Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Posts
Yosemite Falls

The Moon is New


Advanced

Re: Packing Heat

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 08:59AM
is legal in most NPS units as of today.

Does anyone have a list of the 20 exceptions?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 09:15AM
does anyone know of a site that states Yosemites policy? what the conditions are for bringing a firearm into the park are?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 12:56PM
The individual parks are supposed to follow state law however I personally think anyone that feels it necessary to exercise his or her right to bear arms in a national park has a serious gonad deficiency issue.



Old Dude



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2010 12:57PM by mrcondron.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 08:24PM
You can bring them in but cannot discharge the weapon. Might as well leave the ammo at home. Maybe even the gun as well.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 09:19PM
There will be idiots that will bring guns and ammo just because they think they can.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:12PM
Quote
mrcondron
The individual parks are supposed to follow state law however I personally think anyone that feels it necessary to exercise his or her right to bear arms in a national park has a serious gonad deficiency issue.

Quote
Sigmund Freud
A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:21PM
Everyone can take a big deep breath and relax...

The law abiding gun owners who might bring guns are just that: law abiding. Which means, short of mountain lion or sketchy guy trying to rape them, there guns will never be seen or heard or fired in the park. It'll be just like it was before these new rules...

As for the non-law abiding people: they don't follow laws, including the ones saying you couldn't have guns in the park. If they want to poach, harass, do stupid stuff in the park, they're gonna do it regardless of what rules are in place. So, again, it'll be just like it was before these new rules...

it never ceases to amaze me how fearful and illogical people can get over certain inanimate objects...
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:30PM
Quote
chiefcrash
short of mountain lion or sketchy guy trying to rape them

Any guy trying to rape a mountain lion is sketchy, indeed...
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:33PM
He would find a firearm useful though if not mandatory.



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:31PM
Oh chiefcrash. There have been more than a few posts on this forum where the poster wanted to be armed while backpacking as a defense against bears. I can only imagine the what the unfettered allowance to bear arms in Yosemite's campgrounds will bring.

I know for sure that the peaceful enjoyment of the sanctity of the park will suffer, especially on the valley floor.

However a 9mm hole in a generator or two might make for a quieter evening.



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:41PM
Quote
mrcondron
However a 9mm hole in a generator or two might make for a quieter evening.

Even that would probably produce more noise and less sleep.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:49PM
Quote
mrcondron
Oh chiefcrash. There have been more than a few posts on this forum where the poster wanted to be armed while backpacking as a defense against bears. I can only imagine the what the unfettered allowance to bear arms in Yosemite's campgrounds will bring.

I know for sure that the peaceful enjoyment of the sanctity of the park will suffer, especially on the valley floor.

However a 9mm hole in a generator or two might make for a quieter evening.

I'm pretty sure that the peaceful enjoyment WON'T suffer, but these are just opinions.

But let me ask you this: what about OTHER parks besides Yosemite? Would being allowed to carry a gun in, say, an Alaskan park make more sense? Because this rule change is for ALL states, not just the "sanctuary" ones like Yosemite...
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:53PM
If this thread got to things outside Yosemite it would become unwieldy. Let's keep it to Yosemite. So far that seems sufficient.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 10:31AM
Quote
mrcondron
If this thread got to things outside Yosemite it would become unwieldy. Let's keep it to Yosemite. So far that seems sufficient.

Normally, I would agree with you. However, it does stand pointing out that it's not like this rule was changed with Yosemite in mind...
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 09:47AM
Ewe humans are a sorry lot.



Chick-on is looking at you!
Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 08:53PM
THe way i read it, state laws still apply. So in Yosemite's case, since it is in California you can not have a loaded concealed firearm on your person. So this should be no change from current policy. It will affect those that do have concealed carry permits and police officers who before were legal as far as the state was concerned but breaking federal law once in the park.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 09:14PM
Although I do not have the regulation in hand, the many NPS sites that discuss the gun issue often mention:

"Keep in mind that the regulations to carry a firearm do not permit the discharging of a firearm. The discharge of a firearm is still illegal in national parks."

So regardless of what state law says about carrying, it is still illegal apparently to discharge a firearm in a national park. I'm sure the NRA is working on that one.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 09:18PM
Except in the case where you feel threatened by another person or wildlife.



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 09:15PM
A troubling exception to the CCW permit is "campsite". A citizen is allowed to have a weapon to protect their campsite as it is their temporary home. Probably only the car camping sites as it seems you can't carry a weapon to a back country camp site but you can drive a weapon to your site at Upper and Lower Pines, Wawona, Porcupine, Yosemite, Tuolumne, Tamarack Flat, Hodgden Meadow, etc. There might be less generator, music, partying noise at some of these camp grounds now though.



