don't know if it's something that's already been out:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25630796/

Hmmmm...do we need to carry guns in national parks to be safe?:-?

The NRA's still fighting for it.

Lone Wolf
07-24-2008, 09:46
Hmmmm...do we need to carry guns in national parks to be safe?:-?

The NRA's still fighting for it.

some feel they do and it's a right guaranteed by the Constitution

Rain Man
07-24-2008, 10:04
I'd say go to the horse's mouth if you want the truth (from the linked article)--

"In 40 years as a ranger, manager and superintendent of national parks from Alaska to North Carolina, Doug Morris says he never responded to a crime that would have been prevented had a visitor been carrying a concealed weapon. Nor did he hear complaints from gun owners about the rule requiring them to unload and lock away firearms while in national parks.

"But Morris, who retired three years ago, says he did see cases where visitors shot wildlife or fired wildly into the night in crowded campgrounds. That’s why Morris and a majority of his fellow members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees adamantly oppose a National Rifle Association-led effort to lift the decades-old ban on concealed weapons in the parks. “Nothing is broken about the existing rule,” he said." ...

"Black bears and many other animals in parks hardly ever pose serious threats to humans, Morris said, but “people who visit these parks are really out of their comfort zone and … they perceive threats that just don’t exist.” ...

"Comments on the proposed rule change may be sent by mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn. 1024-AD70, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, Va., 22203. They may be submitted online by following instructions at www.regulations.gov."

So there you go. You can vote to move the Nation forward, or you can vote to move it backwards to the rose-colored high-noon shoot-out days of the "WILD west." It's a great Nation when the average citizen can petition his or her government.

The new deadline is August 8, 2008.

Rain:sunMan

.

minnesotasmith
07-24-2008, 10:13
It's not a "crime" for wildlife to attack or threaten people or their property, but it's still objectionable enough to many people that they would wish to defend themselves with firearms against such wildlife. I wouldn't blame them, especially if they weren't completely stupid about provoking the situation (approaching bear with cubs or a kill, leaving meat/fish garbage around their campsite, etc.)

Bulldawg
07-24-2008, 10:34
I'd say go to the horse's mouth if you want the truth (from the linked article)--

"In 40 years as a ranger, manager and superintendent of national parks from Alaska to North Carolina, Doug Morris says he never responded to a crime that would have been prevented had a visitor been carrying a concealed weapon. Nor did he hear complaints from gun owners about the rule requiring them to unload and lock away firearms while in national parks.


.

May be because I feel certain that a superintendent isn't out responding to crimes or having town hall meetings with gun owners to hear their ideas. I don't see crime in my town on a day to day basis, that doesn't mean it does not happen.


You can vote to move the Nation forward, or you can vote to move it backwards to the rose-colored high-noon shoot-out days of the "WILD west." It's a great Nation when the average citizen can petition his or her government.

So moving further away from the Constitutional rights given to us through the blood shed of our forefathers and founding fathers is what is called "moving the Nation forward"?

taildragger
07-24-2008, 10:52
I think if they enacted this there might be a few less bears in yosemite...

I do believe that this is a right and I have nothing against it from that standpoint, but I do believe that the rangers are right in that there are some people who will shoot wildlife and cause trouble with firearms in parks.

Quite frankly, I don't really care which way it goes.

Lops
07-24-2008, 14:31
This is probably in tons of threads already, but -- I honestly don't know...are there really that many animal attacks to promp people to carry a gun? The amount of attacks are very very low compared to amount of people that visit parks. And how many of those are b/c people are just being plain stupid? If people understand wildlife and it is left to it's own and people view and enjoy it, then...?

As far as protection from being attacked, I'm just a naive mtn boy from CO and I've walked around downtown Chicago almost every day for the past 5 yrs and I don't carry a gun. I've never been attacked, mugged, etc. I've had some shady experiences, but being smart in the situation has always worked for me. To each his own. If you can handle a gun responsibly then more power to ya, I guess. Can't wait to get out of the city BTW:banana

taildragger
07-24-2008, 14:35
This is probably in tons of threads already, but -- I honestly don't know...are there really that many animal attacks to promp people to carry a gun? The amount of attacks are very very low compared to amount of people that visit parks. And how many of those are b/c people are just being plain stupid? If people understand wildlife and it is left to it's own and people view and enjoy it, then...?

As far as protection from being attacked, I'm just a naive mtn boy from CO and I've walked around downtown Chicago almost every day for the past 5 yrs and I don't carry a gun. I've never been attacked, mugged, etc. I've had some shady experiences, but being smart in the situation has always worked for me. To each his own. If you can handle a gun responsibly then more power to ya, I guess. Can't wait to get out of the city BTW:banana

Its a fear deal, I imagine that the sow that was bluff charging a camp in Yosemite might have gotten shot (at) if some of the people there had a gun (I know my dad who is seasoned with a gun and being outdoors would have done so in a heart beat, for some reason he's deathly afraid of bears).

-Keep on draggin'

Singe03
07-24-2008, 15:38
You can vote to move the Nation forward, or you can vote to move it backwards to the rose-colored high-noon shoot-out days of the "WILD west." It's a great Nation when the average citizen can petition his or her government.

Why does the "wild west" statement continue to come out when it so flatly falls on its face in the light of facts.

Florida was going to be the "wild west" when concealed carry legislation was passed. It did not happen. Florida was going to turn in to the "wild west" when castle doctrine was passed. It did not happen. Texas was going to be just like the "wild west" when it enacted "shall issue" legislation regarding CHLs, it did not happen. Texas was going to... blah blah... castle doctrine... it didn't happen.

In fact, there is not one state that suffered from an increased crime rate when concealed carry legislation was enacted, in fact I can't name one case where the crime rates failed to drop. Allowing citizens who already have the legal right to carry weapons in their state to carry in national parks in their state or states with reciprocation agreements should be a no-brainer.

Fiddleback
07-24-2008, 15:49
Comments on the proposed rule change may be sent by mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn. 1024-AD70, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, Va., 22203. They may be submitted online by following instructions at www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/).

take-a-knee
07-24-2008, 15:55
This is probably in tons of threads already, but -- I honestly don't know...are there really that many animal attacks to promp people to carry a gun? The amount of attacks are very very low compared to amount of people that visit parks. And how many of those are b/c people are just being plain stupid? If people understand wildlife and it is left to it's own and people view and enjoy it, then...?

As far as protection from being attacked, I'm just a naive mtn boy from CO and I've walked around downtown Chicago almost every day for the past 5 yrs and I don't carry a gun. I've never been attacked, mugged, etc. I've had some shady experiences, but being smart in the situation has always worked for me. To each his own. If you can handle a gun responsibly then more power to ya, I guess. Can't wait to get out of the city BTW:banana

Yes, naive and fundamentally ignorant of the laws of logic, since you haven't been mugged...yet, therefore no one in Chi-town has been for the last five years.

Darwin again
07-24-2008, 19:39
""… they perceive threats that just don’t exist.” ...

There you go.
End of thread.

(Please!)

take-a-knee
07-24-2008, 22:01
""… they perceive threats that just don’t exist.” ...

There you go.
End of thread.

(Please!)

Yeah, threats that don't exist, like this guy:

http://www.yosemitegold.com/yosemite/sund.htm

Maybe you need to evolve some more Darwin<><

take-a-knee
07-24-2008, 22:08
Why does the "wild west" statement continue to come out when it so flatly falls on its face in the light of facts.

Florida was going to be the "wild west" when concealed carry legislation was passed. It did not happen. Florida was going to turn in to the "wild west" when castle doctrine was passed. It did not happen. Texas was going to be just like the "wild west" when it enacted "shall issue" legislation regarding CHLs, it did not happen. Texas was going to... blah blah... castle doctrine... it didn't happen.

In fact, there is not one state that suffered from an increased crime rate when concealed carry legislation was enacted, in fact I can't name one case where the crime rates failed to drop. Allowing citizens who already have the legal right to carry weapons in their state to carry in national parks in their state or states with reciprocation agreements should be a no-brainer.

Not only did FL's violent crime rate not increase, it went DOWN 15-20% while it was going up in the rest of the country. I guess that made for slim pickens for the goblins, because they started targeting drivers of rental cars (they could be ID'ed by their plates). Predators avoid other predators.

