Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Now Pullmy is reduced to speculation about my heritage and upbringing. Well, he was only 2,000 miles off,..
(BTW Roehl, my father was a gun owner too after being born a jew in Berlin, but then he was probably overcompensating too. Huh?.)
We are so fortunate to have P Roehl tell us, "carrying a gun into a national park (n the lower 48) is no right".
Now we can merely dispense with the court challenges and ignore the regulation change (indeed, the very basis of this thread) as we have the word of the TRUE authority.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Yes, you have no idea how fortunate you are to have me.
|
|
nutjob
Stoked OW climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
I have a confession. Sort of like slowing down to look at a car accident, I actually read the first 200 posts in this forum.
Seems like gun lovers want to PROTECT THEMSELVES FIRST, and create arguments for how it benefits society to justify their personal preference.
Seems like gun haters get really riled up by this, and don't calmly lay out a coherent argument for gun-lovers to understand... they simply assume that the argument for not having guns is obvious and make vague allusions to it.
So here's a simple example framework with completely invented numbers. Someone who cares more can put in validated numbers:
10,000 people come to Yosemite
1 is a serial killer
100 are normal people with "anger management" issues
100 are normal people, but "irresponsible and forgetful"
(read: might forget stuff in the tent, car, bathroom...)
Now consider the impact of adding legal guns to this mix. I personally am more afraid of the 200 "normal people" carrying guns; more afraid than I am of the serial killer. The point is, more people will die or be injured when you put more guns into the mix.
Even if you consider that criminals carry guns anyways, I'd still feel more safe by avoiding the 200 "normal people" than I would thinking I could defend myself against the criminals if I had a gun.
This is similar to an argument about smoking. I feel I have the right to control your access to guns (and where you are allowed to smoke) because it can directly adversely impact me. It makes my life unsafe. Maybe you personally are careful about your gun management, but there are plenty of people who would not be if it were more common. I believe my right to safety and staying alive trumps your right to smoke a cigarette next to me or to carry a gun next to me.
Look at the order of these words:
We hold these truths to be self evident:
that all men are created equal and endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights;
that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.
Gun supporters might argue their right to carry guns is to defend their life. But in our society, the collective rights of people to stay alive and not have that right threatened by the increased availability of guns, outweighs the rights of individuals who want to use guns to defend their right to stay alive.
Who is going to argue that serial killers are more common than irresponsible or angry people who would abuse their access to a concealed gun?
Edit: How is it that a person has multiple incidents in a non-war scenario where they can cite situations that required a gun? Seems the bigger problem is not respecting people in the world around you, and being compassionate to their mistakes. A tourist who stops in a road to admire something amazing they have never seen before is not something that should trigger a disrespectful reply. It should be more like "if you park on the side then the folks behind you can get by." Everyone has a dark side, and you can choose whether you appeal to that dark side hoping to get a chance to show your weapon, or you can choose to appeal to their good side and make the world a better place.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
This is a beautifully, clearly written and reasonable argument. I actually expressed nearly the same thing earlier on, however, there is no reasoning with the unreasonable as you are about to see.
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
"Do you really want some of my off duty stories? Maybe it's me, but everyone wants to commit a crime right in front of me."
I dont think he is reffereing to LEO's or ex-LEO's
|
|
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
"Do you really want some of my off duty stories? Maybe it's me, but everyone wants to commit a crime right in front of me."
I think it is you. I have been to 48 states, Europe, Mexico, Canada, Asia, Oakland, NYC, etc. I have never once wished I was carrying a gun. Well maybe once in Tijuana, but that would have been just for peace of mind.
Of the few situations where things might have turned violent (mostly involving alcohol and youth) I have defused the situation by talking.
I undertand off duy LEO types being ready to help, but as an average Joe carrying a boat anchor around all day every day for the slight possibility something may happen seems like a major PITA.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Well, to answer the question, 37 years ago while my fellow classmates were still in HS, I had already graduated and was holding down a technical publishing job in New York and living in the East Village before it was filled with guys that skip to work.
In fact it was filled with guys that were strapped and didn't hold down 9-5s like me, and after 5 weeks a guy was shot to death a hundred feet from my front door.
Funny that you should talk about non-war scenarios.
Perhaps you are a little insulated from the brutal realities that face some americans on a daily basis.
Personally I count myself as lucky to have been in so FEW scrapes and come out of it with only a knife through the wrist and two pieces of buckshot plucked out.
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
This is an excerpt from an email i just recived,
...On Friday we received notice that the Secretary had sent forward a new rule on carrying concealed weapons in National Parks and wildlife refuges. It was conveyed to the Regional Directors that this rule would be published immediately, waiving the customary 60-day comment period, and would go into effect this coming Wednesday, Dec.10. Today we were informed that there will be a 30-day comment period beginning Dec. 10.
WASO has also informed us that they will be drafting implementation guidance in coordination with Regional Director’s offices, USFWS, the Solicitor's office, and others. WASO will also be providing updated information during the Regulations session at the upcoming NLC meeting....