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 09:32PM
Quote
mrcondron
A troubling exception to the CCW permit is "campsite". A citizen is allowed to have a weapon to protect their campsite as it is their temporary home. Probably only the car camping sites as it seems you can't carry a weapon to a back country camp site but you can drive a weapon to your site at Upper and Lower Pines, Wawona, Porcupine, Yosemite, Tuolumne, Tamarack Flat, Hodgden Meadow, etc. There might be less generator, music, partying noise at some of these camp grounds now though.

I think the legislation only concerns possession of loaded firearms. It does not allow the right to discharge a weapon even in "defense of tent". That might be changed by judicial interpretation, of course, as the argument would be presented that the intent of the change to the firearm possession laws was to allow use of the firearm. But who knows.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 09:41PM
A chilling brief on California law:
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/p/gunlaws_ca.htm

The scary part is that if allowed to carry a weapon to protect your campsite then discharging it to protect is a natural extension of the carrying of it.

A more complete text:
http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/ a pdf is available



Old Dude



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2010 10:04PM by mrcondron.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 10:03PM
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
mrcondron
A troubling exception to the CCW permit is "campsite". A citizen is allowed to have a weapon to protect their campsite as it is their temporary home. Probably only the car camping sites as it seems you can't carry a weapon to a back country camp site but you can drive a weapon to your site at Upper and Lower Pines, Wawona, Porcupine, Yosemite, Tuolumne, Tamarack Flat, Hodgden Meadow, etc. There might be less generator, music, partying noise at some of these camp grounds now though.

I think the legislation only concerns possession of loaded firearms. It does not allow the right to discharge a weapon even in "defense of tent". That might be changed by judicial interpretation, of course, as the argument would be presented that the intent of the change to the firearm possession laws was to allow use of the firearm. But who knows.

From what I understand, this makes state laws on the carrying and use of firearms applicable. Any discharge of a gun would have to follow state laws. It's the "in between" stuff that worries me, such as that "defense of tent".

I really do worry about people carrying who have never seen a bear before. People who are knowledgeable about bears know they don't need guns to protect themselves. I've heard of thousands of people living near blacks bears in Tahoe, Alaska, etc. Now some city folks (I myself am one) might come packing heat and freak out. I don't particularly want someone bringing a handgun (which is totally unsuitable for bringing down a bear) and thinking that firing at it and spraying ammo in a heavily populated campground is going to protect anyone.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 10:10PM
California law allows the discharge of a firearm under the proper circumstances even if federal law disallows it at that particular location, i.e. national parks etc.

This whole thing is going to turn into a mess if the yahoos decide to prove some points.


Thesaurus
yahoo
noun informal
Her brother married into a family of yahoos. redneck, boor, lout, oaf; barbarian, Neanderthal, brute, thug; informal clod, roughneck.



Old Dude



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/22/2010 10:13PM by mrcondron.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 09:23PM
Quote
Roadrash
THe way i read it, state laws still apply. So in Yosemite's case, since it is in California you can not have a loaded concealed firearm on your person. So this should be no change from current policy. It will affect those that do have concealed carry permits and police officers who before were legal as far as the state was concerned but breaking federal law once in the park.

My understanding is that it goes beyond that. Originally there was a Bush era decree by the Secretary of the Interior that CCW holders could carry concealed weapons, but that was negated by a court order. However - I heard that the new law (inserted into a credit card reform bill) refers to state laws being applicable. In California it's complicated. In incorporated cities and "prohibited areas of unincorporated land" (supposedly places where it would illegal to discharge a firearm) open carry of a loaded weapon is not prohibited. It's gotten somewhat interesting with some groups purposely carrying weapons that are unloaded, but with magazines ready to load on their person. Some law enforcement agencies don't like it, since they end up responding to "person with gun" calls and end up responding with a hyper-vigilence not knowing if it's not someone with a hostile intent. Anyone open carrying is also required to submit to inspection of the weapon by law enforcement. I'd think NPS LE rangers would have the authority to conduct weapons checks.

It might be more interesting where there are areas where loaded open carry is allowed. I understand that some hike in Forest Service areas with openly carried firearms. Of course that includes areas where people legally hunt or go plinking.
Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 10:37PM
The last time I researched this subject you were allowed to carry a gun on you hip, loaded, if the county you were in was under a certain population. I am guessing that if you wanted to carry it concealed, or in your car, you would have to have it in a lock box and unloaded. I believe that in your campsite you could keep it handy, I wonder if that would include concealed on your person.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 22, 2010 11:54PM
Quote
traildad
I believe that in your campsite you could keep it handy

Which means we are going to have morons shooting at bears in campgrounds. Somebody is going to get hurt.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 23, 2010 04:52AM
Quote

From what I understand, this makes state laws on the carrying and use of firearms applicable. Any discharge of a gun would have to follow state laws. It's the "in between" stuff that worries me, such as that "defense of tent".