Bob S
07-24-2008, 22:20
The simple fact on f how it is and will always be is that those that don’t like guns will never stop demanding everyone does it their way and never carry a gun. Freedom to them means nothing compared to their anti gun agenda and views. So much so is their hate for guns they will if at all possible have men with guns and badges come and take your guns or restrict your right to have one to protect yourself.

They can’t let it be a personal choice for each person to make.

Alligator
07-24-2008, 22:42
We'd like to keep threads like this open since many of you are so passionate about this, but if you folks can't keep the over the top rhetoric down, there won't be much hope for keeping this thread open. That goes for both sides.

Darwin again
07-25-2008, 01:05
Yeah, threats that don't exist, like this guy:

http://www.yosemitegold.com/yosemite/sund.htm

Maybe you need to evolve some more Darwin<><

I'll ignore your attempt at insult, knee, which violates the user agreement, btw.

But here's a subhead from that web page:
"Update on the 3 Missing Yosemite Women: 3 Grizzly Finds"

I don't generally take sources that can't spell, "grisly" seriously.
Unless... Unless it was THE BEARS THAT DONE IT!!!:eek:

Well, bring in the cat and get me my GUN!
Colbert was RIGHT!

But seriously, people are murdered every day in all sorts of places, including national parks, regardless of the gun laws or the presence or absence of guns. This is an endless argument, consisting mostly of opinions and little regard for reality (from either side of the issue).
This topic has been beaten and beaten and beaten here, by all the usual suspects. No need to continue the thrashing, is there?

Sly
07-25-2008, 01:26
It's illegal to carry in certain places. It's the law, gun toters get over it.

ed bell
07-25-2008, 01:28
Comments on the proposed rule change may be sent by mail to: Public Comments Processing, Attn. 1024-AD70, Division of Policy and Directives Management, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, 4401 N. Fairfax Drive, Suite 222, Arlington, Va., 22203. They may be submitted online by following instructions at www.regulations.gov (http://www.regulations.gov/). Lets move forward with Fiddleback's link. Comments are fine, but if posts continue to follow the current back and forth this thread can be sent to the Sensitive Trail Subjects Forum. Easy enough. Lets get on with it and over it. Thanks

ed

Wilson
07-25-2008, 07:27
[quote=Darwin again;671681]

But seriously, people are murdered every day in all sorts of places, including national parks, regardless of the gun laws or the presence or absence of guns. /quote]

Indeed, but I wonder what the murder rate is among law abiding, licensed, Concealed carry users?....If there is such a stat, I would guess it to be very low.

Lops
07-25-2008, 10:09
Yes, naive and fundamentally ignorant of the laws of logic, since you haven't been mugged...yet, therefore no one in Chi-town has been for the last five years.


We'd like to keep threads like this open since many of you are so passionate about this, but if you folks can't keep the over the top rhetoric down, there won't be much hope for keeping this thread open. That goes for both sides.

Oops should have expected passionate responses with a gun thread. :D

You should see the news here, there's crime all of the time. I wasn't implying that its not going to and doesn't happen. Ignorance is bliss:sun.

Sorry Alligator, didn't mean to stir the pot up with this thread - just trying to get the word out.

CRS
07-25-2008, 10:39
Guns may be a part of our constitution, but do you feel safe hiking with a concealed weapon that could shoot you in the foot because the safety is clicked off accidentally in your pack? If you need a gun to feel safe hiking then you might as well stay home. Stick to pepper spray!

leeki pole
07-25-2008, 10:39
[quote=Darwin again;671681]

But seriously, people are murdered every day in all sorts of places, including national parks, regardless of the gun laws or the presence or absence of guns. /quote]

Indeed, but I wonder what the murder rate is among law abiding, licensed, Concealed carry users?....If there is such a stat, I would guess it to be very low.
Probably zero. Just a guess.

taildragger
07-25-2008, 10:43
Guns may be a part of our constitution, but do you feel safe hiking with a concealed weapon that could shoot you in the foot because the safety is clicked off accidentally in your pack? If you need a gun to feel safe hiking then you might as well stay home. Stick to pepper spray!

Same reason why I don't hike with polls and sandals...

CRS
07-25-2008, 10:48
Haha! I guess those of us who know we're a klutz will stay away from guns.

Bearpaw
07-25-2008, 10:56
Has any one EVER changed any one else's mind on the topic of guns by discussion? Maybe, but it's probably less than a tenth of a percent.

I see plenty of posts here I view as silly and just uninformed. I see plenty I view as emotionally charged. I see plenty that are well-reasoned and thoughtful.

Unfortunately reason has nothing to do with the creation of many laws. Emotion is what trumps folks up enough to take action and push legislators to change most laws.

While many folks here may feel this thread is nasty, I say this: I'm surprised it has stayed as civil as it has. Folks have generally followed Alligator's prompt to keep their heads. Let's please try to continue doing so.

Bulldawg
07-25-2008, 10:56
Guns may be a part of our constitution, but do you feel safe hiking with a concealed weapon that could shoot you in the foot because the safety is clicked off accidentally in your pack? If you need a gun to feel safe hiking then you might as well stay home. Stick to pepper spray!

I usually hike with my gun safely holstered on my waist belt, not in my pack. What good would it do in your pack?

minnesotasmith
07-25-2008, 11:38
Guns may be a part of our constitution, but do you feel safe [working as a police officer] with a concealed weapon that could shoot you in the foot because the safety is clicked off accidentally in your [car/holster]? If you need a gun to feel safe [on patrol] then you might as well stay home. Stick to pepper spray!

You don't advocate banning carrying of firearms by police based upon the possibility that they might mess up and hurt themselves with their weapons (and BC nonlethal weapons are fully adequate for self-defense now), do you? When the cops (including FBI, Border Patrol, MPs, full-fledged Park Rangers, game Wardens, etc.) switch to carrying just nonlethal weapons for dealing with criminals and large animals, then I figure such a statement will have merit.

Too, never forget that there are millions of Americans who are currently private citizens who have substantially more firearms training/experience of actual use than do run-of-the mill police. If only the experience criteria is used for who should have CCW rights, then logically those citizens should if anything have more extensive rights on what firearms they can carry where. Obviously, some other agenda (than firearm safety for the user vs. training levels) is going on here...

taildragger
07-25-2008, 11:48
Too, never forget that there are millions of Americans who are currently private citizens who have substantially more firearms training/experience of actual use than do run-of-the mill police. If only the experience criteria is used for who should have CCW rights, then logically those citizens should if anything have more extensive rights on what firearms they can carry where. Obviously, some other agenda (than firearm safety for the user vs. training levels) is going on here...

Source please?

I really would like to see a stat that shows that there are Millions of private americans who have more firearms training and or experience than most cops. I seriously doubt this fact, and lets be honest, a CCW card doesn't count for more training.

minnesotasmith
07-25-2008, 12:13
Source please?

I really would like to see a stat that shows that there are Millions of private americans who have more firearms training and or experience than most cops. I seriously doubt this fact, and lets be honest, a CCW card doesn't count for more training.

There are loads of living Americans who were in the military in wartime (many getting shot at in combat as part of ground combat forces), from WWII to Korea to Vietnam to Gulf War I to Gulf War II, who are no longer in the military. You are doubting that?

(Do keep in mind that many or most police never fire their weapons off a shooting range even once in their entire careers.)

taildragger
07-25-2008, 12:16
There are loads of living Americans who were in the military in wartime (many getting shot at in combat as part of ground combat forces), from WWII to Korea to Vietnam to Gulf War I to Gulf War II, who are no longer in the military. You are doubting that?

(Do keep in mind that many or most police never fire their weapons off a shooting range even once in their entire careers.)

Far different training than LEO's. An LEO is more likely to be held accountable for something they do, and have more questions asked. So, when an LEO shoots, they really have to be trained to think about the outcome. My friends in the marines are pretty much trained in shoot to kill, move on, repeat.

minnesotasmith
07-25-2008, 12:27
[Military veterans commonly have]
Far different training than LEO's.

