PDA

View Full Version : handgun carry



abbub
12-16-2008, 12:53
I read today that the Bush admin. overturned the restriction that you cannot carry a handgun in national parks and starting in January you can carry a handgun, assuming you have a license to carry. My question for you guys is ... Will this affect your decision to carry or not now that it may be legal to do so. Seems like there has been more and more shelters closed due to agressive bear activity as well as some agressive human activity over the past year also. Would you feel somewhat safer packing heat. I know we've discussed this before. I'm just curious how many people would reconsider now that it may be legal.



abbub:-?

Lone Wolf
12-16-2008, 12:55
i'll carry regardless

Blissful
12-16-2008, 13:03
i'll carry regardless


Did you really carry on your hikes? (just curious)

Lone Wolf
12-16-2008, 13:05
Did you really carry on your hikes? (just curious)

maybe, maybe not :)

partinj
12-16-2008, 13:07
You would have to have a Licence or for ever state you were gone to go thur on the A.T.

partinj
12-16-2008, 13:09
OH yet i do have a few firearms

Plodderman
12-16-2008, 13:12
I have guns and feel it is a right to have them but I do not carry when I hike and do not see the need to. I have backpacked for 30 years and have never carried a fire arm only my hiking stick and a small knife.

abbub
12-16-2008, 13:27
The way I understand it is that it concerns state parks only. You still have to adhear to the carry laws of the individual states that your hiking through.

I section hike a lot in the Smoky's, in the highest concentration of black bears on the east coast. If you think the bears are bad on the AT, try hiking some of the less used trails. I've never carried a firearm though because I knew it was prohibited. But now I will most likely carry.

Toolshed
12-16-2008, 13:52
maybe, maybe not :)

Ditto!!
Your safest bet is to assume I have one on my person. I don't let on when I carry or when I don't and you can't always tell by the bulge in my pantleg. ;)

Spogatz
12-16-2008, 14:08
Some of the states laws would treat you like a crack dealer if they were to catch you with a firearm instead of just someone trying to CYA...

taildragger
12-16-2008, 14:15
maybe, maybe not :)

As everyone should say, its not anyones business as to whether one carries or not. Knowing that they carry will only change your attitude toward them.


I have guns and feel it is a right to have them but I do not carry when I hike and do not see the need to. I have backpacked for 30 years and have never carried a fire arm only my hiking stick and a small knife.

A shank and a good stick don't need to be reloaded :sun

ofthearth
12-16-2008, 14:47
Ditto!!
Your safest bet is to assume I have one on my person. I don't let on when I carry or when I don't and you can't always tell by the bulge in my pantleg. ;)


http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/customavatars/avatar1096_7.gif (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/member.php?u=1096) Toolshed (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/member.php?u=1096) http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/wb_style/statusicon/user_offline.gif
Can you get Giardia from a Tractor Seat????


I would think it depends on what you do (do?) on your tractor seat and maybe in your pants (leg) :eek::rolleyes:

Crazy Larry #1
12-16-2008, 17:09
I pack "HEAT" when I am hiking. I hope if anything ever happens that I will be able to get to my weapon faster!

Jorel
12-16-2008, 17:12
I have never hunted, but respect 2nd Amendment rights. Question: would a handgun stop a black bear?

Crazy Larry #1
12-16-2008, 17:15
I have never hunted, but respect 2nd Amendment rights. Question: would a handgun stop a black bear?
.44 and bigger.........

bloodmountainman
12-16-2008, 17:18
I have never hunted, but respect 2nd Amendment rights. Question: would a handgun stop a black bear?
Depends on what you want the bear to stop doing.:cool:

Red Hat
12-16-2008, 17:21
You would have to have a Licence or for ever state you were gone to go thur on the A.T.

There is a carry permit for retired law enforcement that is good in any state. My husband retired from a prison and you never know when he might run into an unhappy inmate...

of course, he's not a hiker and not on the trail

rootball
12-16-2008, 17:58
Does this new law cover Wilderness Areas?

Can we assume that folks are carrying now, due to the restriction being lifted?

Bears are cute -- don't shoot them. Maybe if you scratch their belly they will go to sleep and you can sneak on down the trail.

ChinMusic
12-16-2008, 18:09
Can we assume that folks are carrying now, due to the restriction being lifted?

I think it will matter little, if you know what I mean.

Silver Bear
12-16-2008, 18:11
http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html (http://www.usacarry.com/concealed_carry_permit_reciprocity_maps.html)

Here is a link that tells what states honor others permits. Never say if you carry or you don't.

general
12-16-2008, 18:28
Does this new law cover Wilderness Areas?

Can we assume that folks are carrying now, due to the restriction being lifted?

Bears are cute -- don't shoot them. Maybe if you scratch their belly they will go to sleep and you can sneak on down the trail.


all state land except where otherwise posted, like the capitol and such. but, yes, state parks, wilderness areas (state not federal), PFA's, WMA's, historic sites, and conservation areas. some WMA's are located inside national forest however, which means that you can carry on the portion of national forrest that is located within the WMA, but not the adjacent federal land.

pretty much, here is how it boils down. If you happen to be searched or asked, which it is pretty unlikely, and the officer's hat has DNR on it, you're good, if the officer's hat has USFS on it, you're screwed.

Hooch
12-16-2008, 19:01
I read today that the Bush admin. overturned the restriction that you cannot carry a handgun in national parks and starting in January you can carry a handgun, assuming you have a license to carry.......Could you cite your source, please? I'd be interested to read that.

Midway Sam
12-16-2008, 19:09
Could you cite your source, please? I'd be interested to read that.

One of 392,000 hits on Google...

http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/2008/12/07/concealed-guns-to-be-allowed-in-national-parks.htm

kdawg
12-16-2008, 19:11
I will not carry, even though I could if Iwanted to.
Kdawg

adamkrz
12-16-2008, 19:39
I don't believe there is a permit for every state for retired Law Enforcement personel, I carry all the time but have permits for the states I travel thru, I'm also a Correction's officer and looked into this before.

skinewmexico
12-16-2008, 19:47
I believe the Parks service made that decision themselves. I don't see Bush suddenly becoming a 2A supporter. Have to blame someone else.

skinewmexico
12-16-2008, 19:49
In fact, from the source linked above - "According to the DOI, the action, which overturned a regulation first enacted in 1981, was taken in response to letters from 51 U.S. Senators (http://www.doi.gov/issues/response_to_senators.html), "both Democrats and Republicans," requesting that existing regulations be updated."

Bulldawg
12-16-2008, 19:57
Could you cite your source, please? I'd be interested to read that.


I believe the Parks service made that decision themselves. I don't see Bush suddenly becoming a 2A supporter. Have to blame someone else.


In fact, from the source linked above - "According to the DOI, the action, which overturned a regulation first enacted in 1981, was taken in response to letters from 51 U.S. Senators (http://www.doi.gov/issues/response_to_senators.html), "both Democrats and Republicans," requesting that existing regulations be updated."

They've been talking about doing this for months! It was even the source of a couple of threads here on WB this past year.

Rockhound
12-16-2008, 23:43
I would like to hear from one, just one hiker who has actually needed his/her gun while hiking on the AT.

Lone Wolf
12-16-2008, 23:46
I would like to hear from one, just one hiker who has actually needed his/her gun while hiking on the AT.

you won't because they're all dead. they were defenseless.

i wanna hear from one, just one hiker who actually needed his/her snake bite kit or bear spray

drastic_quench
12-17-2008, 00:56
you won't because they're all dead. they were defenseless.

i wanna hear from one, just one hiker who actually needed his/her snake bite kit or bear spray
- whereas a curmudgeonly disposition is de rigueur.

Vince
12-17-2008, 02:11
- whereas a curmudgeonly disposition is de rigueur.

I honestly don't care one way or the other regarding this issue, but had to add that Cortez The Killer is my new favorite poster. Nice wordplay!
:banana

prain4u
12-17-2008, 03:28
There would be very little benefit gained by carrying a firearm on the AT. This is especially true when one looks at the statistics and the "odds" related to someone being killed via any kind of attack while hiking the AT. Very few people on the AT have been killed in a bear attack and very few people have been killed via a human attack while hiking the AT. The chances of your death via any kind of attack (while on the AT) get even smaller when you look only at the deaths of adult THRU HIKERS--and smaller still when you look at the deaths (via attacks) of adult, MALE, thru hikers. (I could find no documented instance of an adult male thru-hiker being killed by a bear on the AT and only a a few deaths of any adult THRU HIKERS via human attack). Your chances of being struck by lightening or having a heart attack while on the trail are far greater than your risk of death via a bear or human attack. Personally, I like my firearms--a lot. I used to carry a concealed weapon while at work and at home when an armed stalker was seeking to do me harm. I have had my backpack tossed around and damaged by a large bear in the Rockies. Yet, when I do my own AT thru hike in a few years, I will leave my firearms at home. I don't need to carry the extra weight and I don't need the additional risk of having an unintended weapon discharge occuring were I to accidentally fall while carrying the weapon and/or ammo. Those are my thoughts on this subject--for what they are worth.

buckwheat
12-17-2008, 04:56
I have never hunted, but respect 2nd Amendment rights. Question: would a handgun stop a black bear?

In Alaska and other remote wilderness areas outside the United States, no matter where you are in the bush, you are always carrying a firearm.

The reason is because once you step into the wilderness, you are no longer at the top of the food chain. There are several types of animals which have the ability and incentive to consume you.

Bears are one type, but there are others, including mountain lions, wolves, and if you are injured, potentially coyotes. These animals exist in many of the lower 48 states. You don't hear about them much, primarily because they shy away from populated areas. Once you step onto the Appalachian Trail and especially deeper wilderness areas, you are at a higher risk of being eaten to death than you would be in your backyard say.

I don't know about you, but I don't think I would like to be eaten to death.

YMMV.

Crazy Larry #1
12-17-2008, 08:07
I don't know about you, but I don't think I would like to be eaten to death.

YMMV.
I've seen animals eaten while alive on Discovery and there is no way I would want to go through that.

Lone Wolf
12-17-2008, 12:00
- whereas a curmudgeonly disposition is de rigueur.

truth

Gumbi
12-17-2008, 12:02
I have never hunted, but respect 2nd Amendment rights. Question: would a handgun stop a black bear?

Sometimes. I would definitely feel more comfortable with than without a handgun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMbnmLLnsfw

SmokyMtn Hiker
12-17-2008, 12:07
Why carry the extra weight, stastically speaking the chances of something harmfull happening other than injury from a fall is very slim.

Lone Wolf
12-17-2008, 12:10
why carry a water filter. chances of getting sick are slim

Lone Wolf
12-17-2008, 12:11
Why carry the extra weight, stastically speaking the chances of something harmfull happening other than injury from a fall is very slim.

seems every other year women are being targeted on the AT for assaults, murders, rapes and stalking

makoboy
12-17-2008, 12:29
In order to efficiently and properly carry a handgun one must be intimately familiar with its operation. This includes practice drawing, firing, and clearing jams on a very regular basis. It also must be placed somewhere on your person where it can be easily accessed. Easy access does not include in your pack, which really only leaves some sort of a holster. Most states do not allow for an "open carry" even with a permit. Your weapon must be concealed. That rules out any kind of easy to get at thigh or chest rig. You are basically left with either hiking with it in a pocket, on an "inside the waistband" type holster. Now since you will have on a pack with a hip belt you are essentially resigned to carrying a handgun in your pocket.

