Starting today you can pack heat in Nat'l Parks!

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 141 - 160 of total 457 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

dktem

Trad climber

Temecula

Feb 23, 2010 - 02:53pm PT

Ron,

If you are asking about the data from the link. Autos are a big part of the "accidents" category. Again, this data is probably doesn't correlate well to NPs. There are no freeways in NPs.

For what it's worth, I'm not opposed to private gun ownership. I own a few rifles myself and will probably be getting a handgun soon. I grew up in Western PA and hunted, literally in my backyard. I intend to send my kids to gun safety courses and I would never discourage any interest they took in responsible gun-related hobbies.

I am, however, opposed to bogus arguments and bogus statistics.

So I'm hardly the "typical liberal" when it comes to the control issue. But I do find that the one side of the debate seems to approach the issue from a more reasonable perspective, and one side is not really willing to accept the real-world tradeoffs.

The gun control debate would be more productive if the "pro gun" side were willing to actually discuss what limits were to be placed on ownership of "arms" (the word that the Constitution uses.)

Any rational person knows that there has to be some limits -- we can't all own F16s with cluster bombs. But I've never heard the NRA even suggest that such limits should exist. It's always "guns are good and liberals are trying to take them away."

Guns are good for America. But there is a limit to what is practical and necessary. There are downsides to gun proliferation. Why can't one side acknowledge this?

Unfortunately the crux of the issue is always avoided in favor of extremism and bumper-sticker cliches.

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Feb 23, 2010 - 02:59pm PT

But back to my previous question: Why the fu#k can't some people make an argument without using the generalized term "liberal" like it's a dirty word?

Does Rush Limbaugh really have that many people so brainwashed?

Speaking only for myself, it's that many liberals combine incredible ignorance with a completely misplaced arrogance that they know what they're talking about and that people who disagree are idiots. Kind of like what you're doing with implying that Rush has "brainwashed" anyone, and what you did with nitpicking when I corrected the guy who essentially said that you're more likely to die by lightning than by homicide--remember, that's the guy who said OTHER PEOPLE are out of touch with reality. You did the old change-what-he-said trick (change "lightning" to "accidents" to try to deflect things, nice try).

Concrete example: someone in this thread expressed shock that people think they have 2nd Amendment rights to bear arms outside of a militia. Well, hate to break it you, but WE DO have rights under the 2nd Amendment irrespective of militia membership. So sayeth the US Supreme Court. Maybe you think the Supreme Court got it wrong (in your opinion), but as a FACT, we do have rights apart from militias. My problem is not that the liberal didn't know that, it's that she THOUGHT OTHER PEOPLE WERE STUPID who do know that.

So while it's wrong to generalize and insult "liberals," it can also be incredibly frustrating dealing with them sometimes.

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Feb 23, 2010 - 03:05pm PT

If the question is whether having a handgun while in a national park makes one safer from other humans or animals, and is an appropriate risk-management strategy, the question is two-fold.

1. What are the leading causes of death and injury in national parks? (Not elsewhere - even blahblah has probably noticed that Yosemite Village ain't much like East LA.) I suspect that attacks by humans on humans are pretty low on the list, and indeed attacks by animals on humans - excepting perhaps domestic dogs.

2. Would carrying a gun (in the open or concealed) in fact reduce the remote likelihood of one being attacked or killed?

The most effective risk-reduction strategies in national parks probably have little if anything to do with whether or not one carries a gun.

dktem

Trad climber

Temecula

Feb 23, 2010 - 03:42pm PT

So while it's wrong to generalize and insult "liberals," it can also be incredibly frustrating dealing with them sometimes.

You've pretty much made my point for me with this line, but I'll spell it out better:

There is no "them."

Or at least the definition of "them" is much more narrow than the way you are using it here.

Sure there are people that would label themselves as liberal, but this is a much smaller segment of the population than Rush and his talk-show cronies would like you to believe.

A person's point-of-view on a single issue does not define the whole person.

The whole phenomenon of using the word "liberal" as being synonymous with "the enemy" correlates pretty will in time with Limbaugh's rise in popularity. It's not a coincidence.

If you find yourself spouting things like "liberals always do this," then you are mimicking Rush, whether you know it or not. He invented this mindset, and turned it into big money. It's big money because he has so many followers, both direct and indirect.

Matt M

Trad climber

SA, TX

Feb 23, 2010 - 03:44pm PT

I'll chime in...

I grew up in upstate NY where the ONLY gun exposure I had was a friends father who went deer hunting once a year (Deer = Large Rats in NYS for anyone who's driven on the Taconic Parkway)

Anyway, beyond that, I got to do some plinking with some friends on a trip to Red Rocks one year.

I'll start off by saying I think the "all or nothing" attitude of the NRA and many gun owners is stupid. It's a reactionary response to many of the folks commenting on here. The "left" responses on over the top and not very rational so the "right, gun nuts" respond accordingly with their own push back. Any feeling that one side is giving some wiggle room is viewed as "failing their cause". Frankly, I think both sides, with their lines in the sand, are way off the mark. Do I think people should be allowed to own a gun as an individual right? Absolutely (see below for more). Do I think current gun laws are adequate to control gun access to "bad people"? Absolutely not.