They are commonly trained on a wider variety, often "heavier", and routinely fully automatic, and more thoroughly/intensively, weapons than are police. They also use them more, under a wider variety of circumstances. So, if anything, mil veterans (at least in ground services) arguably should be more trusted with carrying weapons in daily life, including automatic weapons, than are most police.

That's definitely "millions of Americans in private life". ;)

Then, there're the various Americans (often but not exclusively rural) who grew up using firearms regularly for hunting, plinking, etc., from an early age, unlike police recruited from cities like NYC/Chicago/Wash. DC (where there's long been near-total gun control) who didn't touch a firearm til in the Police Academy as adults. If cops in those cities can be trusted to carry firearms whereever they go, then so should those private citizens.

More millions of Americans as (or more) experienced with firearms than many cops, so logically entitled to carry wherever they go, as long as the cops are...

Two Speed
07-25-2008, 12:58
You don't advocate banning carrying of firearms by police based upon the possibility that they might mess up and hurt themselves with their weapons . . . Well, to start with law enforcement doesn't ban guns, legislatures do. Wanna start over?

minnesotasmith
07-25-2008, 13:02
Well, to start with law enforcement doesn't ban guns, legislatures do. Wanna start over?

Of course it's legislatures (and courts) that ban firearms. Surely everyone here knows that. I was referring to banning of police (or citizens) carrying firearms, not who was doing the banning.

Two Speed
07-25-2008, 13:03
And police not carrying firearms in the US became part of this conversation when?

minnesotasmith
07-25-2008, 13:07
And police not carrying firearms in the US became part of this conversation when?

Someone posted that nonlethal weapons were perfectly adequate means of self-defense, and I pointed out that if that were so, then the police would stop carrying firearms and carry just those instead. (And, that if that person were consistent, that he would advocate the same.)

Kirby
07-25-2008, 13:08
Someone just south of Damascus on the trail told me he/she was "packing heat", and I immediately felt unsafe.

Kirby

Two Speed
07-25-2008, 13:09
And that became a serious proposal to deploy police forces in the US without firearms when?

minnesotasmith
07-25-2008, 13:11
And that became a serious proposal to deploy police forces in the US without firearms when?

In the mind of anyone (if consistent) who agreed with him, that nonlethal means of self-defense are a fully-adequate substitute for firearms for self-defense.

Do you take that position about nonlethal means?

Two Speed
07-25-2008, 13:15
Let's try that again:

And that became a serious proposal to deploy police forces in the US without firearms when?

HexMcjinx
07-25-2008, 13:41
You don't advocate banning carrying of firearms by police based upon the possibility that they might mess up and hurt themselves with their weapons (and BC nonlethal weapons are fully adequate for self-defense now), do you? When the cops (including FBI, Border Patrol, MPs, full-fledged Park Rangers, game Wardens, etc.) switch to carrying just nonlethal weapons for dealing with criminals and large animals, then I figure such a statement will have merit.

Too, never forget that there are millions of Americans who are currently private citizens who have substantially more firearms training/experience of actual use than do run-of-the mill police. If only the experience criteria is used for who should have CCW rights, then logically those citizens should if anything have more extensive rights on what firearms they can carry where. Obviously, some other agenda (than firearm safety for the user vs. training levels) is going on here...

Hear, hear!! I think some here are misguided about the level of firearm training that the average police person receives. I have several friends on the police force, and I can tell you that their knowledge of firearms is rudimentary (functional), at best. Of course, there are exceptions, but those are the individuals who have taken it upon themselves to train more extensively. To go beyond the KISS method that is taught to most police personnel ( though KISS is really all that anyone should require), they usually sign up for training programs taught and directed by.....you guessed it, ordinary citizens!

HexMcjinx
07-25-2008, 13:44
Let's try that again:

And that became a serious proposal to deploy police forces in the US without firearms when?

I'd say when it became necessary for Minnesota to illustrate his point, which some of you are very sly in avoiding.

Bulldawg
07-25-2008, 13:45
Ya know it really hurts me bad to do this. But MS is making sense with what he is saying. If the reason people do not need to carry legal firearms is because legal firearms are not required to protect one's self in the event a crime is perpetrated upon them or some wild savage animal attacks them, then police should be perfectly OK and safe with carrying non lethal weapons as well. I can see the logic in that. Remember the quote::

'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~ Thomas Jefferson

Pedaling Fool
07-25-2008, 13:48
...'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~ Thomas Jefferson
Never heard that one, pretty good.

HexMcjinx
07-25-2008, 13:50
Ya know it really hurts me bad to do this. But MS is making sense with what he is saying. If the reason people do not need to carry legal firearms is because legal firearms are not required to protect one's self in the event a crime is perpetrated upon them or some wild savage animal attacks them, then police should be perfectly OK and safe with carrying non lethal weapons as well. I can see the logic in that. Remember the quote::

'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~ Thomas Jefferson

Absolutely, it doesn't hurt me to admit when someones reasoning is sound. Minnesota makes a good point.

Two Speed
07-25-2008, 14:05
I'd say when it became necessary for Minnesota to illustrate his point, which some of you are very sly in avoiding.That's right up there with bringing flying space monkeys into the argument. Don't know anyone who's in their right mind that's made a proposal about deploying police forces in the US without firearms. I know it sounds crazy, but sticking to a plausible argument is usually a good. Setting up far-fetched straw men is usually a sign that someone either has no idea what they're talking about or is not in possession of all their marbles.

take-a-knee
07-25-2008, 14:22
That's right up there with bringing flying space monkeys into the argument. Don't know anyone who's in their right mind that's made a proposal about deploying police forces in the US without firearms. I know it sounds crazy, but sticking to a plausible argument is usually a good. Setting up far-fetched straw men is usually a sign that someone either has no idea what they're talking about or is not in possession of all their marbles.

No far-fetched straw man was presented. MS's point is on the money, if poorly trained cops can run around our parks with Glocks, why the hell can't I do the same?

take-a-knee
07-25-2008, 14:33
Hear, hear!! I think some here are misguided about the level of firearm training that the average police person receives. I have several friends on the police force, and I can tell you that their knowledge of firearms is rudimentary (functional), at best. Of course, there are exceptions, but those are the individuals who have taken it upon themselves to train more extensively. To go beyond the KISS method that is taught to most police personnel ( though KISS is really all that anyone should require), they usually sign up for training programs taught and directed by.....you guessed it, ordinary citizens!

Well stated, this applies not only the SWAT/SRT types but also the US Army. When Delta Force was stood up in the late 70's there was zero knowledge in the system on CQB pistol shooting. The unit founders relied on what they were taught by British SAS soldiers, this failed miserably. They then went to civilian shooting instructors (Jeff Cooper and others) for advice and training. Lessons were learned and decades later have filtered down to lower echelons. All this occurred because America has a gun culture, there were subject-matter-experts available to be consulted. This couldn't occur in Britain, they've disarmed themselves, as a consequence, their soldiers are bumblers with weapons.

taildragger
07-25-2008, 14:36
[Military veterans commonly have]

They are commonly trained on a wider variety, often "heavier", and routinely fully automatic, and more thoroughly/intensively, weapons than are police. They also use them more, under a wider variety of circumstances. So, if anything, mil veterans (at least in ground services) arguably should be more trusted with carrying weapons in daily life, including automatic weapons, than are most police.

That's definitely "millions of Americans in private life". ;)

Then, there're the various Americans (often but not exclusively rural) who grew up using firearms regularly for hunting, plinking, etc., from an early age, unlike police recruited from cities like NYC/Chicago/Wash. DC (where there's long been near-total gun control) who didn't touch a firearm til in the Police Academy as adults. If cops in those cities can be trusted to carry firearms whereever they go, then so should those private citizens.

More millions of Americans as (or more) experienced with firearms than many cops, so logically entitled to carry wherever they go, as long as the cops are...


I still hold that their training differs in the mentality of how not to shoot and that they are trained more to shoot.

But as far as the ol' boys growing up in the boondocks with guns, I'm one of them. I got my first .22 when I was 5 and if I wasn't signing myself up for another 8 yrs of school, I'd have the income to be a gun nut, and I would. I completely plan on having an AOW permit so I can keep a sawed off in truck when I'm on the ranch (also, if I ever had to shoot at someone, I'd rather have a scatter gun, that way I have the option of being able to shoot at and reliably hit a moving limb instead of the core, or if I wanted to hit the core, I'd have enough power to lay out the person (or feral hog, I HATE FERAL HOGS).