Now, once you have decided that you are going to walk 10-15 miles a day with a 30 lb pack and a loaded weapon in your pocket, you must remember that you cannot under any circumstances leave it anywhere lest it might get stolen or end up as a toy for that troop of scouts at camp. That all being said, you still have the same responsibilities of anyone who carries to be able to judge the situation properly as to not shoot an innocent person.

As for those who would like a "bear swatter". If you have ever been to rural (most of it) Alaska, the people carrying guns a bear deterrent tend to have very large caliber handguns in chest or shoulder rigs, or shotguns hung over the shoulder. Open Carry is legal there.

Carrying a gun for self defence is supposed to be comforting, not comfortable.

SmokyMtn Hiker
12-17-2008, 12:30
seems every other year women are being targeted on the AT for assaults, murders, rapes and stalking

True, sadly enough but I guess anyone can be a "target" especially when solo. I am not against carrying by no means, I always have my 9mm when I am car camping.

Bulldawg
12-17-2008, 12:57
You'll never know when I am carrying if you meet me on the trail or at a trail function. I have a CCW permit from Georgia recognized by 21 other states.

Rockhound
12-17-2008, 13:36
I am not anti-gun. I support the 2nd amendment whole heartedly. I simply do not see any need to carry on the AT. For those who might be looked at as "targets" walking in groups is a far better deterrent than toting a gun. weight and accessibility are other factors to consider. counting every ounce and then to decide to carry a big hunk of metal seems counterproductive. especially when you consider your chances of needing a gun are less on the AT than in any city in the U.S.. I would also venture to say that the vast majority of those who carry on the AT do not fall into the "target group". If you are female or elderly and plan on doing some solo hiking, and are legally licenced and registered to carry, I can understand why you might choose to do so. If you do not fall into the "target" group and are not required to be armed, I would say your desire to carry a gun is fueled by ego and/or fear.

Lone Wolf
12-17-2008, 13:48
I simply do not see any need to carry on the AT. weight and accessibility are other factors to consider. I would say your desire to carry a gun is fueled by ego and/or fear.

YOU don't see a need, others do. weight is minimal, accessibility is easy. fear? ego/ that's funny :)

skinewmexico
12-17-2008, 14:26
I would say your desire to carry a gun is fueled by ego and/or fear.

I don't see anything wrong with exercising my 2A rights, just like I exercise my 1A rights, and all the others. And I just think of it as part of my ongoing pursuit to "Be Prepared". I'm not trying to force it on anyone else, although a lot of people seem to think I need their opinion forced on me.

Rockhound
12-17-2008, 14:36
I'm still waiting for just 1 person who does carry on the AT to tell me when they actually needed to have it on their hike. Have any of you gun toters ever once needed to use it? Just 1 person.

abbub
12-17-2008, 14:36
I've got mixed feelings about the new law. Whether I decide to carry while hiking in a national park or not, it's nice to have the option. I've had a bear close follow me on trails several times. I've been inadvertantly caught on the trail with cubs on one side and momma on the other. I've also had a bear on one occasion bluff charge me, huffing and slapping the ground. I hear people talking about low odds with a bear. Maybe I'm just a bear magnet. I just think I would feel a lot better with something besides bear spray as my only option.

I do worry that some people, if they have a gun, will be more lax about maybe hanging their food or other things that reduce the possibility of a human / bear encounter.

Also, I think it's great for the female hikers that are in the minority on trails.

Bucky Katt
12-17-2008, 14:45
I'm still waiting for just 1 person who does carry on the AT to tell me when they actually needed to have it on their hike. Have any of you gun toters ever once needed to use it? Just 1 person.


I think the adage there is that it is better to have it and not need it, then to need it and not have it.

makoboy
12-17-2008, 14:47
I'm still waiting for just 1 person who does carry on the AT to tell me when they actually needed to have it on their hike. Have any of you gun toters ever once needed to use it? Just 1 person.

Maybe if that girl that was abuducted off the trail on New Years Day last year hiking with her dog had a gun she would be able to say something. Im not in any way trying to disrespect her, but there is a blatant example of a time and place it would have been beneficial.

You dont carry emergency equipment, whether they are guns or jumper cables bc you think you will need them, but bc you hope you never will have to.

Rockhound
12-17-2008, 14:53
I understand and sympathize. emily did fall into that "target group" solo female hiker. Im asking the "non target" group, able bodied males aged 25 to 50 that do carry if they ever once had to use their gun while hiking the AT.

mudhead
12-17-2008, 15:11
I've got mixed feelings about the new law.



Same. I am more concerned about the fool that packs without regard for statutes.

Should be interesting to see this play out. The NP here has been tight lipped since the ruling. I figure the fix is in. They were vocal enough before.

catfishrivers
12-17-2008, 15:17
Boy this thread has left me disappointed...what is this the wild wild west? I think I'll just bring a stick and a dog.

Lone Wolf
12-17-2008, 15:19
I understand and sympathize. emily did fall into that "target group" solo female hiker. Im asking the "non target" group, able bodied males aged 25 to 50 that do carry if they ever once had to use their gun while hiking the AT.

emily who?

Lone Wolf
12-17-2008, 15:21
I'm still waiting for just 1 person who does carry on the AT to tell me when they actually needed to have it on their hike. Have any of you gun toters ever once needed to use it? Just 1 person.

do you have fire insurance on your home? if so, why?

Bulldawg
12-17-2008, 15:22
I understand and sympathize. emily did fall into that "target group" solo female hiker. Im asking the "non target" group, able bodied males aged 25 to 50 that do carry if they ever once had to use their gun while hiking the AT.

On time on the AT while carrying my gun, I hurt my shoulder and was unable to throw my bear bag up into the trees, so I tied my rope over the barrel and was able to "shoot" my line over the branch using my pistol. Life saver for sure. What if I had been unable to hang my food and gotten attacked by a savage black bear that night? :eek::cool::rolleyes:

dradius
12-17-2008, 16:39
do you have fire insurance on your home? if so, why?
Red herring (logical fallacy) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28logical_fallacy%29), a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument

Bulldawg
12-17-2008, 16:48
Red herring (logical fallacy) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28logical_fallacy%29), a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument

It is a logical question. The argument is that you don't need to carry a gun because you HOPE you never need to use it.

LW is saying that you also shouldn't carry insurance on your house because you also HOPE you never need that either.

Pretty good dent in the anti-gun anti-carry folks argument IMO.

take-a-knee
12-17-2008, 16:57
Boy this thread has left me disappointed...what is this the wild wild west? I think I'll just bring a stick and a dog.

You watch way too much media dude, the "Wild West" was a lot less violent than New Jersey. As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society".

take-a-knee
12-17-2008, 16:59
Red herring (logical fallacy) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_herring_%28logical_fallacy%29), a deliberate attempt to change a subject or divert an argument

No, that is exactly what YOU did to dodge a valid analogy.

Lone Wolf
12-17-2008, 17:01
No, that is exactly what YOU did to dodge a valid analogy.

he has no interest in this thread. he's obsessed with and stalking, me

Bulldawg
12-17-2008, 17:04
he has no interest in this thread. he's obsessed with and stalking, me


Lone Wolf's got a stalker, how sweet!!:rolleyes::rolleyes:

MaineSurveyor
12-17-2008, 17:09
This author echos my sentiments exactly!!

Why I Carry a Gun

PEOPLE ASK WHY??

My old grandpa said to me son,' there comes a time in every mans life
when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually it's
when he becomes too old to take an ass whoopin'.

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.

Police Protection is an oxymoron. Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to take an ass whoopin'.

..author unknown (but obviously brilliant)

catfishrivers
12-17-2008, 17:11
You watch way too much media dude, the "Wild West" was a lot less violent than New Jersey. As Heinlein said, "An armed society is a polite society".

I live in NJ, never once had any type of violence happen to me. I was mentioned the wild west in regards to the frequency to which guns were owned and carried, not in relation to any potential violence. I have nothing against gun ownership, but I see no real reason to carry one on the trail.

And I have a handful of gun owning friends, and I will say none of them are people I trust to own a gun. I don't even trust myself to own one. Power corrupts and guns lend power. Plus accidents happen. Look at the NY Giants star wide receiver Plaxico Burress shooting himself in the thigh just recently.

With all of the people that seem to hike the trail, I would assume there is safety in numbers and no reason to actually carry a gun, especially since statistically the reasons for possibly "needing" one are low.

kanga
12-17-2008, 17:20
I'm still waiting for just 1 person who does carry on the AT to tell me when they actually needed to have it on their hike. Have any of you gun toters ever once needed to use it? Just 1 person.

i've needed mine once in my life, not on the trail, and i had it. i don't usually carry a gun hiking, but there have been several times that i very clearly recall that i truly wished i had had it on me.

kanga
12-17-2008, 17:22
I understand and sympathize. emily did fall into that "target group" solo female hiker. Im asking the "non target" group, able bodied males aged 25 to 50 that do carry if they ever once had to use their gun while hiking the AT.


Meredith, dude. Meredith.

kanga
12-17-2008, 17:23
do you have fire insurance on your home? if so, why?


i do. because **** happens to me.

Bulldawg
12-17-2008, 17:25
With all of the people that seem to hike the trail, I would assume there is safety in numbers and no reason to actually carry a gun, especially since statistically the reasons for possibly "needing" one are low.

Yeah, there is safety in numbers. But I have hiked several sections between roads during the week and not seen anyone on the trail for one or two days. I even hiked to Steeltrap Gap just beyond Tray Mtn Shelter on Memorial Day this year and did not see a soul the whole day. Sure, that is rare, especially during thru hiker season through whatever area you frequent, but there is solitude on the trail.

catfishrivers
12-17-2008, 17:25
Early one morning
With time to kill
I borrowed Jebb's rifle
And sat on a hill
I saw a lone rider
Crossing the plain
I drew a bead on him
To practice my aim

My brother's rifle
Went off in my hand
A shot rang out
Across the land
The horse, he kept running
The rider was dead
I hung my head
I hung my head

I set off running
To wake from the dream
My brother's rifle
Went into the sheen
I kept on running
Into the south lands
That's where they found me
My head and my hands

The sheriff he asked me
Why had I run
And then it came to me
Just what I had done
And all for no reason
Just one piece of lead
I hung my head
I hung my head

Here in the court house
The whole town was there
I see the judge
High up in the chair
Explain to the court room
What went through you mind
And we'll ask the jury
What verdict they find

I felt the power
Of death over life
I orphaned his children
I widowed his wife
I begged their forgiveness
I wish I was dead
I hung my head
I hung my head

I hung my head
I hung my head

Early one morning
With time to kill
I see the gallows
Up on a hill
And out in the distance
A trick of the brain
I see a lone rider
Crossing the plain

And he'd come to fetch me
To see what they'd done
And we'd ride together
To kingdom come
I prayed for god's mercy
For soon I'd be dead
I hung my head
I hung my head

I hung my head
I hung my head


Johnny Cash

Toolshed
12-17-2008, 20:14
I'm still waiting for just 1 person who does carry on the AT to tell me when they actually needed to have it on their hike. Have any of you gun toters ever once needed to use it? Just 1 person.
Why do you feel the need to question others on rights afforded by the second amendment?

Crazy Larry #1
12-17-2008, 20:16
You'll never know when I am carrying if you meet me on the trail or at a trail function. I have a CCW permit from Georgia recognized by 21 other states.
well just to know that your packing gives me fair warning if i want to try anything hilarious...............

catfishrivers
12-17-2008, 21:12
Why do you feel the need to question others on rights afforded by the second amendment?