I think if you read the new federal law you will see that the use of the firearm does not default to state law. There is a huge difference between possession and use of a firearm. There are many areas of conflict between state and federal law, I suspect that federal regulation on this issue of use would prevail on federal land. I don't particularly like the law, but I think that it will be less an issue than both sides are trying to make it out to be. How often do you see individuals or group carrying weapons, even though they can do so legally? Just too much hassle! I suspect that a person will be stopped by police, subjected to search and ID check, etc.. Do African-American Activists still carry weapons in downtown Oakland?



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 23, 2010 07:29AM
I think that unfortunately there are a few out there that will want to make a point of the whole carry thing in the parks. It may be short lived but it only takes one or two wackos to really capture the news.



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 23, 2010 08:16AM
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote

From what I understand, this makes state laws on the carrying and use of firearms applicable. Any discharge of a gun would have to follow state laws. It's the "in between" stuff that worries me, such as that "defense of tent".

I think if you read the new federal law you will see that the use of the firearm does not default to state law. There is a huge difference between possession and use of a firearm. There are many areas of conflict between state and federal law, I suspect that federal regulation on this issue of use would prevail on federal land. I don't particularly like the law, but I think that it will be less an issue than both sides are trying to make it out to be. How often do you see individuals or group carrying weapons, even though they can do so legally? Just too much hassle! I suspect that a person will be stopped by police, subjected to search and ID check, etc.. Do African-American Activists still carry weapons in downtown Oakland?

I understand that California's restriction on loaded open carry was a reaction to the Black Panthers carrying loaded shotguns in public. Then there were the restrictions on weapons in national parks. Ironic since I think both were instituted when Reagan was Governor of California and then President.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 23, 2010 04:01PM
Quote
y_p_w
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote

From what I understand, this makes state laws on the carrying and use of firearms applicable. Any discharge of a gun would have to follow state laws. It's the "in between" stuff that worries me, such as that "defense of tent".

I think if you read the new federal law you will see that the use of the firearm does not default to state law. There is a huge difference between possession and use of a firearm. There are many areas of conflict between state and federal law, I suspect that federal regulation on this issue of use would prevail on federal land. I don't particularly like the law, but I think that it will be less an issue than both sides are trying to make it out to be. How often do you see individuals or group carrying weapons, even though they can do so legally? Just too much hassle! I suspect that a person will be stopped by police, subjected to search and ID check, etc.. Do African-American Activists still carry weapons in downtown Oakland?

I understand that California's restriction on loaded open carry was a reaction to the Black Panthers carrying loaded shotguns in public. Then there were the restrictions on weapons in national parks. Ironic since I think both were instituted when Reagan was Governor of California and then President.

As I recall the Black Panthers walked into the State Capitol in the 60's with long guns in their most publicized act of "armed self defense" and subsequently legislation/regulation restricted that behavior. Open Carry in other venues as I recall in California is complicated and involves handguns vs long guns, loaded vs unloaded and may be influence by various municipal level regulations. I don't know if all those regulations can be traced to the Black Panthers.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 23, 2010 05:11PM
(Unless the original argument is just too stupid for words.)
My son the physicist now ME would really rankle when he would hear arguments about how all the granite in the world cooled in 6 hours. Scientific proof would be offered to support the 6 hour position.



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 23, 2010 07:47PM
Relax, those who oppose the rule change. You will never notice the difference in Yosemite nor any other NP. Those who will carry a gun already do, those that don't still won't.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 23, 2010 09:12PM
Quote
Vince
Relax, those who oppose the rule change. You will never notice the difference in Yosemite nor any other NP. Those who will carry a gun already do, those that don't still won't.

That would mean that the original Reagan era (I think) prohibition of guns had no effect on poaching, wildlife injury, or malicious violence in the park. Is there any evidence that those problems were unchanged by the original Reagan regulations? My impression is that those that enforce the law in the parks were opposed to the changes to gun possession and expect that there will be more problems than existed previously.

I doubt there will be huge change in the appearance of the parks, but it certainly will make it easier for someone to poach, harass, or shoot wildlife in the parks.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 23, 2010 09:39PM
Quote
Vince
You will never notice the difference in Yosemite nor any other NP.