Someone just south of Damascus on the trail told me he/she was "packing heat", and I immediately felt unsafe.

Kirby

Thats weird, most people I've known that inform me that they are "packing" are people that I've stayed away from.

I've gotten into my friends truck once and found his loaded .44 mag and that didn't bother me in the least since he had it hidden and wasn't bragging about it, the braggers are the ones that are more likely to hit you with a large blunt object.

Darwin again
07-25-2008, 14:37
... This couldn't occur in Britain, they've disarmed themselves, as a consequence, their soldiers are bumblers with weapons.

You've clearly never worked with SAS. :rolleyes:

Two Speed
07-25-2008, 14:39
Because you're not a cop?

Actually, you guys have won me over. The threat from flying space monkey is immediate and palpable. :cool:

taildragger
07-25-2008, 14:42
Because you're not a cop?

Actually, you guys have won me over. The threat from flying space monkey is immediate and palpable. :cool:

http://pariahs-guild.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/spacechimps_001.jpg

Darwin again
07-25-2008, 14:46
'Those who hammer their guns into plows will plow for those who do not.'

~ Thomas Jefferson

Guns and plows are what made this country great. Unfortunately, our nation is drifting away from the fundamentals and it will cost/is costing us dearly.

take-a-knee
07-25-2008, 14:51
You've clearly never worked with SAS. :rolleyes:

I've trained with their territorials, the SAS taught point shooting for CQB, this works fine at room distance (8-10 ft.) A friend was in the 10th SF Group(they trained extensively with 22 SAS). One of the guys on his 10th Group ODA (A-team) was an accomplished IPSC shooter (american gun culture again). A loudmouthed SAS guy was supposedly hell-on-wheels with a pistol and challenged the yanks to a contest. The SAS guy was plenty fast and could get torso hits out to seven yards, the IPSC/SF guy cleaned his clock from 10-25yd. because he knew how to find his front sight quickly. The SAS guy missed the whole target most of the time at 25yd. Don't believe everything you see in the movies.

The US Army hosts a sniper competition at Ft Benning every year, the Brits haven't fared to well in the competition.

Two Speed
07-25-2008, 14:57
So let's see if I can close the circle here . . .

The Brits were loosing to the flying space monkeys at the sniper competition at Ft. Benning, but the 10th SF Group couldn't save them because they weren't allowed to have firearms in national parks.

Got it.

Bulldawg
07-25-2008, 15:02
So let's see if I can close the circle here . . .

The Brits were loosing to the flying space monkeys at the sniper competition at Ft. Benning, but the 10th SF Group couldn't save them because they weren't allowed to have firearms in national parks.

Got it.

No, no, no........

You and I were hiking in the Smokies and some tourons (stolen from another thread) at Clingman's had been feeding this hungry bear family. The bear family had left when the tourons left at dark. They wondered into our camp after we had too much undrinkium and passed out without hanging our bear bags. Then I couldn't get the sow bear that was attacking off of you in your bivy because I was not allowed to carry my perfectly legal elsewhere licensed pistol on the hike with me.

taildragger
07-25-2008, 15:08
Whats it with everyone and the fear of bears (or the facts that bears are always used as an example)? Am I the only person who fears wild dogs and pigs more than bears?

take-a-knee
07-25-2008, 15:08
So let's see if I can close the circle here . . .

The Brits were loosing to the flying space monkeys at the sniper competition at Ft. Benning, but the 10th SF Group couldn't save them because they weren't allowed to have firearms in national parks.

Got it.

You should change your name to Ten Speed, you are all over it (whatever IT is, ask Bill).

Back to your well-reasoned (for someone with totalitarian mindset) answer that cops can and should be able to carry anywhere but citizen can not, regardless of ability or training, that dovetails nicely with the view that the state should be the final arbiter. Stalin, Mussolini, Lenin, Pol Pot, and many kindred spirits (can I use that term for a marxist?) would agree. None of them believed in inalienable rights either.

HikerRanky
07-25-2008, 15:09
No, no, no........

You and I were hiking in the Smokies and some tourons (stolen from another thread) at Clingman's had been feeding this hungry bear family. The bear family had left when the tourons left at dark. They wondered into our camp after we had too much undrinkium and passed out without hanging our bear bags. Then I couldn't get the sow bear that was attacking off of you in your bivy because I was not allowed to carry my perfectly legal elsewhere licensed pistol on the hike with me.

You just about owe me a keyboard for that...... As it was, I swallowed my green tea very quickly and coughed for awhile.....

Ever thought of being a writer?

Two Speed
07-25-2008, 15:11
No, no, no.........Well, it's no wonder that bears would wonder about us. Most people do, so why not bears? However, you forgot that I never travel without my trusty sidekick, Barney, the attack Benji.

Also, I was in the privy, not my bivy. I know, the smell's pretty much the same, but I consider my bivy my home away from home, not the privy.

Bulldawg
07-25-2008, 15:16
You just about owe me a keyboard for that...... As it was, I swallowed my green tea very quickly and coughed for awhile.....

Ever thought of being a writer?

I often write letters to the editor when some politician pisses me off. I have written a few speeches for local politcos in fact (I don't have the pretty face or back stabbing qualities needed to be a politician myself). In fact I just got my reassessment on my house yesterday. I have to write a letter to the editor about that. Home prices plummeting and they have the nerve to raise my assessment $15K. Crazy!!

Thanks for the praise!!!

Two Speed
07-25-2008, 16:27
You should change your name to Ten Speed, you are all over it (whatever IT is, ask Bill).

Back to your well-reasoned (for someone with totalitarian mindset) answer that cops can and should be able to carry anywhere but citizen can not, regardless of ability or training, that dovetails nicely with the view that the state should be the final arbiter. Stalin, Mussolini, Lenin, Pol Pot, and many kindred spirits (can I use that term for a marxist?) would agree. None of them believed in inalienable rights either.Curses!

Just when my totalitarian dreams of forcing all hikers to sleep in rainbow hammocks* t-a-k** foils my well laid plans again!

: : : Two Speed seen being led off by chisel-jawed FBI agents to receive his long-overdue shower via waterboard at Gitmo. : : :



Yep, t-a-k, got me writhing in the crushing grip of your logic again. :cool:



* With the cutest little doilies :)
** He of the steely blue eyes and rippling muscles. Or is that steely blue muscles and rippling eyes. :-?

minnesotasmith
07-25-2008, 17:00
There are pro-statist people who believe that governments are more to be trusted than are the citizenry (R.J. Rummel's data aside), and that citizens only have privileges, not inalienable rights. Saying aloud the idea that governments should have to give way as a matter of law and morality to what citizens want, even when the gov't doesn't think that's "best" drives them up a wall. Mention the famous quote by the late Thomas Jefferson (President and author of the Declaration of Independence) that the primary purpose for the 2nd Amendment (written without qualifiers or restrictions by well-educated men who wrote exactly what they wanted to say, and legally still in full force today) is for the citizenry to retain the capability to overthrow the government when it exceeds its Constitutional limits, as understood by the men who wrote it, and they tend to go into grand mals.

These people will in my experience say anything at all to avoid either openly admitting they are the above, or agreeing to the limits on governmental action described (not put in place by, as they are inalienable) by the Constitution.

Phreak
07-25-2008, 17:05
Minnesota makes a good point.I never thought I'd hear myself say this, but I agree with MS on this one.

Two Speed
07-25-2008, 17:58
Oh, me too. The threat posed by flying space monkeys coupled with police forces being deployed without firearms due to liberal totalitarian governments was all it took to convince me.

minnesotasmith
07-25-2008, 18:12
What gun control leads to, over and over:

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/RKBA/genocide.html

Second source (scroll just short of halfway down, til you see the title "Gun Control" atop a large grey block of text): http://freedomkeys.com/r2kbafaqs.htm

ed bell
07-25-2008, 18:35
Lets keep this discussion within the context of National Parks folks.

Fiddleback
07-25-2008, 19:37
Lets keep this discussion within the context of National Parks folks.