From the second amendment:


A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

The original intent was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It preserves and individual right for a collective purpose, i.e. to form a militia when/if needed to preserve the "security of a free state".

There's a big difference between preserving the right and granting it.

Bulldawg
12-17-2008, 21:31
From the second amendment:


The original intent was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It preserves and individual right for a collective purpose, i.e. to form a militia when/if needed to preserve the "security of a free state".

There's a big difference between preserving the right and granting it.

Well tell me then how a well regulated militia could be formed if need be when all the citizens are unarmed? If you remember the founding fathers wrote this "well regulated militia" phrase in the constitution in case said well regulated had to rise up against and overthrow an unruly and unconstitutional government. None of that would be possible if people like got their way and the government "agents" were the only one's with guns!!

Toolshed
12-17-2008, 21:43
From the second amendment:

The original intent was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It preserves and individual right for a collective purpose, i.e. to form a militia when/if needed to preserve the "security of a free state".

There's a big difference between preserving the right and granting it.
One interpretation of many.


And I have a handful of gun owning friends, and I will say none of them are people I trust to own a gun. I don't even trust myself to own one. Power corrupts and guns lend power. Plus accidents happen. Look at the NY Giants star wide receiver Plaxico Burress shooting himself in the thigh just recently.
- If you don't trust any of your gun-owning friends, maybe you need to move into a better circle of friends. ;)
- Power corrupts some, not all, as does lack of power.
- As for holding up Plaxico as an example .... Ability to play football doesn't exempt one from being a Jackass. ('course playing for the Giants doesn't help his case either.)

le loupe
12-17-2008, 22:10
I understand and sympathize. emily did fall into that "target group" solo female hiker. Im asking the "non target" group, able bodied males aged 25 to 50 that do carry if they ever once had to use their gun while hiking the AT.

Weren't there two able bodied 25-50 yr old men attacked and shot by the guy who killed Meredith Emerson. Fisherman, I think- made the guy breakfast. Don't you think they wish they had a gun?

le loupe
12-17-2008, 22:11
Johnny Cash

A reckless & irresponsible killing is spoken of in this song, not self-defense

Bulldawg
12-17-2008, 22:14
Weren't there two able bodied 25-50 yr old men attacked and shot by the guy who killed Meredith Emerson. Fisherman, I think- made the guy breakfast. Don't you think they wish they had a gun?

No, that was the guy up in Virginia I think. Two fishermen, back in the Spring or Summer of this year.

take-a-knee
12-17-2008, 22:17
I live in NJ, never once had any type of violence happen to me. I was mentioned the wild west in regards to the frequency to which guns were owned and carried, not in relation to any potential violence. I have nothing against gun ownership, but I see no real reason to carry one on the trail.

And I have a handful of gun owning friends, and I will say none of them are people I trust to own a gun. I don't even trust myself to own one. Power corrupts and guns lend power. Plus accidents happen. Look at the NY Giants star wide receiver Plaxico Burress shooting himself in the thigh just recently.

With all of the people that seem to hike the trail, I would assume there is safety in numbers and no reason to actually carry a gun, especially since statistically the reasons for possibly "needing" one are low.

It is really simple Catfish, never place your finger on the trigger until you are placing your front sight post on the target/threat. Assume ALL GUNS ARE LOADED until you clear them, know how to safely clear them. Always observe the "laser rule", that is, never allow the muzzle of a firearm to point at anything you aren't willing to destroy. Whenever you see a gunshop commando waving a gun around as he inspects it, allowing the muzzle to cover everyone in the room, you are in the presence on an untrained jackass. Even jackasses can be trained, I've trained a few in my time.

le loupe
12-17-2008, 22:20
Most states do not allow for an "open carry" even with a permit. Your weapon must be concealed.

Permit issues & discernment aside, it seems to me that "open carry" is legal in 7 out of 14 AT states or 1400 of 2100 miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry

weary
12-17-2008, 22:24
i'll carry regardless
Even though you have told us, that you don't carry. Try to get your stories straight. Or, come to think of it, don't. You are more fun that way.

Weary

catfishrivers
12-17-2008, 22:46
A reckless & irresponsible killing is spoken of in this song, not self-defense

right, and unfortunately owning and carrying a gun does not guarantee that the person doing so is not going to handle the weapon with less respect than is safe, and something like that could indeed happen.

The chances of getting hit by lightning are probably stronger than needing to defend yourself with a gun. Or do we shoot at the lightning too? I really just don't see the need for it. **** happens no matter where you are in life. You can't always be defending against the unknown.

I just think it is an act of paranoia and a form of passive aggression. But like I said, I am not against gun ownership at all. I just think on a trail that has become so very trafficked, it is both unnecessary and also contrary to the reasons most seem to want to be out hiking in the first place. I'm sure there are plenty of Red Dawn excursions one could pay the same amount for and get defend themselves from attackers for enjoyment.

And in regards to the "well organized militia" bit by lonewolf...again, percentage wise, the 100 or so people packing on the trail's entirety, top to 2000 mile away bottom, those 100 guns aren't going to make the difference. It would be the people with arms in their homes, ready to use in an emergency, that would be able to assemble properly and in fashion useful to the purpose. The trail Wolverines aren't going to make a difference and save the day. I'm sorry, that argument to me is full of bravadothink. Not realistic. People who are walking around with guns most often don't have a real reason to do so in my opinion. Again, statistcially, for the couple who truly use them in self defense, the overall number of people carrying guns just don't ever need to use them.

And in regards to the comment about picking a better circle of friends...I said nothing about their character as friends. They are people I enjoy to share being alive with, but they are not people I think should have guns to carry about like they are gonna stop a bank robbery, or fend of a car jacker. I brought up Plaxico because he he had a liscence for it (in Florida I think) and still ended up carrying the gun in a recklass fashion, and shot himself. That's where th Johnny Cash lyrics came in...

catfishrivers
12-17-2008, 22:50
Well tell me then how a well regulated militia could be formed if need be when all the citizens are unarmed? If you remember the founding fathers wrote this "well regulated militia" phrase in the constitution in case said well regulated had to rise up against and overthrow an unruly and unconstitutional government. None of that would be possible if people like got their way and the government "agents" were the only one's with guns!!

All the people with guns stored safely in their homes, for an emergency, would be able to properly assemble. I addressed this in my last response too. All the John Rambos on the trail won't be THE MILITIA, if there was ever a need for one, it would be much larger and the few with guns on the trail would be a mere trickle of what was needed.

catfishrivers
12-17-2008, 22:52
It is really simple Catfish, never place your finger on the trigger until you are placing your front sight post on the target/threat. Assume ALL GUNS ARE LOADED until you clear them, know how to safely clear them. Always observe the "laser rule", that is, never allow the muzzle of a firearm to point at anything you aren't willing to destroy. Whenever you see a gunshop commando waving a gun around as he inspects it, allowing the muzzle to cover everyone in the room, you are in the presence on an untrained jackass. Even jackasses can be trained, I've trained a few in my time.

I know all this. I know how to use a gun too. I just don't advocate taking them on the trail. There's no reason that is statistically valid to warrant a bunch of people toting firearms near other people.

weary
12-17-2008, 22:53
I don't see anything wrong with exercising my 2A rights, just like I exercise my 1A rights, and all the others. And I just think of it as part of my ongoing pursuit to "Be Prepared". I'm not trying to force it on anyone else, although a lot of people seem to think I need their opinion forced on me.
No. I could care less, whether you carry, or not. But since you raise the question, I do feel an obligation to suggest that carrying responsibly on a trail has little chance of protecting either you or anyone else.

It has to be a pretty dumb assailant, who announces in advance his intention of killing you (in a tone of voice that suggests, he means it.) And even then killing him puts you in danger of spending the rest of your life in prison, should you not have convincing evidence to back up your fears that resulted in your imagined assailant's death.

Since people bent on killing others have numerous opportunities in easier places to access, I kinda suspect that most guns on the trail are pretty useless weight.

But do as you wish. Just be careful, especially if you come anywhere near me.

Weary

catfishrivers
12-17-2008, 22:54
And in regards to the "well organized militia" bit by lonewolf...


sorry, I meant to address Bulldawg. Sorry lonewolf.

weary
12-17-2008, 23:03
Maybe if that girl that was abuducted off the trail on New Years Day last year hiking with her dog had a gun she would be able to say something. ....
Maybe. But it strikes me that the odds are strongly against it. She would have saved her life, certainly, had she been in the habit of shooting suspicious people whenever they came near. But then she would have long ago been put in prison, and wouldn't have been on the trail, anyway, I suspect.

Weary

weary
12-17-2008, 23:08
do you have fire insurance on your home? if so, why?
Easy answer. I've had two fires. Neither of which I could have prevented.

catfishrivers
12-17-2008, 23:11
Easy answer. I've had two fires. Neither of which I could have prevented.

But if it were an arson, and you had a gun, you could have just shot the arson and saved the money for the insurance. Just always be on the lookout and you are your own insurance. The rock.

Skidsteer
12-17-2008, 23:11
Maybe. But it strikes me that the odds are strongly against it. She would have saved her life, certainly, had she been in the habit of shooting suspicious people whenever they came near. But then she would have long ago been put in prison, and wouldn't have been on the trail, anyway, I suspect.

Weary

Meredith frailed that piece of trash pretty well with nothing but her hands. She almost escaped. A gun might have made the difference. I sincerely doubt she would've shot anybody that didn't need killing.

weary
12-17-2008, 23:23
This author echos my sentiments exactly!!

.....I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.]
I don't carry a gun because in 70 years of wandering alone in the woods and mountains, I have never yet been in a situation where a gun would have been useful, nor have I ever met anyone in those 70 years, who told me of a situation where a gun would have been useful.

And for further evidence, no one on White Blaze, or any other site that I have been on, has ever recounted a personal experience where a gun would have been useful.

People all the time speculate that had this lady or that guy had a gun they would still be alive. Maybe. But common sense analyses of the situations suggest otherwise.

Carry all you want. Just recognize that the chances of a gun doing anything useful, is about on a par with a gun protecting someone against an imaginary Big Foot.

Weary

Bulldawg
12-17-2008, 23:28
Meredith frailed that piece of trash pretty well with nothing but her hands. She almost escaped. A gun might have made the difference. I sincerely doubt she would've shot anybody that didn't need killing.

That's right Skids. I personally know the lead interrogator in the case and she just damn near got away from him a couple of times. She beat him up pretty bad, lots worse than the media is ever gonna let on. I think had she had a gun, possibly a different outcome in the deal. No one will ever know for sure, but I'd rather take my chances of fighting the assailant off until I could go for my gun.

Also, FWIW, the safety consultant for my company was in today. We were talking and the subject came up that his truck had been broken into in Atlanta recently. Now this guy is packing heat where ever he goes. He is a super nice guy who dresses like a doctor and carries himself very well. One would NEVER think this guy is packing heat. Anyway, he comes out of this building somewhere in Metro Atlanta. He sees his truck window busted out. He then sees the perp breaking out another window in a nearby truck. He pulls his gun and stops the guy. While holding his piece on the guy he calls 911 and the police arrive quickly. Now the guy never fires his weapon. But by having it on his person; he stops a breakin in progress and also busts the POS that had broken into his truck. So, even in little ole Georgia, it pays to be packing heat!