Actually I'm expecting some gun nut to shoot at a bear in a busy campground. That will be noticed.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 23, 2010 07:57PM
I'm all for the right to bear arms but why can't people just leave them at home when they go to a park. It's not like they're hiking around in the Arctic Circle the week after the polar bears are out of hibernation smiling smiley



http://www.flickr.com/photos/dqniel/
Re: Packing Heat
February 23, 2010 09:44PM
I think it would be unlikely that a law would allow one to carry a gun, but not allow you to use it at all. If you are sitting in your easy chair at home and drinking a beer, you can't shoot the girl scout for ringing your door bell while you're watching The Dukes of Hazard. If a Black Panther comes into your house with a gun of any kind, you will most likely be legal if you use your gun. Same for shooting a bear. You will most likely have to prove that your life was in danger to get away with shooting the bear. Then again if you shoot a bear with a pistol, you may not live long enough to face the legal system.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 24, 2010 04:40AM
Quote
traildad
I think it would be unlikely that a law would allow one to carry a gun, but not allow you to use it at all. If you are sitting in your easy chair at home and drinking a beer, you can't shoot the girl scout for ringing your door bell while you're watching The Dukes of Hazard. If a Black Panther comes into your house with a gun of any kind, you will most likely be legal if you use your gun. Same for shooting a bear. You will most likely have to prove that your life was in danger to get away with shooting the bear. Then again if you shoot a bear with a pistol, you may not live long enough to face the legal system.

How about a Black Panther selling cookies?



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 24, 2010 11:39AM
Quote
traildad
I think it would be unlikely that a law would allow one to carry a gun, but not allow you to use it at all. If you are sitting in your easy chair at home and drinking a beer, you can't shoot the girl scout for ringing your door bell while you're watching The Dukes of Hazard. If a Black Panther comes into your house with a gun of any kind, you will most likely be legal if you use your gun. Same for shooting a bear. You will most likely have to prove that your life was in danger to get away with shooting the bear. Then again if you shoot a bear with a pistol, you may not live long enough to face the legal system.

Didn't some kid nearly get charged with wanton killing for throwing a rock that killed a bear at TM? From what I understood about the situation, the bear wasn't much of a physical threat, but a group of Boy Scouts panicked and started chucking rocks at it. One got it right in the head which caused enough trauma to kill it.

I'm wondering what the consequences would be for shooting in an occupied campground where a stray bullet hits a car or someone else. I know some states have laws that effectively indemnify a shooter for collateral damage if they feel a life is at risk, California might not be one of them.
Re: Packing Heat
February 24, 2010 12:21PM
I was talking to a couple trail crew members who work in Glacier NP and they are most worried about instances when they are bushwhacking in the backcountry and spook a hiker who may have a loaded gun. Several of them have been bear-sprayed and screamed at in such instances where they are rustling in the brush and then emerge near people on the trails who thought they were hearing a bear. Or perhaps they are silently hiking along and spook a hiker. Both instances are common occurrence for trail crew members.

The other issue that worries me is bear encounters. It is normal grizzly bear behavior to bluff charge a person without instance of contact. Black bears also demonstrate charging behavior and as someone mentioned above, for the most part a handgun will not stop a charging bear. Once injured, this bear will be fully aggressive.

I do think that similar practices as in the Alaska backcountry, where when charged by a bear, they fire into the air, would be better. This is by no means ideal to hear gun shots in the wilderness, but I feel that the NPS should try to reitterate what to do when a bear charges or other wildlife. They should also touch on this 'shooting into the air' option for being quite effective and at the very least no animals or people are harmed.

usnationalpark girl
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 02:25PM
Quote
usnationalpark
I was talking to a couple trail crew members who work in Glacier NP and they are most worried about instances when they are bushwhacking in the backcountry and spook a hiker who may have a loaded gun. Several of them have been bear-sprayed and screamed at in such instances

usnationalpark girl

We should ban bear spray and screaming!!!
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 01:22PM
I'm a gun owner too. This was just something that a couple trail grew people were telling me. People get jumpy when they are out in the middle of nowhere. I doubt that the skittish type who would bear-spray another hiker would be the type to carry a gun. Half the people on this site are TERRIFIED of guns in general. The other half are TERRIFIED of someone who would try to take away their right to bear arms. I don't know when gun owners became 'nuts' and those that are against guns became 'loons.' I am worried about this law because it has so many people all 'up in arms' so to speak.

The scariest part about this subject is how violent both sides feel about the situation. I do not think screaming or bear spray should be banned. I do not think guns should be banned. I do think that an extra campaign of education about how to react to wild animals and times when using a gun would be pertinent would help.

People who already have concealed weapons permits do not scare me. People who have registered guns who know how to use them do not scare me. People who own guns and lack weapon safety TERRIFIES me.

My imagination hopes that this law will help to protect our rangers, who are the branch of law enforcement least protected and have the most occurrences of potential of violence and are often alone without any backup.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 01:37PM
Quote

I'm a gun owner too. .
I always wonder why gun owners often open their statements with this explanation. Has the NRA completely poisoned the entire intellectual community?

Quote

People who already have concealed weapons permits do not scare me. People who have registered guns who know how to use them do not scare me. People who own guns and lack weapon safety TERRIFIES me.