OK...at your request:D :

Park gun rules have stood test of time
By DOUG MORRIS
http://missoulian.com/art/pixel.gif
I am writing in response to Tim Fox’s guest column (July 18) asserting gun rights in national parks. It is a thoughtful argument for gun rights in Montana. However, it is not about what is good for the safety of visitors and wildlife in our national parks.

The National Park Service did not propose abandoning long-standing rules requiring that firearms be unloaded and stored while visiting park areas; current leadership of the NPS opposes such a change. The coalition of nearly 700 retired NPS employees, including seven former directors, opposes the proposed change. And the Association of National Park Rangers opposes the proposed change. The subject proposal is the response by political appointees in the Department of the Interior to pressure brought by the National Rifle Association to advance their beliefs in the waning days of this administration.

Many park rangers own guns, and I’m sure many agree with the argument that it is “common sense” to permit possession of loaded firearms in rural Montana. This proposal, however, is not just about Montana, it is about extending the right to carry loaded firearms into over 390 park areas throughout the nation. Places like the geyser basins of Yellowstone, the Gettysburg Battlefield, and ancient Indian ruins in the Southwest, are revered as among the most significant sites in our country. And they have long been among that select list of places where our society agrees that loaded firearms are not appropriate. This restriction has stood the test of some 80 years and is understood by visitors, including gun owners and hunters.

The collective experience of thousands of years protecting parks informs park rangers past and present that any potential benefit that might result from authorizing loaded firearms in parks is far outweighed by increased potential for harm to wildlife and visitors.

(Doug Morris recently retired from a 40-year career with the National Park Service and currently serves on the Executive Council for the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. He writes from Victor, MT.)

from today's Missoulian, http://missoulian.com/articles/2008/07/25/opinion/guest/guest28.txt

take-a-knee
07-25-2008, 19:51
Curses!

Just when my totalitarian dreams of forcing all hikers to sleep in rainbow hammocks* t-a-k** foils my well laid plans again!

: : : Two Speed seen being led off by chisel-jawed FBI agents to receive his long-overdue shower via waterboard at Gitmo. : : :



Yep, t-a-k, got me writhing in the crushing grip of your logic again. :cool:



* With the cutest little doilies :)
** He of the steely blue eyes and rippling muscles. Or is that steely blue muscles and rippling eyes. :-?

No doilies Bro, and no rainbow anything, I'll stick with a Hennessy in a proper tactical color.

Two Speed
07-25-2008, 21:16
t-a-k, we just got a polite request from the forum moderator to stay between the lines.

Let's stay between the lines.

ed bell
07-25-2008, 21:35
Good...so now we are good...good...carry on. :cool:

take-a-knee
07-25-2008, 22:00
t-a-k, we just got a polite request from the forum moderator to stay between the lines.

Let's stay between the lines.

Are the mods elementary school teachers... or nuns or something?:sun

ed bell
07-25-2008, 22:12
Lets keep this discussion within the context of National Parks folks.


Are the mods elementary school teachers... or nuns or something?:sunWell, no I'm not. I simply asked everyone to consider the above request. This is the General AT Forum. The OP is about the issue of firearms and National Parks. I asked that folks stick to that. Thanks for helping me keep this thread in the right direction.

ed

Bearpaw
07-26-2008, 00:17
Are the mods elementary school teachers... or nuns or something?:sun

Actually, I'm a middle school teacher for kids who've been kicked out of their regular schools.

The note I got dealt with posts 11 and 13 since they can be considered personal attacks. Alligator made mention for folks to settle down (post 16) and I did something similar (post 26). Everything seemed to settle decently and folks discussed things in what I felt was a respectful manner.

However, the thread went from Guns in Parks to gun ownership vs gun-control in general. You argument in post 58 moved away from guns in National Parks. I always tell folks on the left that when they lump someone in as a Nazi, they're losing the argument. This post fell into that category.

All we're asking is that members remain civil, and stick to the principle issue at hand.

BTW, I'm a very experienced shooter who held the Camp LeJeune SLAM course pistol record for years, and I'm pretty solidly pro-2nd Amendment. I'm only trying to keep the discussion on a level playing field so all members can discuss the issue without resorting to name-calling and so we can keep to the issue at hand without deleting posts or closing the thread.

If I had my way, I'd lump gun-control threads with politics and do away with them. I don't think ANYONE is going to change their minds based on an internet forum. I'd prefer to see discussion about technical issues of carrying on-trail listed in Straightforward and leave it at that. It gets nerve wracking to watch and wait for a gun-control thread to explode.

I would have gotten involved earlier, but hey, I was out hiking...:o

SunnyWalker
07-26-2008, 00:52
Ed Bell: hey I like the photo of the dog. Why don't you post it on the thread for dog photos?!?!? It'd be neat.

ed bell
07-26-2008, 00:56
Ed Bell: hey I like the photo of the dog. Why don't you post it on the thread for dog photos?!?!? It'd be neat.I'll put it on my Sat. list Sunny. I love my border collie! Her name is Bittle. She is a good dog.

trouthunter
07-26-2008, 01:35
I personally carry a handgun in remote areas, we have a lot of black bears that are not scared of people anymore and some who have been re-located out of the parks because someone could not scare them away.

I have been a responsible gun owner for many years, I practice regularly, and have had combat training. I also compete on an amateur level.

If you choose to carry a gun you have to understand it is only part of a comprehensive package for being prepared. It does not mean you are safe, black bears are very fast and very strong. How much shooting have you done at a moving target while peeing your pants? If you have advance warning of a bear approaching you have a good chance of placing a lethal shot. I use a well trained Akita, dogs can hear and smell anything close by, but an untrained dog will cause trouble with bears.

The best thing for most people is to first learn how to travel and camp in bear country, 90% of encounters are avoidable if you follow the prescribed guidelines.

Also it is true that some people who own guns shouldn't be allowed to carry a marsh mellow, but the same is true of driving. It is a matter of personal responsibility, all areas of our lives would be better if we would get back to teaching our kids that along with our rights come responsibility. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it the responsible thing to do if it is done wrong!

Bulldawg
07-26-2008, 09:21
Also it is true that some people who own guns shouldn't be allowed to carry a marsh mellow, but the same is true of driving. It is a matter of personal responsibility, all areas of our lives would be better if we would get back to teaching our kids that along with our rights come responsibility. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it the responsible thing to do if it is done wrong!

Extremely well said. There is a lot we (parents and teachers) are not teaching our kids these days.

Knocky
07-26-2008, 18:06
I see nothing wrong with an individual carrying a gun, or not.......depending on their personal and private decisions. Guns become an issue when someone makes them an issue.
I don't much care what other folks do, ya know? The only behavior I can control is my own.

Lops
07-27-2008, 14:05
I personally carry a handgun in remote areas, we have a lot of black bears that are not scared of people anymore and some who have been re-located out of the parks because someone could not scare them away.

I have been a responsible gun owner for many years, I practice regularly, and have had combat training. I also compete on an amateur level.

If you choose to carry a gun you have to understand it is only part of a comprehensive package for being prepared. It does not mean you are safe, black bears are very fast and very strong. How much shooting have you done at a moving target while peeing your pants? If you have advance warning of a bear approaching you have a good chance of placing a lethal shot. I use a well trained Akita, dogs can hear and smell anything close by, but an untrained dog will cause trouble with bears.

The best thing for most people is to first learn how to travel and camp in bear country, 90% of encounters are avoidable if you follow the prescribed guidelines.

Also it is true that some people who own guns shouldn't be allowed to carry a marsh mellow, but the same is true of driving. It is a matter of personal responsibility, all areas of our lives would be better if we would get back to teaching our kids that along with our rights come responsibility. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it the responsible thing to do if it is done wrong!

Good post trouthunter...compliments earlier posts well.

Sly
07-27-2008, 14:35
I wonder how many "hikers" have shot a bear out of season or without a hunting license because of an encounter. Most likely none, which brings up the question are guns really needed as a deterrent?

minnesotasmith
07-27-2008, 14:52
I wonder how many "hikers" have shot a bear out of season or without a hunting license because of an encounter. Most likely none, which brings up the question are guns really needed as a deterrent?

It's not simply the odds, but how catastrophic is a risk gone bad. Ask Timothy Treadwell...