Lone Wolf
12-17-2008, 23:30
keeps kids like you thinkin'. do i carry? will i carry? have i carried? i'm takin' a CCW class tomorrow. :):D:cool:

Lone Wolf
12-17-2008, 23:31
Easy answer. I've had two fires. Neither of which I could have prevented.

BS :rolleyes:

Bulldawg
12-17-2008, 23:31
keeps kids like you thinkin'. do i carry? will i carry? have i carried? i'm takin' a CCW class tomorrow. :):D:cool:


Good deal for you LW. Nothing wrong with packing the heat. No one will ever know if I am carrying except me and the perp who forces my hand.

Bulldawg
12-17-2008, 23:32
Easy answer. I've had two fires. Neither of which I could have prevented.

I didn't see that the question was about whether anyone has HAD any fires......

The question was about FIRE INSURANCE??

Lone Wolf
12-17-2008, 23:35
Good deal for you LW. Nothing wrong with packing the heat. No one will ever know if I am carrying except me and the perp who forces my hand.

takin' the class for a social thing really. good citizens getting together doing the right thing.

Bulldawg
12-17-2008, 23:36
takin' the class for a social thing really. good citizens getting together doing the right thing.


What are you doing there??:eek:

:D:D:D:D

take-a-knee
12-17-2008, 23:45
I don't carry a gun because in 70 years of wandering alone in the woods and mountains, I have never yet been in a situation where a gun would have been useful, nor have I ever met anyone in those 70 years, who told me of a situation where a gun would have been useful.

And for further evidence, no one on White Blaze, or any other site that I have been on, has ever recounted a personal experience where a gun would have been useful.

People all the time speculate that had this lady or that guy had a gun they would still be alive. Maybe. But common sense analyses of the situations suggest otherwise.

Carry all you want. Just recognize that the chances of a gun doing anything useful, is about on a par with a gun protecting someone against an imaginary Big Foot.

Weary

BS Weary, I've posted several times about "pacifying" a couple of drunks with a pistol on the west side of Blood Mountain about 20yrs ago. I was accompanied by three attractive young ladies they wanted to get to know a bit better. It didn't happen and no one got hurt, the same way it usually happens when someone pulls a pistol, just like Dr Gary Kleck's research has proven over and over again.

You and the others are correct about the incidence of crime being so low on the trail there is little need for a crossfitting male with a razor sharp blade to carry a pistol. On the other hand, to tell a slightly built female she shouldn't bother to learn to protect herself by learning to use a pistol, you simply have to be one dumb SOB. This is directed at no one in particular...but if the shoe fits...

StubbleJumper
12-17-2008, 23:56
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockhound http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/wb_style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=741410#post741410)
I'm still waiting for just 1 person who does carry on the AT to tell me when they actually needed to have it on their hike. Have any of you gun toters ever once needed to use it? Just 1 person.



Why do you feel the need to question others on rights afforded by the second amendment?


Is that questioning anyone's rights, or simply pointing out the obvious fact that there are statistically few occasions when a handgun would be needed.

Quite clearly, I have the constitutional right to carry a circular saw, hockey stick, and a surf board when I hike. However, as previously suggested, I'm still waiting for one person to tell me when any of that crap has remotely been needed on any hike. Until then, all that useless weight stays at home, right beside the firearms....

take-a-knee
12-18-2008, 00:06
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockhound http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/wb_style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=741410#post741410)
I'm still waiting for just 1 person who does carry on the AT to tell me when they actually needed to have it on their hike. Have any of you gun toters ever once needed to use it? Just 1 person.





Is that questioning anyone's rights, or simply pointing out the obvious fact that there are statistically few occasions when a handgun would be needed.

Quite clearly, I have the constitutional right to carry a circular saw, hockey stick, and a surf board when I hike. However, as previously suggested, I'm still waiting for one person to tell me when any of that crap has remotely been needed on any hike. Until then, all that useless weight stays at home, right beside the firearms....

Read the post above yours know-it-all. If I ever thru hike I probably won't pack a heater, cause I don't have a vagina, therefore I'm unlikely to be set upon, tied to a tree, and raped. Oh, why don't you tell me that never happens. Oh I forgot the part where she got her skull caved in after that. Most of the people killed on the AT had vaginas, my little tift many years ago was caused by drunks and the prescence of, you guessed it, vaginas. So, if you are sans vagina, you should be good to go, maybe not too bright, but that includes a lot of people so you shouldn't feel pregnant.

weary
12-18-2008, 00:06
But if it were an arson, and you had a gun, you could have just shot the arson and saved the money for the insurance. Just always be on the lookout and you are your own insurance. The rock.
Well, neither fire was the result of arson. The first was a mistake by the volunteer fire department that investigated some smoke in our bedroom and made it worse.

The second was a mistake by the electrician I hired to wire the rebuilt house.

Had an arsonist been one of the causes -- and I had seen him starting the fire -- I hope my first response would have been to call the fire department, the second to look for my several fire extinguishers, and the third to call the cops.

I can't imagine a situation where my first reaction would have been to shoot a suspected arsonist. First, I would have confronted him, you know, like ask, "what the hell are you doing with that match and that paper near my house.?"

It's my expectation that he would have either shot me, or run away -- the latter, being more likely. No, I would not have shot him running away, both because it would have been illegal. And because by the time I figured out what he had been doing, he long since would have been out of gun shot range.

Weary

Toolshed
12-18-2008, 00:07
Quote:
Originally Posted by rockhound http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/wb_style/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/showthread.php?p=741410#post741410)
I'm still waiting for just 1 person who does carry on the AT to tell me when they actually needed to have it on their hike. Have any of you gun toters ever once needed to use it? Just 1 person.





Is that questioning anyone's rights, or simply pointing out the obvious fact that there are statistically few occasions when a handgun would be needed.

Quite clearly, I have the constitutional right to carry a circular saw, hockey stick, and a surf board when I hike. However, as previously suggested, I'm still waiting for one person to tell me when any of that crap has remotely been needed on any hike. Until then, all that useless weight stays at home, right beside the firearms....
Yes you have a right to carry your possessions when you hike and I say hike your own hike.

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 00:11
Well, neither fire was the result of arson. The first was a mistake by the volunteer fire department that investigated some smoke in our bedroom and made it worse.

The second was a mistake by the electrician I hired to wire the rebuilt house.

Had an arsonist been one of the causes -- and I had seen him starting the fire -- I hope my first response would have been to call the fire department, the second to look for my several fire extinguishers, and the third to call the cops.

I can't imagine a situation where my first reaction would have been to shoot a suspected arsonist. First, I would have confronted him, you know, like ask, "what the hell are you doing with that match and that paper near my house.?"

It's my expectation that he would have either shot me, or run away -- the latter, being more likely. No, I would not have shot him running away, both because it would have been illegal. And because by the time I figured out what he had been doing, he long since would have been out of gun shot range.

Weary

LOL, I agree with you.I was just teasin'. You are one of the sane people posting to this thread.

BR360
12-18-2008, 00:12
Known Murders on or near the AT

January 2008. Meredith Emerson. Kidnapped on the AT in Georgia; murdered in National Forest nearby.
October 2007. John & Irene Bryant murdered by blunt-force trauma in Pisgah National Forest, near Franklin, NC
November 2001. Louise Chaput, stabbed to death on the AT near Mt. Washington, New Hampshire.
May 1996. Lollie Winans and Julianne Williams, both mid-20’s women, killed (throats slit) while bound and gagged off the AT in Shenandoah National park.
May 1988. Rebecca Wright shot and murdered on the AT in Pennsylvania. He partner was shot five times, and lived to testify against her attacker.
May 1981. Thru-hikers Susan Ramsey and Robert Mountford killed on the AT near Pearisburg, Virginia. Mountford was shot at a shelter, and Ramsey stabbed to death nearby.

I’ll bet each one of them wished they were armed to give themselves a fighting chance. The police did not protect them, but they did capture some of the perps.

For perspective, 10 people have died from falls over waterfalls in North Carolina since 2003. I’ll bet each one wished they had paid attention to the possible threats and made choices to protect themselves.

No accounting for denial.

Bulldawg
12-18-2008, 00:13
LOL, I agree with you.I was just teasin'. You are one of the sane people posting to this thread.


OK, so now everyone who thinks because the LAW permits us to carry a gun if we so desire is insane?? Wow, who are you Freud?

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 00:15
Read the post above yours know-it-all. If I ever thru hike I probably won't pack a heater, cause I don't have a vagina, therefore I'm unlikely to be set upon, tied to a tree, and raped. Oh, why don't you tell me that never happens. Oh I forgot the part where she got her skull caved in after that. Most of the people killed on the AT had vaginas, my little tift many years ago was caused by drunks and the prescence of, you guessed it, vaginas. So, if you are sans vagina, you should be good to go, maybe not too bright, but that includes a lot of people so you shouldn't feel pregnant.


One tragedy is not reason for everyone to carry a gun. Pepper spray or the like would serve equally as much as a useful deterrent, is lighter, easier to conceal and carry in way to be useful if god forbid such an attack happens again, with less chance of an accidental shooting, and the whole can of worms that comes with carrying a gun.

Also, your example is in very poor taste.

Bulldawg
12-18-2008, 00:17
One tragedy is not reason for everyone to carry a gun. Pepper spray or the like would serve equally as much as a useful deterrent, is lighter, easier to conceal and carry in way to be useful if god forbid such an attack happens again, with less chance of an accidental shooting, and the whole can of worms that comes with carrying a gun.

Also, your example is in very poor taste.

Pepper don't taste so good either in large amounts.:-?:-?

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 00:21
OK, so now everyone who thinks because the LAW permits us to carry a gun if we so desire is insane?? Wow, who are you Freud?


It's not the law I am questioning, it is the reasoning of the person who find it necessary to carry a fire arm on the trail. It is well trafficked in the first place, the odds are highly stacked against such an encounter, and something like pepper spray is a much safer, non-lethal, equally useful deterrent. I've been sprayed in the eyes with pepper spray before. I wouldn't be able to continue assaulting a person if I was shot in the eyes with it again. I also imagine it is alot easier to pull out a pepper spray canister than a gun, and you only immobilize a person if you happen to freak out and squirt someone who is innocent. So in the light of all that, anyone who bring a gun on the trail to defend themselves, and not for hunting, or is not a ranger or cop or something, then yes, the reasoning behind taking a gun on the trail is not the act of a sane person. It is the act of a paranoid.

weary
12-18-2008, 00:22
I didn't see that the question was about whether anyone has HAD any fires......

The question was about FIRE INSURANCE??
Well, I was asked about why I carry fire insurance. I originally carried insurance becanse fires happen, quite frequently. So wise people carry insurance. After two fires, my need for insurance is reenforced.

However, the need for a weapon on the Appalachian Trail happens so infrequently , and the chances of a weapon being of any use is so remote, that most people choose not to pack the extra weight.

I tend towards the latter. But carry all the weapons you think you may need, Bulldawg.

Weary

A belated edit: Upon reflection, I remember that carrying insurance was also a requirement of my mortgage.