There are lots of problems related to trained and professional gun owners causing death and injury. Domestic violence is a particular problem for even trained professionals (law enforcement and military). We accept it as a society because armed police are considered necessary (that is another huge discussion).

Quote

My imagination hopes that this law will help to protect our rangers, who are the branch of law enforcement least protected and have the most occurrences of potential of violence and are often alone without any backup.

Since when did violent events in the National Parks need armed civilian assistance? Can you provide even a single example?



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 02:09PM
I think this topic is poisoned by the adamantly oppositional viewpoints. I opened with that statement because the response to my first post was patronizing and taken wrong. I think this forum is a lousy place to have at this debate. The people who want this law overturned should be petitioning and writing letters. Attacking each other in this forum only makes most readers ashamed of people on both sides of the debate.
Those who don't believe guns are necessary would never think that a gun could help a ranger out. If guns do not help enforce the laws and peace, then why do our law enforcement officers carry them?

Citizens are watchdogs of law enforcement, for instance if a lone citizen is being arrested or approached by the police without anyone around, I watch. Why? Because of their vulnerability and to take a protective stance in case something happened that wasn't right. Similarly, if a ranger was engaged in an interaction with someone who was being obnoxious or looked potentially threatening, I would also stick around to witness and perhaps help. Would I be carrying my gun? No. Those that do choose to carry guns hopefully would also take a watchful protective role as well.

This subject is a hot topic for sure. But it seems to me that the environment on this particular forum topic is so that every person who is following it is looking for little tid-bits to attack, and vehemently.
I think that those who wish for this law to change should start working together to try and make it happen.
I didn't say that people who know how to use their guns don't cause problems/violence, I said I wasn't afraid. The fringe of society is a b*tch. In general, I wont choose to be afraid of what could happen.

Personally, I am hoping that this law will not change much of what is happening out there in our national parks. If I see that the law was a mistake, I will be out there petitioning. Unfortunately, I will need to see evidence that this was a mistake before I freak out.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 02:17PM
Quote
usnationalpark
I think this topic is poisoned by the adamantly oppositional viewpoints. I opened with that statement because the response to my first post was patronizing and taken wrong. I think this forum is a lousy place to have at this debate. The people who want this law overturned should be petitioning and writing letters. Attacking each other in this forum only makes most readers ashamed of people on both sides of the debate.
Those who don't believe guns are necessary would never think that a gun could help a ranger out. If guns do not help enforce the laws and peace, then why do our law enforcement officers carry them?

Citizens are watchdogs of law enforcement, for instance if a lone citizen is being arrested or approached by the police without anyone around, I watch. Why? Because of their vulnerability and to take a protective stance in case something happened that wasn't right. Similarly, if a ranger was engaged in an interaction with someone who was being obnoxious or looked potentially threatening, I would also stick around to witness and perhaps help. Would I be carrying my gun? No. Those that do choose to carry guns hopefully would also take a watchful protective role as well.

This subject is a hot topic for sure. But it seems to me that the environment on this particular forum topic is so that every person who is following it is looking for little tid-bits to attack, and vehemently.
I think that those who wish for this law to change should start working together to try and make it happen.
I didn't say that people who know how to use their guns don't cause problems/violence, I said I wasn't afraid. The fringe of society is a b*tch. In general, I wont choose to be afraid of what could happen.

Personally, I am hoping that this law will not change much of what is happening out there in our national parks. If I see that the law was a mistake, I will be out there petitioning. Unfortunately, I will need to see evidence that this was a mistake before I freak out.

The real fundamental problem here is that those people that want to open carry in the park feel that they will in fact need to use the gun they carry. That's why they are carrying it. It's not for bling bling. It's to load and shoot.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 02:30PM
Yes, this is the heart of the issue. Some people believe that a gun is a good way of protecting themselves, their families or other vulnerable parties.
Some believe that guns are ridiculous and scary.

Those that do not agree with carrying a gun for protection use other means to protect themselves., such as education about wildlife behavior, bear bells, etc. The weakness here is when the threat is not a predictable bear, but another person. Then what? What if they do get mauled by a grizzly? Then what?

People who want to carry a gun do not intend to shoot it. They are not hunting, just protecting themselves. That is how they do it. The power to use that force is there. They probably also use other means of protecting themselves as well, such as education and precautions. These people believe that if they were approached by a criminal they would be able to protect themselves. If they were mauled by a bear, they would have a weapon on their hip.

Two different schools both educated, both doing what they think is right.

Gun carriers do not want to have the vulnerability that if something out of their control happened, they would become a part of the food chain. Others believe that if the uncontrollable happens, we are a part of the food chain and in their habitat.

Two schools. This issue will never be solved. Does it have to divide us?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 02:35PM
Quote
usnationalpark
Yes, this is the heart of the issue. Some people believe that a gun is a good way of protecting themselves, their families or other vulnerable parties.
Some believe that guns are ridiculous and scary.