If a bear cornered a group of hikers that included me in a shelter, I'd be ecstatic if one had a .357 with him.

Sly
07-27-2008, 16:12
It's not simply the odds, but how catastrophic is a risk gone bad. Ask Timothy Treadwell...

If a bear cornered a group of hikers that included me in a shelter, I'd be ecstatic if one had a .357 with him.

TT lived in Griz country 13 seasons and went back later in the season than ever before. He was basically asking for it.

If.... if pigs could fly...

Fiddleback
07-27-2008, 20:12
In the lower 48, grizzlys live in Grand Teton, Yellowstone, and Glacier National Parks and points in between. There are a couple populations elsewhere in the lower 48 but each is estimated at 20 or less.

The national parks were founded to preserve select ecosystems. Specifically, "The Service thus established [the National Park Service] shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations." http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online_books/robbins/robbins8.htm

As part of that preservation ideal, I believe recreation should not take precedent over the wildlife and habitat. In fact, the establishing legislation implies the same thing. My position, therefore, is this; if one cannot feel comfortable recreating in grizzly habitat and feels the need to carry a weapon for protection, i.e., with the intent of wounding or killing a bear in self-defense, then one should give up the idea of recreation in those areas. Backpack, hike, or whatever somewhere else.

The same applies to any animal for which someone feels the need for a self-defense weapon. If that's the concern, the individual(s) should stay out of the park(s).

FB

trouthunter
07-27-2008, 20:36
Fiddleback,

The constitution of Montana, nor any directive given to the National Park Service supersedes my US Constitutional right to self defense whether by animal or human.
If an animal attacks me I will beat it to death with a rock if I have too, gun debate aside.
However common sense and following the prescribed guidelines for traveling in bear country will prevent almost all encounters.
You seek to infringe on my constitutional rights to protect myself, in an effort to protect an animal who is also infringing on my rights. I do not attack them when they wander on my property.

trouthunter
07-27-2008, 20:49
sly,
pigs can't fly, but bears have and do bite, and maul people to death.

2 miles from one of my favorite fishing spots a little girl was mauled to death by a bear, only when shot by an official did the bear stop the attack on the others in the group, even though they were yelling, and throwing rocks and sticks at the bear.
Think what you will.
I'm refering to the incident in Chillihowie. Ask the littles girls family what they think!

Rain Man
07-27-2008, 21:22
I personally carry a handgun in remote areas, we have a lot of black bears that are not scared of people anymore and some who have been re-located out of the parks because someone could not scare them away.

Does that mean you sometimes "carry" illegally? Or, do you always and only "carry" where and how it is legal?

Rain:sunMan

.

mudhead
07-27-2008, 21:23
Pigs flew up near Patten, ME. Course it was a bodacious wind.

Am I the only one more worried about surly moose?

Bearpaw
07-27-2008, 21:42
Does that mean you sometimes "carry" illegally? Or, do you always and only "carry" where and how it is legal?

Rain:sunMan

.

Well, this goes back to the issue at hand. There is an argument that by making it illegal to carry a weapon in a national park, the NPS has in effect violated the constitutional rights of every law-abiding citizen of legal age who visits.

The Supreme Court just ruled that the District of Columbia HAS done this very thing for over 30 years with their handgun ban, so there is both precedent and momentum for change within NPS. I wouldn't say the NPS guidelines necessarily fall into this category, since it principally restricts carrying firearms loaded, rather than a blanket ban. But from every thing I have read, the agreement is so convoluted that it ultimately changes very few parks regulations in any way.

Bob S
07-27-2008, 21:51
It would be nice if it could just come down to.
If you don’t like guns, don’t take one.
And if you do like guns you should have the right to take one.

But those that don’t like them demand their views be applied to all.

I don’t really care what anyone else does with respect to this issue, but it should be their choice to make.

Bulldawg
07-27-2008, 22:06
It would be nice if it could just come down to.
If you don’t like guns, don’t take one.
And if you do like guns you should have the right to take one.

But those that don’t like them demand their views be applied to all.

I don’t really care what anyone else does with respect to this issue, but it should be their choice to make.

Hoo Rah! Well said.

trouthunter
07-28-2008, 01:15
Rain Man,
That is a fair question. If going into remote areas I go to places where I can carry legally.
My biggest concern is on solo trips in remote areas near trout streams.
I go to great lengths to make common sense my first line of defense. I use a bear canister, I do not cook and sleep in the same place (100 yds. apart), when hiking I talk, whistle, sing whatever every few minutes.
I have a great deal of respect for wildlife, and I do not consider myself to be an alarmist.
I started carrying after a 2004 trip to the Tennessee Overhill area just south of Chillihowie Recreation Area where I spent 10 very tense minutes in a stream with a black bear. The bear was a good ways downstream and didn't seem bothered by me, but I know he knew I was there.
Again I am not trigger happy or the freak out type, but that was a defining moment and forced me to face the reality that encounters do take place and I do not consider bear spray or a stick a viable option.
I fully realize the best thing to do is slowly move away from the bear, and that is what I did. There have been a lot of bear problems in that area with bears who are not scared of people anymore, that fact creates a whole new dynamic that may not exist in much larger wilderness areas elsewhere. I do not go to that area much anymore, but I just prefer to be prepared.
If a bear does become aggressive and will not back away you can make a great deal of noise in an attempt to back him up by placing a shot to the ground in front of him, I am told this usually works and is a common tactic in places like the BC wilderness.
I understand your concern, like I said in an earlier post it is a matter of personal responsibility, and I realize we have to have laws because not everyone exercises good judgement. It's a shame, where will it end? Will we loose all our rights in an effort to police the growing number of idiots in our society?

Ramble~On
07-28-2008, 02:49
It would be nice if it could just come down to.
If you don’t like guns, don’t take one.
And if you do like guns you should have the right to take one.

But those that don’t like them demand their views be applied to all.

I don’t really care what anyone else does with respect to this issue, but it should be their choice to make.

:clap Very well said.

I hold that same opinion for abortion, body piercing, tattoos, dogs, cell phones, smoking, alcohol.............while I have strong opinions on things ...my opinions shouldn't and do not effect others rights to do with their lives as they please...This is STILL the land of the free.

Hike you own hike and enjoy it.....you have that freedom and right.

Fiddleback
07-28-2008, 11:38
Fiddleback,

The constitution of Montana, nor any directive given to the National Park Service supersedes my US Constitutional right to self defense whether by animal or human.
If an animal attacks me I will beat it to death with a rock if I have too, gun debate aside.
However common sense and following the prescribed guidelines for traveling in bear country will prevent almost all encounters.
You seek to infringe on my constitutional rights to protect myself, in an effort to protect an animal who is also infringing on my rights. I do not attack them when they wander on my property.

Absolutely not. It is no infringement to ask/expect those who feel at risk to not place themselves in a risky situation for the purpose of recreation in the National Parks. As referred to in the quote, there are plenty of methods and ways to safely enjoy the Parks and their wildlife without weapons. However, if one still feels the threat justifies weapons, then the recreation should be done somewhere else, not in the Parks. There are plenty of wildlife-filled, awe-inspiring areas open for recreation that are not under the National Park system and don't have weapons-proscribing regulations.

IMO, it's not any different from staying out of bars on the 'bad side of town'. Afterall, at the heart of every Right is individual responsibility.:)

FB

trouthunter
07-28-2008, 14:44
Your feeling of not being at risk is only an illusion that quickly disappears if you have a serious problem for which you are not prepared.
We all take a risk, the degree of which is mitigated by our level of preparedness.
I do not see how my gun affects anyone, unless they have a gun phobia.
Too many people freak out over a gun, but will drive by the bars you mentioned knowing those people are going to hop in their cars and drive intoxicated, possibly kill someone, and not give it a second thought. Where are all the anti car lobbies?

trouthunter
07-28-2008, 14:56
BTY I never said I carried in NPs anyway, my justification is being in remote areas.
The pioneers would laugh their heads off at the notion you are perfectly safe with an aluminum trekking pole to defend yourself. They dealt in reality not ideology!
Yes...I realize it is a different world now.
Please don't think I'm some dumb redneck with a 9th grade education. I am very active in conservation, trail maintenance, and wildlife programs.