BR360
12-18-2008, 00:24
Also, facts are facts:

From Wikipedia:
North Carolina (http://www.whiteblaze.net/wiki/North_Carolina) reports only 0.2% of their 263,102 holders had their license revoked in the 10 years since they have adopted the law.[48] (http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/#cite_note-47)
Permit holders are a remarkably law-abiding subclass of the population. Florida, which has issued over 1,408,907 permits in twenty one years, has revoked only 166 for a "crime after licensure involving a firearm," and fewer than 4,500 permits for any reason. [49]
(http://www.whiteblaze.net/forum/#cite_note-48)

Bulldawg
12-18-2008, 00:31
It's not the law I am questioning, it is the reasoning of the person who find it necessary to carry a fire arm on the trail. It is well trafficked in the first place, the odds are highly stacked against such an encounter, and something like pepper spray is a much safer, non-lethal, equally useful deterrent. I've been sprayed in the eyes with pepper spray before. I wouldn't be able to continue assaulting a person if I was shot in the eyes with it again. I also imagine it is alot easier to pull out a pepper spray canister than a gun, and you only immobilize a person if you happen to freak out and squirt someone who is innocent. So in the light of all that, anyone who bring a gun on the trail to defend themselves, and not for hunting, or is not a ranger or cop or something, then yes, the reasoning behind taking a gun on the trail is not the act of a sane person. It is the act of a paranoid.

So trafficked? Like I said before, many many times during the week, outside of thru hiker season around here, I have hiked for miles and miles not seeing a single person. I hiked to the top of Blood here recently during the week and didn't see a person until I got just passed Flatrock Gap on the way back. That is a little over 5 miles and with breakfast at the summit about 5 hours. That is plenty long enough to disappear. Plus traffic has nothing to do with it. Meredith was abducted on one of the most popular trails in Georgia. You see Meredith was not actually abducted on the AT, but on a blue blaze leading to and from a parking lot to Flatrock Gap. An extremely TRAFFICKED trail. I have also hiked from Unicoi Gap all the way to Steeltrap Gap during the week without seeing a single person. Not exactly highly TRAFFICKED there IMO!

Why don't we stick to the facts here. Do you absolutely need to be packing heat to hike the AT (or any other trail in the east)? No, maybe not. Are there ways to carry if you so desire? Absofrickenlutely! Is it possible you could be attacked on the AT? Damn skippy! The odds are low, but I'd rather be the single person in any given year who killed or wounded his attacker than the one my kids are burying! Are guns heavy and add weight to what you are carrying? Some are, some aren't. Those are the facts.

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 00:34
So trafficked? Like I said before, many many times during the week, outside of thru hiker season around here, I have hiked for miles and miles not seeing a single person. I hiked to the top of Blood here recently during the week and didn't see a person until I got just passed Flatrock Gap on the way back. That is a little over 5 miles and with breakfast at the summit about 5 hours. That is plenty long enough to disappear. Plus traffic has nothing to do with it. Meredith was abducted on one of the most popular trails in Georgia. You see Meredith was not actually abducted on the AT, but on a blue blaze leading to and from a parking lot to Flatrock Gap. An extremely TRAFFICKED trail. I have also hiked from Unicoi Gap all the way to Steeltrap Gap during the week without seeing a single person. Not exactly highly TRAFFICKED there IMO!

Why don't we stick to the facts here. Do you absolutely need to be packing heat to hike the AT (or any other trail in the east)? No, maybe not. Are there ways to carry if you so desire? Absofrickenlutely! Is it possible you could be attacked on the AT? Damn skippy! The odds are low, but I'd rather be the single person in any given year who killed or wounded his attacker than the one my kids are burying! Are guns heavy and add weight to what you are carrying? Some are, some aren't. Those are the facts.

Ok, you convinced me with your facts.

weary
12-18-2008, 00:36
BS Weary, I've posted several times about "pacifying" a couple of drunks with a pistol on the west side of Blood Mountain about 20yrs ago. I was accompanied by three attractive young ladies they wanted to get to know a bit better. It didn't happen and no one got hurt, the same way it usually happens when someone pulls a pistol, just like Dr Gary Kleck's research has proven over and over again.

You and the others are correct about the incidence of crime being so low on the trail there is little need for a crossfitting male with a razor sharp blade to carry a pistol. On the other hand, to tell a slightly built female she shouldn't bother to learn to protect herself by learning to use a pistol, you simply have to be one dumb SOB. This is directed at no one in particular...but if the shoe fits...
Hmmm. We've got to get this straight. Several a while back insisted one should never draw a gun without pulling the trigger. Which is it?

Weary

Bulldawg
12-18-2008, 00:38
More facts from Wiki:

Research into the effects of concealed carry laws on crime

There have been many studies and papers published in academic journals regarding the effects of various concealed carry laws on crime rate.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-30) Academics have also taken the discussion to books, blogs, and oral debates.
In his book, More Guns, Less Crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime), University of Maryland scholar John Lott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott)'s analysis of crime report data has shown statistically significant effects of concealed carry laws. One major conclusion was that locations which enacted more permissive concealed carry laws had a decrease in violent crime but an increase in property crime. The possible reasons for this rise in property crime are twofold:


Property crimes include trespassing, and concealed-carry statutes that include prohibited-area laws introduce the possibility of trespass where the individual would otherwise be in violation of a weapons law by carrying concealed (e.g. unlawful carry) or would not carry and be lawful.
Concealed carry allows potential victims of violent crime to prevent such crime; as a result, the assailant, if not fatally shot, is instead charged with a property crime such as burglary instead of homicide.

In both cases, crime is reduced overall, and criminal activity that does occur is recategorized as to type and severity because of the effects of the change in law.
Don Kates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates) summarizes the consensus reached by criminological research into gun control thus:

"Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm."[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-TennesseeLawReview-31)
Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. In Florida, which introduced the "shall-issue" concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses,[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-32) which had the unintended consequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence) of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-suprynowicz-33) Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. In 1991, the Luby's massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre) prompted Texas lawmakers to pass a concealed carry law that came into effect in 1995.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-34)
Research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-35)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-TennesseeLawReview-31)
University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states."[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-centerwall-36) In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is – a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources."[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-centerwall-36)

BR360
12-18-2008, 00:38
...the reasoning behind taking a gun on the trail is not the act of a sane person. It is the act of a paranoid.

Your own "reasoning" through this is not matched by the reasoning of legislatures of 48 states who allow some form of concealed carry.

These legislatures seem to understand that the right to defend oneself should not be abridged. Since they will grant reasonable people permits to carry---except in places where they are prohibited, like airports, courthouses and such---they must also understand that people are smart enough to make their own choices about where they may wish to carry a weapon for self-defense.

And the fact that the US Congress and Senate were pushing for the Park Service to allow carrying firearms for self-defense is clear that numerous others see the "reasonableness" of this action. (Tho there sure ARE a lot of idiotic things that politicians do...:eek:!!)

I know this will not convince you that others who may be just as sane or anxious as you may have reasonable grounds for carrying a weapon. I suspect your mind is made up.

But for those who like to consider these things, and are reading this thread, I have made all the points I wish to. Time for bed. i leave it to others to carry on.

take-a-knee
12-18-2008, 00:42
Hmmm. We've got to get this straight. Several a while back insisted one should never draw a gun without pulling the trigger. Which is it?

Weary

Well, it twernt me. I said to never place your finger on the trigger unless you were lining up your sights, a might bit different. Maybe it is a good thing you don't desire to carry.:-?

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 00:47
Your own "reasoning" through this is not matched by the reasoning of legislatures of 48 states who allow some form of concealed carry.

These legislatures seem to understand that the right to defend oneself should not be abridged. Since they will grant reasonable people permits to carry---except in places where they are prohibited, like airports, courthouses and such---they must also understand that people are smart enough to make their own choices about where they may wish to carry a weapon for self-defense.

And the fact that the US Congress and Senate were pushing for the Park Service to allow carrying firearms for self-defense is clear that numerous others see the "reasonableness" of this action. (Tho there sure ARE a lot of idiotic things that politicians do...:eek:!!)

I know this will not convince you that others who may be just as sane or anxious as you may have reasonable grounds for carrying a weapon. I suspect your mind is made up.

But for those who like to consider these things, and are reading this thread, I have made all the points I wish to. Time for bed. i leave it to others to carry on.

Ok again, not questioning the law, questioning the reasoning to bring it on the trail in the first place when something less lethal (pepper spray), there are lighter self defense options (again pepper spray), and more readily able to be taken out in an emergency is available for use. Bringing a gun on the trail is what I question, it is legal yes, but why, really why...there's no logical reason for it. Is there a chance something might happen to you? OK yes you just might, but there's an equal chance that you will get biut by a snake, are you also toting a snake bite kit? I'm questioning the logic to choose to bring a gun...not the legality of owning a gun, getting a license to carry concealed or not, nor the the rational of lawmakers to allow guns to be owned and carried.

What I am questioning is the logic of a person who brings it to defend himself on the trail. I hope I repeated myself enough for you to undertand I am not questioning the legality of owning a gun.

Toolshed
12-18-2008, 00:49
I know all this. I know how to use a gun too. I just don't advocate taking them on the trail. There's no reason that is statistically valid to warrant a bunch of people toting firearms near other people.
What is statistically valid?

Toolshed
12-18-2008, 00:52
I know all this. I know how to use a gun too. <snipped...brevity>
Well Of course you do.

take-a-knee
12-18-2008, 00:53
One tragedy is not reason for everyone to carry a gun. Pepper spray or the like would serve equally as much as a useful deterrent, is lighter, easier to conceal and carry in way to be useful if god forbid such an attack happens again, with less chance of an accidental shooting, and the whole can of worms that comes with carrying a gun.

Also, your example is in very poor taste.

You are waaay beyond being completely FOS. I deal with that "whole can of worms" every day, it ain't nothing but a thang. Meredith would likely agree that her whole ordeal was in "poor taste". I'm sure she'd also think you are FOS. As for pepper spray, it doesn't work on everyone and you can develop quite a tolerance for it. Little sneak-thief urchin kids in Haiti carried lemons to squeeze and neutralize capscium. That stuff really didn't bother them, they'd been sprayed with it so much.

You can choose to be a sheepdog, or you can simply bleat like a sheep, sounds like you've made your choice.

Bulldawg
12-18-2008, 00:53
OK yes you just might, but there's an equal chance that you will get biut by a snake, are you also toting a snake bite kit?


No the gun will also kill the snake!!:D:D

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 00:57
You are waaay beyond being completely FOS. I deal with that "whole can of worms" every day, it ain't nothing but a thang. Meredith would likely agree that her whole ordeal was in "poor taste". I'm sure she'd also think you are FOS. As for pepper spray, it doesn't work on everyone and you can develop quite a tolerance for it. Little sneak-thief urchin kids in Haiti carried lemons to squeeze and neutralize capscium. That stuff really didn't bother them, they'd been sprayed with it so much.

You can choose to be a sheepdog, or you can simply bleat like a sheep, sounds like you've made your choice.

OK macho man.

I don't have the patience...you win, you are correct, I am FOS, a sheep, I don't know hot use a gun, and every assailant on the trail has sensitized themselves to pepper spray. You guys win. Go celebrate.

weary
12-18-2008, 00:58
More facts from Wiki:

Research into the effects of concealed carry laws on crime

There have been many studies and papers published in academic journals regarding the effects of various concealed carry laws on crime rate.[31] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-30) Academics have also taken the discussion to books, blogs, and oral debates.
In his book, More Guns, Less Crime (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime), University of Maryland scholar John Lott (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Lott)'s analysis of crime report data has shown statistically significant effects of concealed carry laws. One major conclusion was that locations which enacted more permissive concealed carry laws had a decrease in violent crime but an increase in property crime. The possible reasons for this rise in property crime are twofold:


Property crimes include trespassing, and concealed-carry statutes that include prohibited-area laws introduce the possibility of trespass where the individual would otherwise be in violation of a weapons law by carrying concealed (e.g. unlawful carry) or would not carry and be lawful.
Concealed carry allows potential victims of violent crime to prevent such crime; as a result, the assailant, if not fatally shot, is instead charged with a property crime such as burglary instead of homicide.