Those that do not agree with carrying a gun for protection use other means to protect themselves., such as education about wildlife behavior, bear bells, etc. The weakness here is when the threat is not a predictable bear, but another person. Then what? What if they do get mauled by a grizzly? Then what?

People who want to carry a gun do not intend to shoot it. They are not hunting, just protecting themselves. That is how they do it. The power to use that force is there. They probably also use other means of protecting themselves as well, such as education and precautions. These people believe that if they were approached by a criminal they would be able to protect themselves. If they were mauled by a bear, they would have a weapon on their hip.

Two different schools both educated, both doing what they think is right.

Gun carriers do not want to have the vulnerability that if something out of their control happened, they would become a part of the food chain. Others believe that if the uncontrollable happens, we are a part of the food chain and in their habitat.

Two schools. This issue will never be solved. Does it have to divide us?

It seems to me that if there were sufficient education as you mention then any "reasonable person" (legal term) would see that toting a firearm in Yosemite is pointless. There is no history indicating any threats that would be deferred, thwarted, prevented, etc. by visitors carrying firearms.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 02:40PM
That is not how people think who choose to protect themselves with weapons. The weapon is like an insurance policy. It is only pointless to the anti-guns-in-the-parks school of thought. And like I said, so the battle continues. I do not believe this forum is the place to make a difference with a subject so divisive. Start a petition (both sides) make your voices heard in a place where the people listening can actually do something to change it.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 02:47PM
Quote
usnationalpark
That is not how people think who choose to protect themselves with weapons. The weapon is like an insurance policy. It is only pointless to the anti-guns-in-the-parks school of thought. And like I said, so the battle continues. I do not believe this forum is the place to make a difference with a subject so divisive. Start a petition (both sides) make your voices heard in a place where the people listening can actually do something to change it.

Actually it's forums like this where both sides can air their positions to the benefit of all. It's good to know both sides of an argument. Let the light shine.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 02:49PM
Quote
mrcondron
Quote
usnationalpark
That is not how people think who choose to protect themselves with weapons. The weapon is like an insurance policy. It is only pointless to the anti-guns-in-the-parks school of thought. And like I said, so the battle continues. I do not believe this forum is the place to make a difference with a subject so divisive. Start a petition (both sides) make your voices heard in a place where the people listening can actually do something to change it.

Actually it's forums like this where both sides can air their positions to the benefit of all. It's good to know both sides of an argument. Let the light shine.

+1
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 02:56PM
touche...yet there seems to be a lot of name calling and blanket statements.

This site popped up during my morning's research. A list of mountain lion attacks and deaths in the USA and Canada.

http://cougarinfo.org/attacks3.htm#hamm
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 03:06PM
Actually something that occurred to me after reading about a lion that was killed after an attack on a child, who lived, was that the cougar was hungry. There is a lot of wildlife displacement due to reduced habitat and certain other factors.

Less habitat, reduced food sources for animals due to climate and overpopulation... maybe there is a higher risk these days of attacks than in the past? Who knows.
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 04:03PM
Quote
mrcondron
Quote
usnationalpark
Yes, this is the heart of the issue. Some people believe that a gun is a good way of protecting themselves, their families or other vulnerable parties.
Some believe that guns are ridiculous and scary.

Those that do not agree with carrying a gun for protection use other means to protect themselves., such as education about wildlife behavior, bear bells, etc. The weakness here is when the threat is not a predictable bear, but another person. Then what? What if they do get mauled by a grizzly? Then what?

People who want to carry a gun do not intend to shoot it. They are not hunting, just protecting themselves. That is how they do it. The power to use that force is there. They probably also use other means of protecting themselves as well, such as education and precautions. These people believe that if they were approached by a criminal they would be able to protect themselves. If they were mauled by a bear, they would have a weapon on their hip.

Two different schools both educated, both doing what they think is right.

Gun carriers do not want to have the vulnerability that if something out of their control happened, they would become a part of the food chain. Others believe that if the uncontrollable happens, we are a part of the food chain and in their habitat.

Two schools. This issue will never be solved. Does it have to divide us?

It seems to me that if there were sufficient education as you mention then any "reasonable person" (legal term) would see that toting a firearm in Yosemite is pointless. There is no history indicating any threats that would be deferred, thwarted, prevented, etc. by visitors carrying firearms.

Question: is something wrong just because it's "pointless"? Many a reasonable person would view a car being able to go over 75 MPH as "pointless" due to speed limit laws. should fast cars be banned?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 07:08PM
Quote
chiefcrash
Quote
mrcondron
Quote
usnationalpark
Yes, this is the heart of the issue. Some people believe that a gun is a good way of protecting themselves, their families or other vulnerable parties.
Some believe that guns are ridiculous and scary.