We just disagree, I'm sure you are a cool person Fiddleback.

taildragger
07-28-2008, 15:37
Pigs flew up near Patten, ME. Course it was a bodacious wind.

Am I the only one more worried about surly moose?

If we had moose here I'd be worried about them more. We have buffalo and pigs still, and those are both crazy critters. I've been charged by a sow pig and have had buffalo charge my truck.

Never had a problem with a bear though, and it would take a hell of a gun to shoot a buffalo in self defense.

Rain Man
07-28-2008, 16:22
Rain Man, That is a fair question. If going into remote areas I go to places where I can carry legally.

I thought it was fair, but you didn't answer my question, which was: Does that mean you sometimes "carry" illegally? Or, do you always and only "carry" where and how it is legal?

How about this: choose one--

(1) I sometimes "carry" illegally,
or
(2) I always and only "carry" where and how it is legal for me to do so.

No qualifiers, loopholes, or muddy waters about "if going to remote areas." ;)

Rain:sunMan

.

trouthunter
07-28-2008, 17:58
Rain Man,

Sorry, I did not mean to seem evasive.
My answer would be no. 2.

I only carry in remote areas. I do obey the law. Although I also believe that if we ban guns it will only effect law abiding people for the most part.
I do not carry in NPs, on the AT or places like the Foothills Trail Because the amount of traffic these places see tends to keep all the wildlife on notice that humans are in the area.
In remote areas that do not see a lot of traffic bears tend to be more territorial.

It think that you are more likely to get killed driving to the trail head than on the trail.
I also think the odds of having to actually shoot a bear are slim, so are the odds of winning the lottery, but you never know.
Also you never know what type of drunk or methed up hillbilly you may have to deal with, and that has been a problem for me before.

Please understand, I don't go around all tense, looking over my shoulder at every little noise I hear. I don't go around shooting things, I don't go around freaking people out.
A responsible person with a handgun is no threat to anyone.
I do understand the concern we all have about that one idiot with a gun that causes everyone to be suspect.

I'm not that idiot.

Rain Man
07-28-2008, 20:04
Fair enough. Thanks for the answer!

Rain:sunMan



Rain Man,

Sorry, I did not mean to seem evasive.
My answer would be no. 2.

I only carry in remote areas. I do obey the law. Although I also believe that if we ban guns it will only effect law abiding people for the most part.
I do not carry in NPs, on the AT or places like the Foothills Trail Because the amount of traffic these places see tends to keep all the wildlife on notice that humans are in the area.
In remote areas that do not see a lot of traffic bears tend to be more territorial.

It think that you are more likely to get killed driving to the trail head than on the trail.
I also think the odds of having to actually shoot a bear are slim, so are the odds of winning the lottery, but you never know.
Also you never know what type of drunk or methed up hillbilly you may have to deal with, and that has been a problem for me before.

Please understand, I don't go around all tense, looking over my shoulder at every little noise I hear. I don't go around shooting things, I don't go around freaking people out.
A responsible person with a handgun is no threat to anyone.
I do understand the concern we all have about that one idiot with a gun that causes everyone to be suspect.

I'm not that idiot.

Fiddleback
07-28-2008, 20:42
BTY I never said I carried in NPs anyway, my justification is being in remote areas.
The pioneers would laugh their heads off at the notion you are perfectly safe with an aluminum trekking pole to defend yourself. They dealt in reality not ideology!
Yes...I realize it is a different world now.
Please don't think I'm some dumb redneck with a 9th grade education. I am very active in conservation, trail maintenance, and wildlife programs.

We just disagree, I'm sure you are a cool person Fiddleback.

We may disagree...but I may not have got my point across. While I personally think the risk is minimal, I do indeed see risk. My point is anyone who feels that the risk in a National Park justifies carrying a weapon should avoid the National Park rather than put themselves at risk. Why would someone put themselves at such a risk for the sake of 'recreation'? It is, IMO, far better to stay out of a Park than to carry a weapon in a Park.

I'm not avid about carrying firearms, but I'm not particularly opposed either. And I do indeed see threats 'out there', both human and animal. But the National Parks are special with special consideration given to not harming or diminishing the terrain or the ecosystems and residents therein. Because of the special nature of the Parks, and the preservation that they are supposed to maintain, I think it's better to avoid the Parks than to carry if there must be a choice between the two. My personal opinion is there need not be such a choice. But, again, those that think otherwise should recreate somewhere else...maybe where there aren't bears (although in Yellowstone there are more injuries from bison...).

I have carried; but not in a National Park, only a few times when en route to 'recreating',...and never an aluminum treking pole.:D

FB

ed bell
07-28-2008, 20:52
----------------------. I understand your take, Bob S. The question was answered, but it really didn't add to Rain Man's perspective. Lots of folk's minds will remain unchanged about this. On the flip side would be a question for Rain Man: Do you decide your hiking plans based on gun regulations regardless of hunting seasons. That is the polar opposite of his question. I point this out for the sake of keeping this on topic. Let's avoid making this personal.

minnesotasmith
07-28-2008, 20:53
"My point is anyone who feels that the risk in a National Park justifies carrying a weapon should avoid the National Park rather than put themselves at risk. Why would someone put themselves at such a risk for the sake of 'recreation'? It is, IMO, far better to stay out of a Park than to carry a weapon in a Park."

Better still IMO to cut the Gordian knot, and allow most adult American citizens to CCW whereever they go in the outdoors on public land, including national parks. If they are part owners, as citizens and (not "or") taxpayers, they should have all their rights as Americans whereever they go.

ed bell
07-28-2008, 21:02
I'm not avid about carrying firearms, but I'm not particularly opposed either. And I do indeed see threats 'out there', both human and animal. But the National Parks are special with special consideration given to not harming or diminishing the terrain or the ecosystems and residents therein. Because of the special nature of the Parks, and the preservation that they are supposed to maintain, I think it's better to avoid the Parks than to carry if there must be a choice between the two. My personal opinion is there need not be such a choice. But, again, those that think otherwise should recreate somewhere else...maybe where there aren't bears (although in Yellowstone there are more injuries from bison...).

I have carried; but not in a National Park, only a few times when en route to 'recreating',...and never an aluminum treking pole.:D

FBAn extension of this is the fact that National Parks have lots of rules in place that free spirited backpackers consider downright ridiculous. The fact remains that the rules are in place and should be followed. Anybody who looks into going to the Smokys to backpack will figure out quickly that a rigid itinerary will be required.

ed bell
07-28-2008, 21:15
"My point is anyone who feels that the risk in a National Park justifies carrying a weapon should avoid the National Park rather than put themselves at risk. Why would someone put themselves at such a risk for the sake of 'recreation'? It is, IMO, far better to stay out of a Park than to carry a weapon in a Park."

Better still IMO to cut the Gordian knot, and allow most adult American citizens to CCW whereever they go in the outdoors on public land, including national parks. If they are part owners, as citizens and (not "or") taxpayers, they should have all their rights as Americans whereever they go.
Until the rule changes, fiddleback has a valid point. Placing part of his quote in bold does not change his qualifying statements before the bold print. Having said that, I believe that the NP rules should be subject to US citizen's scrutiny. Sounds like that is happening.

Bulldawg
07-28-2008, 21:15
An extension of this is the fact that National Parks have lots of rules in place that free spirited backpackers consider downright ridiculous. The fact remains that the rules are in place and should be followed. Anybody who looks into going to the Smokys to backpack will figure out quickly that a rigid itinerary will be required.

That is good point Mr Bell, but the rights of backpackers are not guaranteed in the Constitution of this great country as implicitly as they are in the Second Amendment. Is it not fair to say that our founding fathers saw fit to include this amendment in the Constitution not to allow us to carry guns in National Parks but instead to curb the power of an oppressive Government? Again, those that beat their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. That quote of course is not about plowing a field, it is about something much much deeper. Surely you know that.

rafe
07-28-2008, 21:36
That is good point Mr Bell, but the rights of backpackers are not guaranteed in the Constitution of this great country as implicitly as they are in the Second Amendment. Is it not fair to say that our founding fathers saw fit to include this amendment in the Constitution not to allow us to carry guns in National Parks but instead to curb the power of an oppressive Government? Again, those that beat their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. That quote of course is not about plowing a field, it is about something much much deeper. Surely you know that.