In both cases, crime is reduced overall, and criminal activity that does occur is recategorized as to type and severity because of the effects of the change in law.
Don Kates (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Kates) summarizes the consensus reached by criminological research into gun control thus:

"Unfortunately, an almost perfect inverse correlation exists between those who are affected by gun laws, particularly bans, and those whom enforcement should affect. Those easiest to disarm are the responsible and law abiding citizens whose guns represent no meaningful social problem. Irresponsible and criminal owners, whose gun possession creates or exacerbates so many social ills, are the ones most difficult to disarm."[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-TennesseeLawReview-31)
Regardless of the interpretation of statistics, the trend in the United States has been towards greater permissiveness of concealed carry. In Florida, which introduced the "shall-issue" concealed carry laws used as a model for other states, crimes committed against residents dropped markedly upon the general issuance of concealed-carry licenses,[33] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-32) which had the unintended consequence (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequence) of putting tourists in Florida driving marked rental cars at risk from criminals since tourists may be readily presumed unarmed.[34] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-suprynowicz-33) Florida responded by enacting laws prohibiting the obvious marking of rental cars. In 1991, the Luby's massacre (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luby%27s_massacre) prompted Texas lawmakers to pass a concealed carry law that came into effect in 1995.[35] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-34)
Research comparing various countries' violent crime rates, murder rates, and crimes committed with weapons, have found that legal ownership of guns, including concealed carry guns, generally reduces crime rates.[36] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-35)[32] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-TennesseeLawReview-31)
University of Washington public health professor Brandon Centerwall prepared a study comparing homicide rates between Canada and the U.S., as the two countries are very similar, yet have different handgun ownership rates. He reported "Major differences in the prevalence of handguns have not resulted in differing total criminal homicide rates in Canadian provinces and adjoining US states."[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-centerwall-36) In his conclusions he published the following admonition:

"If you are surprised by my findings, so are we. We did not begin this research with any intent to "exonerate" handguns, but there it is – a negative finding, to be sure, but a negative finding is nevertheless a positive contribution. It directs us where NOT to aim public health resources."[37] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry#cite_note-centerwall-36)

These studies all deal with correlation, not cause and effect. During those same years crime reduced nationally. New York City, which, I understand, has among the strongest anti concealed weapon laws in the nation, had a similar drop in crime.

Weary

CaptChaos
12-18-2008, 01:01
It's not the law I am questioning, it is the reasoning of the person who find it necessary to carry a fire arm on the trail. It is well trafficked in the first place, the odds are highly stacked against such an encounter, and something like pepper spray is a much safer, non-lethal, equally useful deterrent. I've been sprayed in the eyes with pepper spray before. I wouldn't be able to continue assaulting a person if I was shot in the eyes with it again. I also imagine it is alot easier to pull out a pepper spray canister than a gun, and you only immobilize a person if you happen to freak out and squirt someone who is innocent. So in the light of all that, anyone who bring a gun on the trail to defend themselves, and not for hunting, or is not a ranger or cop or something, then yes, the reasoning behind taking a gun on the trail is not the act of a sane person. It is the act of a paranoid.

Catfishrivers - I like your post but I would have to disagree with your analysis that to carry a gun is a sign of being paranoid.

Until you have found yourself in a position that you need a weapon you really can't make statements that you only have a strong feeling about or maybe you have an idea of what it is like but you have never experience it yourself.

In my life when I was younger I found myself two times being thankful that I had a weapon. One time the gun was on my person because I had been plinking cans with my best friend on his father's farm. Who would have known that a drunk that had been drinking all morning at a public golf course would have heard our shots in the bottom land and for fun decided to take his 30-06 rifle and take pot shots because he wanted to have some fun. It was an incident in my life that I still remember to this day but I pulled my .45 ACP Colt and I emptied the clip into his position and the rounds falling at our feet and then at our heads when we were behind the fallen tree stopped. The feeling after it was over was the worse that I have ever experienced as I thought I had taken a life. It was not until the law enforcement people told me, my best friend and our parents that if I had not acted that myself or my best friend or both of us might have been injured or killed. The person was never found and no one knows why they did it but it happened.

The second time was much later and I had been at a public firing range and was going back home with an empty gun on my person. I stopped to get something to eat and did not want to leave the gun in the car. Again, it was empty and had no rounds in it or on my person. As I left the diner and headed back to my car a bum came from behind a van and pulled a knife on me and told me to give him my money. I reached behind my back to get my wallet and I pulled out a Colt .45 ACP and pulled the slide back and aimed it at his head and I asked him if he wanted to reconsider.

He dropped his knife and ran away across the street and down the alley. I was scared but to this day I was glad I had the empty gun on my person.

Now in both cases I did nothing to get myself in that position. It just happened. The first time it was just a random event and the police agreed with that as well.

The second time it was just life in the big city and later in life I left the big city and moved to a smaller town and it has never happened again nor have I felt like I needed to carry a gun here.

Now back to your comment. The two events that I just told you about from my life did not make me paranoid. But, if given the chance to carry and I was going to be by myself on the trail I would consider it. I would like having the option if I wanted to.

It's not having the option that upsets me. Why is it ok that my government dictates that if I want to be in the back country that I must allow myself to become a victim because I could not pack and defend myself if necessary. For me that is the question. It has nothing to do with being paranoid and that is why I disagree with your comment in a friendly way.

In closing, I have had the experience and I know what it is like to fire a weapon in self defense. I can be open about this because I want others to be able to ask questions if they want. My view is not based on a feeling concerning a what if or what would I do but based on the fact I have lived it, seen it, got the shirt, and have had a long time to remember it and base my views on having been there.

Take it for whats it worth.

Merry Xmas

John

makoboy
12-18-2008, 01:03
Permit issues & discernment aside, it seems to me that "open carry" is legal in 7 out of 14 AT states or 1400 of 2100 miles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_carry

I dont know where that information came from, but i know it is at best flawed. It states that open carry is legal in CT with a permit. I know for a fact that open carry of a pistol or revolver is under no circumstance permissable.

take-a-knee
12-18-2008, 01:10
These studies all deal with correlation, not cause and effect. During those same years crime reduced nationally. New York City, which, I understand, has among the strongest anti concealed weapon laws in the nation, had a similar drop in crime.

Weary

Not true Weary, violent crime was rising nationally in the eighties...except in Florida (where concealed carry was just enacted), I don't need an education on the difference between correlation and causation but, unlike some folks, I didn't just fall off of the turnip truck.

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 01:16
Catfishrivers - I like your post but I would have to disagree with your analysis that to carry a gun is a sign of being paranoid.

Until you have found yourself in a position that you need a weapon you really can't make statements that you only have a strong feeling about or maybe you have an idea of what it is like but you have never experience it yourself.

In my life when I was younger I found myself two times being thankful that I had a weapon. One time the gun was on my person because I had been plinking cans with my best friend on his father's farm. Who would have known that a drunk that had been drinking all morning at a public golf course would have heard our shots in the bottom land and for fun decided to take his 30-06 rifle and take pot shots because he wanted to have some fun. It was an incident in my life that I still remember to this day but I pulled my .45 ACP Colt and I emptied the clip into his position and the rounds falling at our feet and then at our heads when we were behind the fallen tree stopped. The feeling after it was over was the worse that I have ever experienced as I thought I had taken a life. It was not until the law enforcement people told me, my best friend and our parents that if I had not acted that myself or my best friend or both of us might have been injured or killed. The person was never found and no one knows why they did it but it happened.

The second time was much later and I had been at a public firing range and was going back home with an empty gun on my person. I stopped to get something to eat and did not want to leave the gun in the car. Again, it was empty and had no rounds in it or on my person. As I left the diner and headed back to my car a bum came from behind a van and pulled a knife on me and told me to give him my money. I reached behind my back to get my wallet and I pulled out a Colt .45 ACP and pulled the slide back and aimed it at his head and I asked him if he wanted to reconsider.

He dropped his knife and ran away across the street and down the alley. I was scared but to this day I was glad I had the empty gun on my person.

Now in both cases I did nothing to get myself in that position. It just happened. The first time it was just a random event and the police agreed with that as well.

The second time it was just life in the big city and later in life I left the big city and moved to a smaller town and it has never happened again nor have I felt like I needed to carry a gun here.

Now back to your comment. The two events that I just told you about from my life did not make me paranoid. But, if given the chance to carry and I was going to be by myself on the trail I would consider it. I would like having the option if I wanted to.

It's not having the option that upsets me. Why is it ok that my government dictates that if I want to be in the back country that I must allow myself to become a victim because I could not pack and defend myself if necessary. For me that is the question. It has nothing to do with being paranoid and that is why I disagree with your comment in a friendly way.

In closing, I have had the experience and I know what it is like to fire a weapon in self defense. I can be open about this because I want others to be able to ask questions if they want. My view is not based on a feeling concerning a what if or what would I do but based on the fact I have lived it, seen it, got the shirt, and have had a long time to remember it and base my views on having been there.

Take it for whats it worth.

Merry Xmas

John

I'm sorry you had to defend yourself and glad that you did so without taking a life. If that happened to occur on the trail instead, it would be in part because the other person was permitted to have a gun on the trail as well, wouldn't it? I think you actually helped make my point. Again, I am not questioning the right, need or desire of anyone to carry a gun off the trail per the laws that govern them. I am just questioning the logic and rational of thinking you need to bring a gun on the trail.

Thank you though for sharing your ordeal. I appreciate your openness.

Just to address the people claiming I don't what I am talking about, and question my experience...I have had a loaded gun pulled on me, but I won't go into the circumstances because it is not relevant to my argument, which is solely pertaining the logic behind bringing a gun, rather than something like pepper spray, as a means of self defense on the trail. It happened off the trail. If you want to disbelieve me, that's fine. Your disbelief does little to change my argument.

le loupe
12-18-2008, 11:44
Again, statistcially, for the couple who truly use them in self defense, the overall number of people carrying guns just don't ever need to use them.


Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day, according to Dr. Gary Kleck,
Criminologist, Florida State University. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is
shed. Every day 550 rapes, 1,100 murders and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun.
In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired.

le loupe
12-18-2008, 11:45
Maybe. But it strikes me that the odds are strongly against it. She would have saved her life, certainly, had she been in the habit of shooting suspicious people whenever they came near. But then she would have long ago been put in prison, and wouldn't have been on the trail, anyway, I suspect.

Weary

See above post

Lone Wolf
12-18-2008, 11:46
most folks just choose to be victims. say la vee :)

le loupe
12-18-2008, 11:54
Well, I was asked about why I carry fire insurance. I originally carried insurance becanse fires happen, quite frequently.

Between 1998 and 2007, there were an average of 397,650 house fires each year.

There are 111,000,000 households in the US. That works out to three-tenths of 1% of households need fire insurance.

Surely that is not large enough of a risk to carry fire insurance.

mudhead
12-18-2008, 12:03
say la vee :)

You been taking spelling lessons from Matt?

