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

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 361 - 380 of total 457 in this topic

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

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Feb 26, 2010 - 04:31pm PT

dktem--this is getting to broken record time, so I'll say it this one last time and then move on.
Paul essentially said that you're more likely to be killed by lightning than by murder in lower 48 National Parks.
I didn't find any specific statistics re: parks but I quickly determined and provided evidence that you are orders of magnitude more likely to be murdered than killed by lightning in US as a whole. We don't have more granular data as to what the respective ratios are in different parts of the US, so we're going to have to with US a whole for the time being as the best data presently available.

If you want to quibble, while we can agree that the ratio of murders to fatal lighting strikes may be less in parks than in nation as a whole, is that ratio hundreds of times less?

Paul is the one who made a statement of fact in an effort to support his opinion that guns are "unnecessary," was called out on it, and has since essentially admitted he has no idea of what the facts really are. So go bust his ass, not mine.

dktem

Trad climber

Temecula

Feb 26, 2010 - 04:51pm PT

blah,

Paul's question is interesting and relevant to the discussion.

I know you agree with the above because you put so much effort into refuting Paul's claim.

Perhaps he was speculating a bit in the original assertion, but it wasn't really that wild an idea. Your own research confirms this.

Just because he doesn't have 100% ironclad statistics to support one point that he made doesn't mean that his entire thesis is incorrect.

If I go out and find a NRA article that has an incorrect or poorly-researched statistic, does that prove that the entire "pro gun" argument is invalid, and that all gun enthusiasts are idiots?

Because, that's the logic you are applying here.

Personally, I've never worried about being shot in a National Park, but I do take precautions about lighting. I've heard the crackling and experienced the smell. It's pretty scary.

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Feb 26, 2010 - 04:55pm PT

Personally, I've never worried about being shot in a National Park, but I do take precautions about lighting. I've heard the crackling and experienced the smell. It's pretty scary.

Haha-I have to agree with you on that one!

Edit:

RJ--excellent points. It will be interesting if a certain fear-of-lightning poster will even try to respond to them.

Robb

Social climber

The Greeley Triangle

Feb 26, 2010 - 05:06pm PT

Paul
"My argument was that they aren't necessary in the lower 48 particularly in Yosemite."
The valley-agreed.
Ever heard of Griz & Glacier NP?
My wife & I were a couple of miles away in Babb when those two girls nearly got mauled to death.Also, that's not the only incident in the park in recent times.
Not trying to be contrary, just pointing this out.

paul roehl

Boulder climber

california

Feb 26, 2010 - 05:08pm PT

"Ok, then WTF are you worried about then? You're all worked up over this new law but then state that your main fear is not even a statistical danger. Make up your mind. Haha."

What is this a Monty Python routine? Haha? Are you kidding?

The whole point, knuckelhead, is that the new law might change that statistic, that guns are unnecessary for protection IN THE PARK but if people are allowed to bring them in to the park the whole dynamic may change.

Too many on this thread adhere to the Hannity school of argument.

As to guns in parks that also happen to be in Alaska and, yes, Glacier might fall under that exception as well. I agree and yes I would carry a gun. Never had a problem with that. Protection against Griz is something that needs to be considered.

Arms are great but common sense tells us there must be some control.

Peggy-o

Social climber

Kingsburg ca

Feb 26, 2010 - 06:01pm PT

I packed horses in national parks and Wilderness areas and never carried a gun ('76) but all the others did. Many of my clients got drunk and then went hunting...yikes! I was a tree hugging hippie and I would come across a 4X4 filled with guys, beer and guns...I'd pull my hat down and ride like hell!

Madbolter

Big Wall climber

I used to be hard

Feb 26, 2010 - 07:10pm PT

paul roehl
Feb 26, 2010 - 02:08pm PT
The whole point, knuckelhead, is that the new law might change that statistic, that guns are unnecessary for protection IN THE PARK

People have brought guns into NPs since they were created. It was only back in the 1980s that it became illegal. And after the evil gun was made legally verboten in NPs? Guns were STILL brought in, just illegally and quietly.

but if people are allowed to bring them in to the park the whole dynamic may change.

Well it's too late. It's no longer "if." Wring your hands all you want. Game over.

WBraun

climber

Feb 26, 2010 - 07:14pm PT

In the last few days there's new signs put up in various places around here that say this is a gun free zone area.

They're getting ready ..........