Your vision of the meaning of the 2nd Am. is duly noted. Now tell me what it has to do with National Parks or the Appalachian Trail. :rolleyes:

rickb
07-28-2008, 21:51
One thing about gun owners is that 62% of them like to inspect, fondle and admire their weapon whenever given the chance.

This is all well and good if they are sitting on the couch and pointing at the TV, but the practice can be rather disconcerting when you are sharing/sleeping in a public area with those who enjoy this particular fetish.

Now, it would be all well and good if one could target gun restrictions at the 38% who need them, but this is about as impractical as only preventing "irresponsible" 16 year olds from drinking.

So there are blanket laws in place. To my way of thinking, this creates a better atmosphere in the National Parks.

It is like restricting cell phone use in movie theaters, really. An unfortunate abridgment of our rights, but one that creates a better experience for the other guests.

taildragger
07-28-2008, 21:57
Your vision of the meaning of the 2nd Am. is duly noted. Now tell me what it has to do with National Parks or the Appalachian Trail. :rolleyes:

Goes with that whole supreme law of the land thingy...



One thing about gun owners is that 62% of them like to inspect, fondle and admire their weapon whenever given the chance.


I really hope you have a source for this, mainly because I think its your fettish about seeing people stroke their guns, and because if there is an article that studies the # of gun owner that stroke their guns in public, well...that'd just be funny :D

ed bell
07-28-2008, 22:00
That is good point Mr Bell, but the rights of backpackers are not guaranteed in the Constitution of this great country as implicitly as they are in the Second Amendment. Is it not fair to say that our founding fathers saw fit to include this amendment in the Constitution not to allow us to carry guns in National Parks but instead to curb the power of an oppressive Government? Again, those that beat their guns into plows will plow for those who do not. That quote of course is not about plowing a field, it is about something much much deeper. Surely you know that.I know it, but who said it?:-? Besides that, my comments were merely provided to keep this on track. I have not expressed my opinion about the prohibition of guns in National Parks on this thread.:D

Odd Thomas
07-28-2008, 22:03
We may disagree...but I may not have got my point across. While I personally think the risk is minimal, I do indeed see risk. My point is anyone who feels that the risk in a National Park justifies carrying a weapon should avoid the National Park rather than put themselves at risk. Why would someone put themselves at such a risk for the sake of 'recreation'?

There's risk in everything. Generally avoiding risk is impossible without living in a bubble, but being prepared is sensible. The car ride to the park will probably involve the most risk all things considered, but we wear a seat belt.


It is, IMO, far better to stay out of a Park than to carry a weapon in a Park.

In what way is that better? It's counter-intuitive compared to how we manage risk in all other areas of our life.

rafe
07-28-2008, 22:03
Goes with that whole supreme law of the land thingy...

Yeah, cool, so get g*d off of my currency, and out of the Pledge of Allegiance and we'll call it a deal. ;)

Lone Wolf
07-28-2008, 22:08
you don't believe in god. why the * in the middle of it's name?

taildragger
07-28-2008, 22:10
Yeah, cool, so get g*d off of my currency, and out of the Pledge of Allegiance and we'll call it a deal. ;)

I fail to see the correlation between God and guns.

rafe
07-28-2008, 22:11
I fail to see the correlation between God and guns.

"Law of the land." (Your words.) g*d on currency violates the 1st Am., IMO.

Lone Wolf
07-28-2008, 22:16
"Law of the land." (Your words.) g*d on currency violates the 1st Am., IMO.

report it to the supreme court

Bearpaw
07-28-2008, 22:16
"Law of the land." (Your words.) g*d on currency violates the 1st Am., IMO.

Your vision of the meaning of the 1st Amendment is duly noted. Now let's get back to the topic of firearms in National Parks.

rafe
07-28-2008, 22:17
report it to the supreme court

Not with a 5-4 conservative majority. ;)

ed bell
07-28-2008, 22:18
In what way is that better? It's counter-intuitive compared to how we manage risk in all other areas of our life.Simply put, lets keep it on track here. Everyone has been civil and kept on track without having to move this to the Sensitive Trail Subjects forum. It's getting away from that. Lets keep it here.

rafe
07-28-2008, 22:20
Now let's get back to the topic of firearms in National Parks.

Do we have to?

ed bell
07-28-2008, 22:25
Do we have to?Absolutely not, but you need to open another thread about your topic of interest in the proper forum. Thanks for your consideration.

Bulldawg
07-28-2008, 22:29
Nice save Ed, my sincerest apologies for my comment.

Lone Wolf
07-28-2008, 22:31
Nice save Ed, my sincerest apologies for my comment.

me too ed

rafe
07-29-2008, 07:34
It looks like the Yosemite fire (http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/28/fire.yosemite/index.html) (20,000 acres so far,12 homes destroyed, 200 evacuated) may have been started by a target shooter.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/07/28/fire.yosemite/index.html

"State fire officials said the blaze was ignited by sparks created from firearms taking target practice, but would not elaborate."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1826960,00.html?xid=feed-cnn-topics

trouthunter
07-29-2008, 21:32
fiddleback,

I just don't see how me having a gun anywhere, diminishes the wildlife or ecosystems
whether in a NP or not. Unless I drop it on a flower.
In the very unlikely event I would need a gun, seems to me defending myself would be justified no matter where I was. Unless you would rather me lay down my life to let the precious bear exist.

I love nature and I love animals, so I understand your concern, I just don't see how it would cause harm just because it was on my person.

Bulldawg
07-29-2008, 21:35
fiddleback,

I just don't see how me having a gun anywhere, diminishes the wildlife or ecosystems
whether in a NP or not. Unless I drop it on a flower.
In the very unlikely event I would need a gun, seems to me defending myself would be justified no matter where I was. Unless you would rather me lay down my life to let the precious bear exist.

I love nature and I love animals, so I understand your concern, I just don't see how it would cause harm just because it was on my person.

It wouldn't.

trouthunter
07-29-2008, 21:39
BTY,

I bet I would get along just fine with any of you, I am really a nice guy.
I think I am well reasoned, experienced, and a good hiking companion.
Only time I have ever exposed my handgun was to lock it up in my truck toolbox for the drive home, you could probably hike with me for days and never know I had one.

Like I said, I don't carry in NP's but I think it should be allowed. The type of people you have to worry about are doing it anyway.

trouthunter
07-29-2008, 22:03
Just an after thought, maybe one day scientists will create a synthetic "good judgement" gene for the people who don't seem to have one. Passing laws helps some and I think we should enforce them, but by the time laws are enforced there is already a problem. I just do not think that passing law after law will make people any smarter. Just watch a couple episodes of cops. You know what I mean?

Like I said in an earlier post, all areas of our lives would be better if we would get back to teaching our kids that along with our rights comes responsibility. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't make it the responsible thing to do if it is done wrong. You can't legislate common sense. But at least the laws do get these guys off the streets in many cases. Albeit too late. IMO

rickb
07-29-2008, 22:12
BTY,

I bet I would get along just fine with any of you, I am really a nice guy.
I think I am well reasoned, experienced, and a good hiking companion.
Only time I have ever exposed my handgun was to lock it up in my truck toolbox for the drive home, you could probably hike with me for days and never know I had one.

Like I said, I don't carry in NP's but I think it should be allowed. The type of people you have to worry about are doing it anyway.

I shared a shelter with a couple guys admiring and dry firing their Colt Python for hours. Just me and them. I figured that if they could afford one, they probably posed no real threat, but I could have done with out the entertainment. I think anti carry laws in those woods would have increased my enjoyment of the area.

trouthunter
07-29-2008, 23:09
rickb,

Point taken, people like that do pose a threat because they are not acting responsibly.
If nothing else they posed a threat to your enjoyment. These things happen, with or without laws. But you may be correct that they would have been less likely to brandish if it was illegal to carry. Stupid people like that usually carry anyway.

Rule No. 1: NEVER point a gun, loaded or not, at anything you are not willing to destroy.

I personally would have said something, especially since they did not have a round in the chamber, which is a mistake I do not make. The type of firearm I carry can be safely carried with a round in the chamber. No chance of an accident.

These were wanna be's at best. How old were they?