Contrary to many "anti-gun" people's beliefs, there are A LOT of perfectly normal, intelligent, law abiding, gun owning citizens out there. Unfortunately, there are also the classic, "red neck dumbass" people too. In my opinion, and like I said this is NOT the views of the NRA or "gun nuts", I think gun sales and ownership should be more closely regulated. NO PRIVATE sales for instance (gun shows) since any bubba can sell to any bubba. That's bad in my view. I think to "do it right" gun ownership needs to be licensed just like driving a car. HOWEVER, there needs to be VERY STRONG legislation (read: Const Amend) ensuring that no matter what, the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms remains intact FOREVER. Period end of story. You wanna sell that shotgun? Fine, just make sure the buyer has cleared his background check.

Will we ever see some "compromise" where the sale of guns is a bit more regulated BUT the right to own is clear defined and protected? Doubt. The sides are too entrenched to remotely step towards the middle. A lot of this comes from the fact that, typically, there are other issues the sides differ on (Gay rights, big/small gov't etc etc) that makes them HATE the opposing side so much that any rational discussion is impossible. Take this thread for example. Even VOICING the idea that a bit more regulation wouldn't be a bad thing is anathema to the "gun nuts" as many here so eloquently state. I'm not one of them.

I'm consider myself to be pretty down the middle, intelligent and fairly openminded. I'm fairly liberal socially and tend to be a bit more conservative fiscally (?) Makes sense growing up in Rockefeller Republican territory.

The reason I so strongly believe in an INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms is this: 3 years ago I was home the day before Christmas waiting for my wife to get home from a quick trip into the office. Around 10:30 in the morning I hear a knock on the door. I think this is a bit strange to have a morning visitor on Christmas Eve. As is habit, I take a look through the peep hole and see a "questionable" individual standing there, hooded sweatshirt up, not looking at the door at all.
SKETCHY. I just stand there wondering what's up and NOT planning on opening the door. The guy knocks again and I wait. He then TRIES THE DOOR KNOB. "Oh shit" I think at that point. The guy outside then signals to ANOTHER GUY across the the street to come over. "Holy F**k!" I'm running up the stairs with my mind REELING. "What to do?" There's a baseball bat in the closet... I run to get it with my heart pounding. The door bell rings now. Quickly thinking I do my best "I'm a big ass linebacker type Marine guy" voice and respond in a slightly irked voice "I'll be right there!" while looking out an upper window at the front door area. Luckily for me the two decided to move on up the street after hearing someone was home. Called 911 and some cops came by about 10 minutes later. They actually found the two casing other houses 3 blocks away but couldn't do anything since the two hadn't committed a crime YET. The detective said they would've certainly broken in had I not said something. I learned later that the nearby neighborhood had been having issues with kicked in doors etc and the "issues" were starting to trickle our way. That house is in my past and I do a much better job of researching the "area" before moving in.

That experience however COMPLETELY opened my eyes to how exposed I was. What if the two perps had more sinister intentions? What if my wife had been home? What is she were home ALONE? Bottom line here is that 911 and an alarm system only let the cops know something has HAPPENED to you. They won't be there in time to protect you. Period. Now I fully realize that the LIKELYHOOD of something happening is pretty remote. It's a risk assessment choice.

Just as Jaybro points out above, a climbing helmet is a choice. You probably won't need it and if you do it might not even help. However, I COMPLETELY DISAGREE with him when he concludes that because of that, wearing a helmet is dumb. 99% of the time I wear my helmet even if it's not really needed BECAUSE of the FACT it MIGHT save me. As a Husband and Father I think it's irresponsible to NOT choose a safer way of doing things. PERIOD.

The same goes for protecting my life and that of my family. Will something happen to us? 99.9% chance no but I think it's my right to be able to do so. I've yet to hear an argument that makes me think otherwise.

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Feb 23, 2010 - 03:50pm PT

Maybe but you are doing pretty much the same thing in treating "followers" of Rush as a monolithic group. And what does "followers" mean in this context? I sometimes listen to him as a source of commentary, but that does not make me a "follower."

I don't think people on one end of the political spectrum are better or worse than the people on the other end in this regard.

Remember Obamas's comment about people clinging to their guns, religion, and hatred of people who don't look like them in trying to explain his lack of popularity with certain rural voters?

Edit: I read Matt's post. There is a lot of wisdom there. But again, I question why so many people think that attacks by strangers are uncommon or unlikely. My house has been burglarized several times, attempted rape of college-age neighbors--these things happen all the time.

dktem

Trad climber

Temecula

Feb 23, 2010 - 04:46pm PT

Maybe but you are doing pretty much the same thing in treating "followers" of Rush as a monolithic group.