Chaz

Trad climber

greater Boss Angeles area

Feb 26, 2010 - 07:18pm PT

It shouldn't be too long before those signs are blown full of holes.

dktem

Trad climber

Temecula

Feb 26, 2010 - 07:23pm PT

The law changed in the 1980s, and then changed again recently.

But somehow that means "Game Over" ?

Read what you wrote.

The game never ends.

paul roehl

Boulder climber

california

Feb 26, 2010 - 07:59pm PT

The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees sees no need to change gun laws in the national parks, saying that allowing the public to carry weapons in the parks could jeopardize the safety of visitors.
Last month, you might recall, the Traveler pointed to an effort by nearly half the U.S. Senate to allow concealed weapons to be carried in the parks. Current Park Service policy allows permitted weapons to be transported through the parks, but they must be unloaded and stored so as they're not readily accessible.
Forty-seven senators, led by Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, don't think that's good enough. He says varying gun laws on federal lands can be confusing to gun holders. (The New York Times pointed out, though, that if gun holders are confused, perhaps they shouldn't be permitted to carry guns.)
In a letter to Representative Nick Rahall, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, the coalition asked that if legislation proposing a change in the current regulations reaches his committee, that it not gain favorable consideration.

We believe that to change these regulations so that visitors might wear or keep firearms close at hand in national parks - guided by differing state laws -could significantly increase the danger to visitors in national parks. Equally worrisome is that such a practice would almost certainly put wildlife in many parks at greater risk, wrote the coalition. Poaching would become easier. And visitors who believe that carrying a firearm provides them with extra “security” and the authority to shoot animals would be far more likely to use deadly force whenever they feel the slightest threat. Information gathered by State and Federal wildlife management organizations throughout the country overwhelmingly indicates that both people and wildlife are safer when guns are not the first choice when people feel threatened.

paul roehl

Boulder climber

california

Feb 26, 2010 - 08:26pm PT

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
FEBRUARY 19, 2010
Bryan Faehner, National Parks Conservation Association, 202-419-3700
Bill Wade, Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, 520.615.9417
John Waterman, Park Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police, 610.823.2907
Scot McElveen, Association of National Park Rangers, 423.286.8644
New Law to Allow Loaded Guns in National Parks Puts
Park Visitors, Wildlife, and America’s Heritage at Risk
Statement by Bill Wade, Chair, Executive Council, Coalition of National Park
Service Retirees:
“This law is a very bad idea. It is not in the best interests of the visitors to national
parks, the resources to be protected in national parks, nor the employees in national
parks. Opportunistic shooting at wildlife and historic resources, such as petroglyphs,
will increase. Employees, especially law enforcement rangers, will be more at risk.
And visitors will not only be more at risk, but will now see national parks as places
where they need to be more suspicious and wary of others carrying guns, rather than
safe and at peace in the solitude and sanctuary that parks have always provided. It is a
sad chapter in the history of America’s premier heritage area system.”
Statement by John Waterman, President, U.S. Park Rangers Lodge, Fraternal
Order of Police:
“The Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police has opposed this ill-considered
law from the beginning. The new law goes beyond concealed carry to include all guns
anytime. The chances of an inexperienced visitor who has not seen a bear or buffalo
wandering through a campground, gets frightened and takes out the now readily
available firearm and shoots blindly at an animal or a person in a misguided effort to
"protect themselves" from a perceived threat is now increased. Allowing untrained and
unlicensed people carrying guns in National Parks is an invitation to disaster. It puts
the safety of the public and rangers at increased risk and virtually invites the
desecration of our natural and historic treasures. The previous Reagan era gun rules
were designed to curb poaching and they worked. Commercial and opportunistic
poaching decreased with the prohibition on open armed carry of firearms in National
Parks. What was once a straight forward, easy to understand regulation has now been
changed to a law that encompasses a menagerie of state regulations. The law now
allows individual states to dictate what occurs on Federal Land that belongs to all
Americans and not just the citizens of that particular state. This law threatens the very
nature of a family-friendly National Park. We will continue to work to change this
law.”
Statement by Scot McElveen, President, Association of National Park Rangers:
“In this two-year discussion, many have argued that a change in firearms laws will
have either no effect or minimal effect on park wildlife and resources. We that work
and live in national parks across the country know first-hand the difficulty of gathering
enough evidence to successfully prosecute a poacher. We know, first-hand, all the
difficulties of successfully prosecuting poachers in federal court, and the deterrent
effective that successfully prosecuted poaching cases can have. We think it naïve to
believe that purposeful poachers will not take every advantage of this change in the
law and make every attempt to camouflage themselves to avoid detection. The new
law also makes the decision for opportunistic poachers to act easier. And, the result of
less deterrence means more wildlife are killed and injured, and less viewable for park
visitors to enjoy.”
“History tells us that wildlife populations can be decimated by firearms. The
American bison once numbering as many as 200 million and the passenger pigeon
once numbering in the billions are the most striking examples. It can happen again.
ANPR is disappointed in the change in this law and hopes that one day the American
public will trust those that live and work in parks with the best management judgment
for the National Park System. As stated in the recent Ken Burns’ series about national
parks, in the early years when wildlife populations were disappearing in Yellowstone
National Park, park visitors were prohibited from taking their firearms into the park
and wildlife populations rebounded quickly. The equation is still that simple today.”
Statement by Bryan Faehner, Associate Director for Park Uses, National Parks
Conservation Association:
“We remain astonished and disappointed by votes cast by many elected members of
Congress to allow people to openly carry rifles, shotguns, and semi-automatic weapons
in national parks unless otherwise forbidden by the state or local law. The new law
guts balanced and reasonable regulations last updated during the Reagan
Administration that called for visitors to places like Yellowstone, Grand Canyon,
Acadia, and Gettysburg to keep their firearms unloaded and put away. These common
sense regulations have helped keep our national parks safe, family-friendly destinations
for many years.”
“The new law places an even greater burden on the already understaffed National Park
Service. Congress must take appropriate action to provide the agency with sufficient
resources to effectively enforce the new law and the management challenges it creates.
As the National Park Service works to educate the public about the new law, NPCA
will closely monitor the steps being taken to ensure the safety of park visitors, and
protection of our American heritage and wildlife for future generations.”