Those that do not agree with carrying a gun for protection use other means to protect themselves., such as education about wildlife behavior, bear bells, etc. The weakness here is when the threat is not a predictable bear, but another person. Then what? What if they do get mauled by a grizzly? Then what?

People who want to carry a gun do not intend to shoot it. They are not hunting, just protecting themselves. That is how they do it. The power to use that force is there. They probably also use other means of protecting themselves as well, such as education and precautions. These people believe that if they were approached by a criminal they would be able to protect themselves. If they were mauled by a bear, they would have a weapon on their hip.

Two different schools both educated, both doing what they think is right.

Gun carriers do not want to have the vulnerability that if something out of their control happened, they would become a part of the food chain. Others believe that if the uncontrollable happens, we are a part of the food chain and in their habitat.

Two schools. This issue will never be solved. Does it have to divide us?

It seems to me that if there were sufficient education as you mention then any "reasonable person" (legal term) would see that toting a firearm in Yosemite is pointless. There is no history indicating any threats that would be deferred, thwarted, prevented, etc. by visitors carrying firearms.

Question: is something wrong just because it's "pointless"? Many a reasonable person would view a car being able to go over 75 MPH as "pointless" due to speed limit laws. should fast cars be banned?

The arguments are about firearms and their need in Yosemite, not cars.



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 24, 2010 05:30PM
Re: Packing Heat
February 24, 2010 08:03PM
Why do people always assume the random gun owner is some trigger happy manic that is going to shoot a some strange sound in the bushes?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2010 08:03PM by FoT.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 24, 2010 08:33PM
Why do gun proliferation advocates insist that there are no gun-related problems in the US?

http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/TUTORIAL/GUNS/GUNSTAT.html


There are more than 200,000 deaths and injuries from guns each year in the US.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/24/2010 08:34PM by Frank Furter.
Re: Packing Heat
February 24, 2010 09:15PM
Why do gun proliferation advocates insist that there are no gun-related problems in the US?


So you answer my question with a question? Nice..

To answer your question I don't know of any gun advocate that will say there is no gun-related problems. People do use guns in nefarious actions. Those people are criminals. Gun owners and hopefully most reasonable people would place the blame on the person using the gun and not the gun or other law abiding citizens for that action. A drunk driver plows his car into a school bus killing children. Who as a society do we blame? Gm for making the car? Jim Bean for making the whiskey? Or the driver behind the wheel? What if the driver didn't have a valid license? Should we pass laws to restrict the action of all drivers because of this and other similar actions?

I'm a gun owner of over 20 years, none of my guns have ever injured a single person.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 24, 2010 11:14PM
Quote
FoT
Why do gun proliferation advocates insist that there are no gun-related problems in the US?


So you answer my question with a question? Nice..

To answer your question I don't know of any gun advocate that will say there is no gun-related problems.
The actions and intent of the NRA is to promote the idea that guns do not cause injuries-- people cause injuries. Most extreme gun advocates even deny that guns are inherently dangerous.

Quote

People do use guns in nefarious actions. Those people are criminals. Gun owners and hopefully most reasonable people would place the blame on the person using the gun and not the gun or other law abiding citizens for that action

A convenient, gratuitous, and unimaginative argument of gun advocates that ignores the fact that often just before the accident, injury, death or lapse in judgment the gun user was a law abiding citizen. There seems to be a conviction by the NRA types that as soon as a problem develops with guns, the only cause for that event was the action of the psychotic, criminal, or hostile individual. Many countries with similar numbers of guns/person have far fewer problems than the US. We have too many guns in the wrong hands and places; the problem is less with "bad people" than bad politics and easy availability of guns. We cannot control the behavior of the crazy or impulsive or those with altered consciousness, but we can control the availability of guns to them. Unfortunately, there is little interest in these public health issues.

The next line of argument by gun partisans is usually to suggest that criminals will always get guns to use so I need them for self-defense. Wrong again. Although there are as many guns per household in Canada, a smaller percent of crimes involve firearms than in the US primarily because there are restrictions on the availability and transport of handguns. Crime victims who possess weapons are 4 times more likely to be shot than those victims without weapons.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

Quote

A drunk driver plows his car into a school bus killing children. Who as a society do we blame? Gm for making the car? Jim Bean for making the whiskey? Or the driver behind he wheel? What if the driver didn't have a valid license?

Firstly, if you are going to compare gun ownership to car ownership, you will need to demonstrate that the gun industry has implemented safety and design changes to reduce the inherent danger as have been implemented by car manufacturers. In addition, you will need to demonstrate that all gun users have the degree of training and practice required of vehicle drivers, that all guns and ammunition are as registered and traceable as vehicles , and that gun users, in nearly all venues, are specifically licensed for the activity they are pursing. Finally, gun ownership is largely a self-indulgent hobby as opposed to the more essential transportation needs served by automobiles.