Lone Wolf
12-18-2008, 12:03
Well, I was asked about why I carry fire insurance.

i was asking rockhound. not you

kanga
12-18-2008, 12:21
Hmmm. We've got to get this straight. Several a while back insisted one should never draw a gun without pulling the trigger. Which is it?

Weary


that is not anywhere close to what was said. i love how you twist words to make them sound like what you want them to.
what was actually said was, you should never draw a gun unless you are PREPARED to have to pull the trigger. a gun is not a toy. it is not a fear tactic. it's protection. and you should treat it with respect. pulling out a gun to scare someone is one of the stupidest, most irresponsible things you could ever do, IF you are not truly prepared to use it if you have to.

Rockhound
12-18-2008, 12:23
yes sorry. I had a brain freeze. my apologies

Rockhound
12-18-2008, 12:25
Meredith, dude. Meredith.
sorry brain freeze. my apologies

Gray Blazer
12-18-2008, 12:27
If that happened to occur on the trail instead, it would be in part because the other person was permitted to have a gun on the trail as well, wouldn't it? I think you actually helped make my point. Again, I am not questioning the right, need or desire of anyone to carry a gun off the trail per the laws that govern them. I am just questioning the logic and rational of thinking you need to bring a gun on the trail.



I just jumped in here and have not read the previous posts and I don't know what your original point was, but, I feel i need to say something.

A bad guy is not going to not bring a gun on a trail because the government says it's against the law. He's not going to care. That's what makes him a bad guy.

I believe in turning the other cheek or walking away, but, if someone wants to take my life or threatens my family that's a different story.

I can't believe the number of guys I have talked to who have told me they would not try to kill a person who broke into their house and had already killed their wife and/or children. I believe you should be able to protect yourself and yours. Amen.

Bulldawg
12-18-2008, 12:30
I just jumped in here and have not read the previous posts and I don't know what your original point was, but, I feel i need to say something.

A bad guy is not going to not bring a gun on a trail because the government says it's against the law. He's not going to care. That's what makes him a bad guy.

I believe in turning the other cheek or walking away, but, if someone wants to take my life or threatens my family that's a different story.

I can't believe the number of guys I have talked to who have told me they would not try to kill a person who broke into their house and had already killed their wife and/or children. I believe you should be able to protect yourself and yours. Amen.

It's unbelievable the number of pacifists in this Country. I am not gonna wait to find out if an intruder intends to kill or rape my wife and children. If an intruder enters my home, it is shoot first, ask questions later. It's called a castle law. A man has the right to protect his "castle". And that castle in many states has been extended to include his car and his "personal space".

kanga
12-18-2008, 12:30
It's not the law I am questioning, it is the reasoning of the person who find it necessary to carry a fire arm on the trail. It is well trafficked in the first place, the odds are highly stacked against such an encounter, and something like pepper spray is a much safer, non-lethal, equally useful deterrent. I've been sprayed in the eyes with pepper spray before. I wouldn't be able to continue assaulting a person if I was shot in the eyes with it again.

you may not be able to, but there are plenty of nut-nuts out there that can keep on coming, even after a cop has emptied the can out. those are usually the ones that are attacking you in the first place. sane, normal people don't go around attacking random people. nut-nuts do. GMH? hello?
on top of that, i say we go hiking one weekend and let you run into a couple of cubs and before you can back away quietly here comes mama. i will gladly hand you the can of mace while i snuggle up to my p38. good luck to ya.





I also imagine it is alot easier to pull out a pepper spray canister than a gun, and you only immobilize a person if you happen to freak out and squirt someone who is innocent.

i bet i can get the safety off my gun before you can figure out which side the spray comes out of your can.




So in the light of all that, anyone who bring a gun on the trail to defend themselves, and not for hunting, or is not a ranger or cop or something, then yes, the reasoning behind taking a gun on the trail is not the act of a sane person. It is the act of a paranoid.

this quite possibly one of the most uneducated and retarded comments in this thread. i think the paranoia here is your fear of guns. you don't have to tote one if you can't handle it, but i'll be damned if someone is gonna rape me because people like you are ignorant enough to think that mace is gonna do it.

Rockhound
12-18-2008, 12:34
Why do you feel the need to question others on rights afforded by the second amendment?
im not questioning peoples rights. if you want to carry and can legally do so, go right ahead. I'm simply saying the need to carry is not there, or at least the risk is so small that I find it strange that people who wouldn't carry in the cities and towns where they are from, where the potential of needing a gun is greater, choose to arm themselves before heading out on the AT.

Lone Wolf
12-18-2008, 12:48
im not questioning peoples rights. if you want to carry and can legally do so, go right ahead. I'm simply saying the need to carry is not there, or at least the risk is so small

ask all the women that have been raped and assaulted on the AT if the need is not there. can ask the poor souls that have been murdered.

Rockhound
12-18-2008, 12:48
i was asking rockhound. not you
No I do not carry fire insurance. I do not own a house. I do not carry auto insurance. I do not drive a car. I do not own a gun. I feel the risk so small, it offsets the need. If I did own a house, don't most mortgages require you to have insurance? If you drive are you not required to be insured? very few people are required to carry a gun.

Bulldawg
12-18-2008, 12:51
No I do not carry fire insurance. I do not own a house. I do not carry auto insurance. I do not drive a car. I do not own a gun. I feel the risk so small, it offsets the need. If I did own a house, don't most mortgages require you to have insurance? If you drive are you not required to be insured? very few people are required to carry a gun.


Silly argument!

Rockhound
12-18-2008, 13:00
ask all the women that have been raped and assaulted on the AT if the need is not there. can ask the poor souls that have been murdered.
I agree LW. If anyone should carry it should be those who fall into the "target group". My sympathies to anyone, anywhere that has been a victim of an act of violence. I still say the risk is far less hiking than out there in the "real world". In the end I guess it boils down to a personal choice.

Rockhound
12-18-2008, 13:01
Silly argument!
it was a silly comparison to begin with

4eyedbuzzard
12-18-2008, 13:29
Imagine, I've been away for a few days, and of all the things you wouldn't expect, there's another gun thread here on WB :rolleyes: :banana
So far after reading and participating in several hundred pages of these over the past two years I have come to the conclusion that...
While crime is rare on the AT, it does occur.
Statistics won't make you feel better if you become one of them.
Good responsible people with guns--good
Bad irresponsible people with guns--bad

Make your own personal assessment of the risk vs benefit and the responsibility incurred with carrying a weapon and choose accordingly. Carrying a weapon is definitely not for everybody. Those who are afraid of firearms, not sure of their decision making capabilities in a life and death situation, probably shouldn't choose to carry. And while statistically the trail is pretty much as safe as the places it passes through(if the trail went through the south Bronx, there would likely be higher assessment of risk), both violent and property crime still do occur.

As the current economic situation worsens over the next several years, there will likely be an increase in property crime, especially robbery, though I doubt the increase will be as severe in the predominantly rural areas the trail passes through as it will be in urban and suburban areas.

Each individual should weigh all the factors involved, make an informed personal choice, and then also respect the decisions of those who may decide otherwise.:)

MaineSurveyor
12-18-2008, 13:55
From the second amendment:


The original intent was to preserve and guarantee, not grant, the pre-existing right of individuals to keep and bear arms. It preserves and individual right for a collective purpose, i.e. to form a militia when/if needed to preserve the "security of a free state".

There's a big difference between preserving the right and granting it.

Interpret the U.S. Constitution how you may...the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the 2nd Amendment as defining an individual right and not as a right restricted to use in a 'militia'.

"On June 26, the Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller that the Second Amendment—"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"— protects a purely individual right, as do the First, Fourth and Ninth Amendments. "Nowhere else in the Constitution does a 'right' attributed to 'the people' refer to anything other than an individual right," the court said. "The term ['the people'] unambiguously refers to all members of the political community."

The court's 5-4 majority rejected the notion pushed by D.C. officials and gun control supporters in Heller —taken from the Kansas Supreme Court's decision in Salina v. Blaksley (1905)—that the amendment protects only a privilege to possess arms when serving in a militia. All nine justices rejected gun control supporters' alternate and mutually exclusive idea—invented by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit in U.S. v. Tot (1942)—that the amendment protects only a state power (a so-called "collective right") to maintain a militia.

Citing a previous decision by the court, recognizing that the right to arms is individually-held, the court noted, "As we said in United States v. Cruikshank (1876), '[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed.'"

The court also declared that the Second Amendment protects "the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation," including "all instruments that constitute bearable arms." It said that people have the right to keep and bear handguns (the type of arm at issue in Heller), because "[T]he inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. . . .Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home 'the most preferred firearm in the nation to 'keep' and use for protection of one's home and family,' would fail constitutional muster." "

le loupe
12-18-2008, 13:59
it was a silly comparison to begin with

It was a perfectly legitimate comparison.

Homeowner/Driver both face a certain amount of risk for which they need to be arm-- er, prepared.

Let not hide behind the "insurance is required" gambit. Car insurance is required, not to protect the driver, but protect others who might be harmed by negligence. Your bank requires homeowners, in order to protect their investment. The odds of fire, 3/10 of 1% are small, but the bank still thinks its prudent.

Alligator
12-18-2008, 14:12
I read today that the Bush admin. overturned the restriction that you cannot carry a handgun in national parks and starting in January you can carry a handgun, assuming you have a license to carry. My question for you guys is ... Will this affect your decision to carry or not now that it may be legal to do so. Seems like there has been more and more shelters closed due to agressive bear activity as well as some agressive human activity over the past year also. Would you feel somewhat safer packing heat. I know we've discussed this before. I'm just curious how many people would reconsider now that it may be legal.



abbub:-?Time to reign it back in and return to the original question. The question is about your personal intentions, not what you think about everyone else's intentions.

Bulldawg
12-18-2008, 14:24
Time to reign it back in and return to the original question. The question is about your personal intentions, not what you think about everyone else's intentions.

If I were to plan a thru hike, I would personally possibly at least entertain the idea. No one should ever advertise the fact they are packing heat. The people who brag about it are the one's you have to worry about. The responsible gun carrying folks; you will never know they are carrying unless you push their limits.

Gray Blazer
12-18-2008, 14:32
that is not anywhere close to what was said. i love how you twist words to make them sound like what you want them to.
what was actually said was, you should never draw a gun unless you are PREPARED to have to pull the trigger. a gun is not a toy. it is not a fear tactic. it's protection. and you should treat it with respect. pulling out a gun to scare someone is one of the stupidest, most irresponsible things you could ever do, IF you are not truly prepared to use it if you have to.

Amen, Brother Ben!!

bigben
12-18-2008, 15:32
I carry sometimes while backpacking and hiking. I haven't carried on the AT yet. Not saying I would or wouldn't though. The new National Parks law wouldn't cause me to carry more or less. It would have no effect on GSMNP or Shenandoah for my decision making. Maybe if I was going out west somewhere. But I support the law and am glad it passed. People don't need to worry about CCW holders. They are not the criminals. People just get waaaay too worked up about this issue. Anti-gunners call the pro-gunners whackjobs and the pro-gunners call the anti-gunners sitting ducks. I just wish everyone who gets worked up about gun threads would just chill out about it. People who want to carry are going to carry, period. But the people who post, as far as I know, are not criminals who have lost their rights to own(not to mention, CARRY) a concealed weapon. Those are the ones the people who worry should be worrying about. Me, I haven't had the reason to worry on the AT, but I have in other places. Hopefully that doesn't change. But if it does, my pack weight will go up a pound.