Nothing in my words above makes any generalizations about Rush followers.

I said that Rush has influenced society to the point where simplistically categorizing opposition as "liberals" is now second nature to many people. There is plenty of evidence of this in all the political threads on this board. Count the posts that have phrases like "liberals always ..." There are far more than those with expressions like "conservatives always ..." Either one is equally lame, but we find much more of one than the other. We can thank Rush and company for this.

When it comes to the gun control, many people who are branded as "liberals" want nothing more than a discussion of exactly where the limits should be. Few are calling for a ban of personal handguns and rifles.

I personally would like to see a more consistent national policy that allows everyone to carry concealed handguns pretty much all the time.

But any sane policy must also define the limits of who (e.g. criminals, children), where (e.g. grade schools), and what (e.g. howitzers).

Some folks think that NPs should also be a special case of "where." Maybe the argument has merit, maybe not. But there is a lack of rational discussion because of the name calling and "don't take away my guns" paranoia.

Can someone point me to any NRA literature that actually discusses, in agreeable terms, the subject of any limits on the ownership of arms?

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Feb 23, 2010 - 04:50pm PT

as for #2,, definite YES.........no brainer........

Why?

dktem

Trad climber

Temecula

Feb 23, 2010 - 06:01pm PT

Enjoying bacon while in a National Park:

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Feb 23, 2010 - 06:02pm PT

#1 you accidentally come between a sow and her cubs you have three seconds to decide you or her....

#2 Your in the valley like those two women whose bodies were found there, and some wierdo comes up to do you harm but the gun saves yur bacon...

How likely is either scenario, compared with say getting in a car accident, being attacked by a dog, heat stroke, slipping and falling, getting into trouble in the river or falls, etc? How would a gun make you safer in context of either of the hypotheses, and to what extent?

dktem

Trad climber

Temecula

Feb 23, 2010 - 06:17pm PT

If you go on a climb without a helmet, you're an idiot. If you have done it your whole life with no close calls, you're a lucky idiot.

If you do not have a helmet to protect your head, where some rock could kill you.

1. you're an idiot

2. If you done it your whole life and nothing happen, you're a lucky idiot.

I guess we've all been idiots at one time or another.

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Feb 23, 2010 - 06:21pm PT

I have been nose to nose with a gaint Grizz, hell bent on killing me. Had a gun and lived, try to take my gun away.

1. Why are you certain that it intended to kill you?
2. Did you use the gun?
3. Did you know that Canadian grizzlies are pacifist unarmed social liberals and fiscal conservatives, who like to give American tourists a cheap thrill?

WBraun

climber

Feb 23, 2010 - 06:25pm PT

You're just an idiot if you fall for coz's trolls, hahahaha.

I can tell you the time coz didn't have a helmet nor bouldering pad and he went for it and fell off and almost broke his back after I warned him about that potential fall before hand.

Then after eating sh'it big time he goes right back up there and pulls it off.

LOL

Coz is "the" MAN ...........

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Feb 23, 2010 - 06:28pm PT

Besides, if you're in real trouble in Yosemite, just text 1-800-Dial-a-Werner.

mojede

Trad climber

Butte, America

Feb 23, 2010 - 06:28pm PT

"oddly enouigh those peacefull Swiss folks have a law abiding society that is founded around gun ownership, each and every house......."--Ron A

....and notice how the Swiss rarely use those RIFLES-- and when they do, they use them against intruders into their country for militial defense, not on each other!

Trigger happy, gun-slinger, pistol-packing cowboys are hardly a comparison to the Swiss--what a crap argument, comparing our gun laws to Switzerland's

dktem

Trad climber

Temecula

Feb 23, 2010 - 06:58pm PT

You're just an idiot if you fall for coz's trolls, hahahaha.

He's made the point enough times on this thread that I don't think it's a troll. (I may be insignificant in the climbing world, but when it comes to internet forums, I can claim hardened veteran status...)

But I am starting to think coz may have shorted the stock of a company that makes pepper spray.

I've been to Alaska. I don't have a fraction of the climbing experience of some of the hardmen here, but I did learn a few things about bears in Alaska. One person's anecdote does not tell the whole story. I've talked to more than one seasoned Alaska outdoorsman that claims guns aren't all that effective against bears either.

And some folks have actually done studies on this stuff:

http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/species/mammals/grizzly/bear%20spray.pdf

It's written by Federal Employees, so the credibility may be lacking ;-)

franky

Trad climber

Bishop, CA

Feb 23, 2010 - 07:04pm PT

every study on guns for defense comes to the conclusion that having a gone makes you more likely to be killed by one.

oh, but that doesnt apply to any of the gun nuts in this thread, they are special, not like all those other gun nuts.

Chaz

Trad climber

greater Boss Angeles area

Feb 23, 2010 - 07:06pm PT

"every study on guns for defense comes to the conclusion that having a gone makes you more likely to be killed by one."

Then why would a cop carry one?

Everything cops do is geared toward making it home safely.

Your study is crap.