How's that for obtuse!

tradmanclimbs

Ice climber

Pomfert VT

Feb 26, 2010 - 09:20pm PT

I like the line, If they are confused they probobly shouldn't be carrying a gun. I shure as heck was never confused about the law on that one. it was pretty darn clear.

dktem

Trad climber

Temecula

Feb 26, 2010 - 09:23pm PT

I wonder if any of the 47 Senators even discussed this with any NP LE rangers before they voted.

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Feb 26, 2010 - 10:11pm PT

Don't skwirrrrls carry bubonic plague, which is endemic throughout the US west? Another reason for carrying an AK-47, and wasting all the skwirrls in Camp 4.

Lissiehoya

climber

Feb 26, 2010 - 10:25pm PT

Dirka and I saw a coyote in JT that's not going to last very long...

Madbolter

Big Wall climber

I used to be hard

Feb 26, 2010 - 10:30pm PT

dktem
Feb 26, 2010 - 04:23pm PT
The law changed in the 1980s, and then changed again recently.

But somehow that means "Game Over" ?

Read what you wrote.

The game never ends.

Maybe the games will never end, but after McDonald v. Chicago is settled this summer, the game will likely be MUCH harder for the "anti-gun" side to actually WIN.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2010-02-26-gun-control-laws_N.htm

blahblah

Gym climber

Boulder

Feb 26, 2010 - 11:05pm PT

I like the line, If they are confused they probobly shouldn't be carrying a gun. I shure as heck was never confused about the law on that one. it was pretty darn clear.

There is some logic to that point of view, but how about applying it to other aspects of government: Geithner, The US Secretary of Treasury (therefore indirectly the head of the IRS), is an admitted tax cheat.
If people who can't follow the gun laws shouldn't own guns, maybe the President shouldn't put people in charge of the treasury who can't or won't follow the tax laws.

from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timothy_Geithner
Tax scandal
At the Senate confirmation hearings, it was revealed that Geithner had not paid $35,000 in self-employment taxes for several years,[27] even though he had acknowledged his obligation to do so

Edit: MadBolter--I'm with you but I don't share your confidence that the USSC will do the right thing in any given case. Lots of these cases are 5-4 and Kennedy relishes his role as the "swing vote," which means he has to vote with the libs some of the time.

I read the link in your post: I pray that the Petitioner, Otis McDonald, an elderly guy trying to survive his twilight years in a Chicago slum, is not denied the means to protect himself and his wife. I actually voted for Obama but somewhat regret it--maybe the best reason to vote for the Republican presidential candidate in every election is so that we will maintain a Supreme Court that protects our sacred 2nd Amendment rights.