Bigben

SloHiker
12-18-2008, 16:14
To address the original question: It's nice to be considered a bit more "lawful" now, with this new provision. But, I've been carrying a gun everyday for over 30 yrs now - whether it was particularly lawful or not.

Places that restrict my choice to carry a gun (commercial airplanes, Federal buildings, etc.) just aren't visited by me anymore, unless absolutely necessary. I haven't flown since 9/11 and never will again if I can't go "prepared" .... and that doesn't necessarily mean a firearm.

abbub
12-18-2008, 16:21
Ok, I agree that the risk out on the trail is minimal with the possible exception to the occasional rogue bear. But think about this. What about hitching rides into town with often times not so perfect strangers ???

SloHiker
12-18-2008, 16:38
Ok, I agree that the risk out on the trail is minimal with the possible exception to the occasional rogue bear. But think about this. What about hitching rides into town with often times not so perfect strangers ???

Armed or not, everyone in every situation/circumstance should be consciously performing some basic "risks analysis" in an ongoing fashion so as to decide whether or not they're exposing themselves to unnecessary risk.

Many times I've chosen to NOT put myself in certain risky situations - even though I was quite capable of getting out of them fine. Just because you CAN, doesn't mean you SHOULD.

Owning and/or carrying a gun doesn't make you safe anymore than does owning an airplane make you a pilot.

The greatest weapon you must always have available to you is your brain!

I hope that makes sense ......

Rockhound
12-18-2008, 17:54
If everyone who hiked the AT packed a gun for there personal safety do you think the death rate would increase or decrease? How many gun owners are killed each year by their own guns, accidentally or not? How many gun owners accidentally shoot another human being each year? You can say "I'm a responsible gun owner and that would never happen" and that will be true until the unthinkable does happen. Just like I can say "I don't fall into a target group and the risk is so small I don't need to carry" Could the need present itself? Sure. Life is a risk. I just choose not to spend my hike ready to take another persons life at any moment.

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 18:00
you may not be able to, but there are plenty of nut-nuts out there that can keep on coming, even after a cop has emptied the can out. those are usually the ones that are attacking you in the first place. sane, normal people don't go around attacking random people. nut-nuts do. GMH? hello?

So it's the nut-nuts we are afraid of? Duly noted. You guys keep astounding me with your stereotyping of groups. I worked in a mental hospital as a clinical assistant for a long time, and I worked with people who killed other people that had been remanded there in liue of prison (note: not all of the patients I worked with had killed people, just some). I've seen the entire spectrum of person get diagnosed with mental illness, some of which I could blow over with a sneeze, and others who required a more skillful approach to deescalate in a crisis. But I never had to use a gun, or a tazer, or pepper spray. Or even physical intervention for that matter. I think you are afraid of the boogey man but you are calling him "nut-nuts".

How many people have been attacked on the trail vs. how many have hiked? I think I read that there's roughly 1 crime (note crime, not attack or murder, but crime) for every 800,000 people that set foot on the trail. However, the odds of winning the lotto are actually a bit more in your favor! You can get a decent gun for around $300 (on the cheap end), so let's say you took just $50 of those dollars and played the lotto instead, just to show you how much more likley you would be to win the lotto than to have a crime committed against you on the trail...


The odds of a "Lotto" style lottery can be found with the formula: n! / (n - r)! r! where n is the highest numbered ball and r is the number of balls chosen. This is called in math a combination. An easier way to think about it is if there are 40 balls and 6 are chosen, there are 40 possible numbers that can come up first, leaving 39 that can come up second, then 38, 37, 36, and finally 35 on the final number. To find out how many numbers that is you multiply 40 ×39 ×38 ×37 ×36 × 35 = 2,763,633,600 making the odds 2 and a half billion to one.

Pretty slim odds, but luckily the order of the balls does not matter, so we can divide this number by how many ways these numbers can be arranged. There are six possibilities for the first ball, five for the second, 4 for the third, 3, 2, and one left over. That is 6 × 5 × 4 × 3 × 2 × 1 = 720 So, the odds are 2,763,633,600 ÷ 720 = 3,838,380 to one.


If I put $50 on one lottery, the odds of winning are 3,838,380 ÷ 50 = 76767.6 to one.

(link)
(http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/rawdata.htm)
Again to repeat, I am not questioning the law at all, I am questioning a person's reasoning for thinking they need a gun. The percentages do not warrant carrying a gun. The reason for it is illogical and based on fear not practicality. There are equally effective non-lethal deterrents that can be used, which weigh less, and present less of a threat and danger to the people around them and can still be used in defense.



on top of that, i say we go hiking one weekend and let you run into a couple of cubs and before you can back away quietly here comes mama. i will gladly hand you the can of mace while i snuggle up to my p38. good luck to ya.


I've seen mother bears with cubs several times. I've never once had a problem. As an alternative to a gun, I suggest an air horn, or I've seen someone else on this forum suggest firecrackers, stating he had used them many times to good effect. Although, I can't imagine truly having to do so with the black bear population I am used to come across. Maybe there are some more agrresive ones scattered about. In those instances, I think some loud noise would likely be enough. If not, then what could I do. Most bears would take more bullets than any gun I could carry could get off in time to take them down.I would say just to educate yourself and understand how to behave when around a bear with cubs. In most cases, you will be fine with just that knowledge of how to behave yourself so as to escape unharmed (the bears too). Again, I think the percentage of times people would require a gun is so low as to not warrant needing one.

I've still not been convinced there is any need for a gun. Despite the people who are attacked, and even murdered, percentage-wise, compared to the number of people who hike in total, I can't imagine that carrying a gun would change those numbers at all. What it does is change a person's psyche, and changes the choices a person can and will make in a moment of crisis or threat, but it will not change the percentages substantially on the trail (again, reminder, I am only talking about bringing a gun on the trail). It may indeed even prevent crimes in certain circumstances, but I also believe many of those crimes could have been prevented via other methods, such as being aware of your surroundings, traveling with a group (or at least checking in often, and sleeping near other people), carrying alternative non-lethal safety items such as pepper spray and a a whistle, a hiking stick is also a good deterrent.







i bet i can get the safety off my gun before you can figure out which side the spray comes out of your can.


Doubtful, but I will give you a "yee-haw" for feeling the need to say so.






this quite possibly one of the most uneducated and retarded comments in this thread. i think the paranoia here is your fear of guns. you don't have to tote one if you can't handle it, but i'll be damned if someone is gonna rape me because people like you are ignorant enough to think that mace is gonna do it.

Nope I am not afriad of a gun, I am afraid of overly cocksure people with guns. But that's not my point at all. My point has been there is no need to bring a gun, that you will likely not be able to alter the rare odds that you will be attacked by carrying a gun on the trail. If you think you need to, I feel bad that you are afraid that something will happen to you. I hope someday you stop needing to carry a gun to feel safe. There are so many more things in the world you shoul dbe afraid of that are more likely to kill you. Living life is a chance, every day a million chances for things to go wrong pass you by without you even being aware, so many things that could happen to you. I bet at least half the people who carry guns to protect themselves do one or more of the following: smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol, eat poorly, have unprotected sex with people they hardly know, drive fast, don't go to the docotor for regular check ups,...or any number of other behaviors that increase the odds of putting their lives in danger, yet the gun has no answer to those threats. I just see most of the arguments on here for carrying a gun as a sort of paranoia, being afraid of something that might happen, some attacker that might spring on them.

And again, I will remind everyone I am talking about bringing a gun ontot he trail and the chance that you would need to, and then actually have warnign and be able to, use it to improve your situation. I guess most of you don't use hiking sticks and your hands are always free to grab at your readily accesible holsters...

le loupe
12-18-2008, 18:05
ask and you shall recieve.

According to the National Safety Council (2006) there were 700 accidental deaths as a result of firearms. Down 19% since 1998.

I wonder if the number of firearms has gone up since 1998

http://www.nssf.org/news/PR_idx.cfm?PRloc=share/PR/&PR=060506.cfm&CFID=3426726&CFTOKEN=9b90c6707ecc4a61-4C1F709F-D3A0-0B97-9C67DB6D8A3E5881&jsessionid=f03043be2ef173e036f67e2b1e6766c52433

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 18:08
Guns prevent an estimated 2.5 million crimes a year, or 6,849 every day, according to Dr. Gary Kleck,
Criminologist, Florida State University. Often the gun is never fired and no blood (including the criminal’s) is
shed. Every day 550 rapes, 1,100 murders and 5,200 other violent crimes are prevented just by showing a gun.
In less than 0.9% of the time is the gun ever actually fired.


These statistics don't refer to the situation of being on the trail. Again, I'm trying to argue against the need for carrying a gun on the trail. I'm not questioning the law of it, nor trying to present any argument that extends beyond the argument that guns are not needed on the trail and the rationale for bringing one is based in fear, not practicality.

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 18:10
If everyone who hiked the AT packed a gun for there personal safety do you think the death rate would increase or decrease? How many gun owners are killed each year by their own guns, accidentally or not? How many gun owners accidentally shoot another human being each year? You can say "I'm a responsible gun owner and that would never happen" and that will be true until the unthinkable does happen. Just like I can say "I don't fall into a target group and the risk is so small I don't need to carry" Could the need present itself? Sure. Life is a risk. I just choose not to spend my hike ready to take another persons life at any moment.

You made me think of two words: Dick Cheney.

le loupe
12-18-2008, 18:12
These statistics don't refer to the situation of being on the trail. Again, I'm trying to argue against the need for carrying a gun on the trail. I'm not questioning the law of it, nor trying to present any argument that extends beyond the argument that guns are not needed on the trail and the rationale for bringing one is based in fear, not practicality.

the statistic was meant to refute the idea that only a couple of people need or make use of firearms.

I think its reasonable to extrapolate those statistics to the Trail population.

le loupe
12-18-2008, 18:12
You made me think of two words: Dick Cheney.

isnt this the proverbial "Red Herring"

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 18:13
Ok, I agree that the risk out on the trail is minimal with the possible exception to the occasional rogue bear. But think about this. What about hitching rides into town with often times not so perfect strangers ???

Why are hitchhiking then? Sure I would take a spear if I was jumping into a pool I thought was full of sharks...but really, if I thought there was a shark in the pool, I'd just stay out of it. If hitching a ride seems dangerous to you, then follow what most safety experts advise, and don't hitch hike. You are taking your chances if you do, but those chances are probably most often going to turn up a normal good hearted person going out of his or her way to help a stranger out. You are the actually probably more of a danger to them to pick up if you think about it...

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 18:14
isnt this the proverbial "Red Herring"

No, "responsible gun-owner"

catfishrivers
12-18-2008, 18:15
the statistic was meant to refute the idea that only a couple of people need or make use of firearms.

I think its reasonable to extrapolate those statistics to the Trail population.

How so, the crime incidence is much higher off the trail than on. Do tell...

Rockhound
12-18-2008, 18:22
You made me think of two words: Dick Cheney.
Dick Cheney is out quail hunting and accidentally shoots one of his friends. In a panic he calls 911 and frantically tells the operator, " I was out hunting and shot my friend by mistake! I think he's dead! What do I do!?" The operator says, "calm down sir. first, are you sure your friend is dead?" Dick says "hold on." There is a brief pause followed by a gunshot. Dick gets back on the line and says, "OK now what?"

Alligator
12-18-2008, 18:28
Closed until further notice.