Dont count your chickens yet.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
This whole thread brings up something I think is really grave and constant in human experience and that’s the state of violence that so thoroughly infects us: how much we seem to take delight in judgments rendered through violence. Cormac Mccarthy says it best in “Blood Meridian,” “war (violence) endures because young men love it and old men love it in them… trial of chance or trial of worth all games aspire to the condition of war for here that which is wagered swallows up game, player and all…it is the testing of one’s will and the will of another within the larger will which because it binds them is therefore forced to select. War (violence) is the ultimate game because war is at last a forcing of the unity of existence. War is god.”
The need to test one’s will against another’s in a state of violence is to ask for the blessing of a dispassionate, uncaring and unconcerned universe. Yeah, when it gets down to the nitty gritty it’s a daddy issue.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
That's the whole point, the problem is really grave and constant and can only be resolved by giving ourselves over to utility and reason as opposed to emotion.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
Human interaction is characterized by imprecision and therefore more accurately described that way. I would agree that emotion must be set aside in an issue such as this and the greater good of the whole must be the final goal. That goal is achieved through decisions based on utilitarian concerns. That is: the safety of the majority is better served by the prohibition of firearms in national parks outside of Alaska.
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
I've heard that democrats are republicans that haven't been mugged yet.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
And Democrats are Republicans who haven't been arrested yet.
More to the point, hard cases make bad law.
|
|
nutjob
Stoked OW climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
This is a truly interesting issue. I really can empathize with folks that have been violated, lost friends and loved ones, or even just felt a humiliating and scary loss of power in a situation where someone took advantage of them through superior force (either physical strength or weaponry). I am insulated from the ugliest parts of society, because of the fairly good fortune in where and to whom I was born and the choices I have made.
I have also lived with people who look like model citizens, could certainly pass the permit process for carrying a concealed weapon, and I would be deathly afraid if they had a weapon. I believe most people have some emotional triggers, however buried or inaccessible, but when they are triggered their rational brain is no longer controlling their actions. No amount of training on gun safety will matter when a person has crossed the threshold from reason to pure emotional reaction.
As for a society-wide path forward...
Sometimes you have to crawl through darkness to see the light. I think that means to make progress in moving beyond violence as a society, there will be sacrifices and people will be wrongfully hurt and killed. I don't want it to be me or my family or friends, heck I don't want it to be anyone.
But in the "big picture" I think this is the lesser evil. I think it is better to pay these prices than to live in a wild west society where everyone's packing heat and accidents and misunderstandings have grave outcomes.
There is a related issue here of REVENGE. I have noticed a very different philosophy among folks of different religious/cultural upbringing. There is a strong divide between the folks who hold "turn the other cheek" as a philosophical ideal, and the folks who want "an eye for an eye." I'll bet there is a decent correlation in beliefs on the REVENGE issue and the right to bear arms issue.
Edit: Part of me realized what an uphill battle it is to move beyond violence as a society. Animals fight for scarce resources. We are animals, with more tools at our disposal. And yet we have the consciousness to consider alternatives and to aspire to something more as a society, and that little seed of hope helps me sleep at night.
|
|
Gilwad
climber
Frozen In Somewhere
|
|
I wrote a long, carefully reasoned response to the "let's carry concealed weapons everywhere" bunch and then realized that it was wasted entirely on 'em. So I wrote this instead, see how it works:
For feck's sake, be brave and have fun in the mountains. You panty-waisted little beeyotches who need guns to feel safe in the mountains are complete and total cowards with bad math skills and worse situational awareness. Serial killers will seek you out by smelling the fear seeping out of your pores the same way a shark smells blood in the water. And after hitting you over the head with a deadly weapon (a rock) while you sleep the serial killer will have the added bonus of getting a nice handgun off your corpse. Sack up and stop living in fear of the bogeyman. He's out there, but in the mountains you need a clear mind, not a handgun weighing your mind and pack down. Bring an extra spoon instead, it will be far more useful and lighter.
|
|
S.Powers
Social climber
Jtree, now in Alaska
|
|
"Part of me realized what an uphill battle it is to move beyond violence as a society. Animals fight for scarce resources. We are animals, with more tools at our disposal. And yet we have the consciousness to consider alternatives and to aspire to something more as a society, and that little seed of hope helps me sleep at night."
I really like that, I agree whole heartedly
|
|
Toker Villain
Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
|
|
Yeah, I bet Fatty, Tom the Cop, and Jody agree with me when I compare some of the idealists here to Paul Reiser in Aliens suggesting that they just build a fire and sing some songs.
Some people would prefer not to deal with the reality that cops are not the first line of defense.
THEY THEMSELVES ARE.
Cops are often enough good at cleaning up the messes, but you can hardly expect them to be johnny on the spot.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
" ...violent feelings produce in us a falseness in all our impressions of external things, which I would generally characterize as the 'Pathetic Fallacy". - John Ruskin
|
|
nutjob
Stoked OW climber
San Jose, CA
|
|
I do support law enforcement officials carrying weapons and using them when necessary. But I only want folks for whom that is a primary profession to carry the responsibility. I don't want weekend Rambo to think he or she is helping the cops or rangers do their jobs. It makes their job much more difficult than it does help them.
I've heard stories of people not wearing seatbelts and getting thrown from cars, living through accidents that maybe would have killed them if they had a seatbelt on. But this seems like the exception to the rule. Similarly, no anecdotes or scenarios of concealed weapons helping some uncommon situations is going to change the basic common sense that they add more "fuel to the fire" than they are helpful in conflicts between people.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!