Quote

Should we pass laws to restrict the action of all drivers because of this and other similar actions?
We do exactly that. Driving while intoxicated is illegal and monitored to some extent. Drivers are required to demonstrate a valid license and pass testing.


Quote

I'm a gun owner of over 20 years, none of my guns have ever injured a single person.
It always comes down to "me" and "mine". Presumably you feel your hobby should not be restricted in the least.
I never cease to be amazed how much selfishness and denial exists among gun promoters who think that any regulation to diminish the opportunities for criminal, irresponsible, accidental or suicidal actions that in the slightest poses an inconvenience to the "legal" gun owner is unacceptable. Does every car owner expect to take their vehicle anywhere they want? Are you going to argue for your right to drive to the top of Half Dome? It is selfish in the extreme to object to limitations on guns that would reduce gun injuries and death because it is an "intrusion" on a perceived 2nd Amendment privilege.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 07:43AM
Do I need to go through a criminal background check to buy a car/motor vehicle? No
Do I need to show the dealer I can adeqately handle the car? No
Do I need to jump through hoops to buy gasoline? Nope (unless high prices are considered a hoop)
Do I need to take a test every 2 year in order to buy a certain type of car (or any car for that matter)? Negative.
Do I need to wait ten days after I buy a car to take it home? Nein.
Do I need to make sure my car has "evil feature" that could make it an "assault car"? Not in the least.
Do I need to make sure my car is on a roster of approved cars by the state of California? Niet.

You have to do all these and more to buy firearms.

In fact, what does it take to get a car on the road? A simple test that you take once until you reach a certain age. But what can a car do? Think Tim Mcveigh, suicide bombers, and generally crazy people ramming into others. In 2008 there was a naked woman ramming her car into men because she lost her cat. A man rammed his plane into the IRS building in Texas. DUIs alone kill more people than guns do, but it is EASIER to buy alcohol than to buy a gun. Show up, provide verification of 21 and walk out the door.

I also find the idea laughable that, somehow, when I walk into a National Park from carrying my CCW everywhere else that I will be less careful than I was before. The most sketchy people I have met have been mostly in parks in the less populated areas of National Parks. Yosemite's own rangers carry pistols and are subject to the same fallibilities that we common laymen are.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 07:49AM
Is a car designed for the purpose of killing? No.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 07:57AM
A firearm isnt either. I own multiple firearms, all which have been fired multiple times, that have never killed anyone. Unless you count paper. I guess mine are broken? Is there a capacity to kill? Hell yes. Is there a capacity to kill with cars? Also, Hell yes. Besides, how do you prove the intent of an inanimate object? Does it have a mind of it's own? Or would it require a person to act on his/her thoughts in order to use the gun in the capacity you described? Just as a car would. A car doesnt run someone down, it is the operator behind it who chooses that action.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2010 08:00AM by Warpath101.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:03AM
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:23AM
A firearm is a weapon.
weapon |ˈwepən|
noun
a thing designed or used for inflicting bodily harm or physical damage

A car is a vehicle.
vehicle |ˈvēəkəl; ˈvēˌhikəl|
noun
a thing used for transporting people or goods, esp. on land, such as a car, truck, or cart.

I suppose a weapon could be used to transport something and I suppose a vehicle could be used as a weapon. I also suppose the intended use should weigh more heavily in an argument than "could be used as". I also think sticking to arguing about probable consequences is more productive than arguing about possible consequences.

probable |ˈpräbəbəl|
adjective [often with clause ]
likely to be the case or to happen

possible |ˈpäsəbəl|
adjective
able to be done; within the power or capacity of someone or something
• able to happen although not certain to
• [ attrib. ] able to be or become; potential



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:38AM
Wrong. A firearm is a tool, used to accomplish a task (whether that be self defense, crime, or paper punching.) The only thing that makes it into a weapon is the brain of the operator. Just as a car is a tool. It can be used to accomplish a task (take your kids to soccer practice, run down a pedestrian, etc.)

"The only weapon you have is your brain. Everything else is a tool."
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 02:08PM
Quote
Warpath101
Wrong.

No, he's quite right.

Quote

A firearm is a tool, used to accomplish a task

Agreed. But that task is to kill or injure.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 02:10PM
Unless a square is not a rectangle.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:40PM
Quote
eeek
Quote
Warpath101
Wrong.

No, he's quite right.

Quote

A firearm is a tool, used to accomplish a task

Agreed. But that task is to kill or injure.

So I injure and kill paper every time I go to the range?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:42PM
We're talking about people arming themselves in the campgrounds in Yosemite. Not shooting at a range or any other use of a firearm. Just carrying in campgrounds in Yosemite.



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:42PM
Quote
Warpath101
So I injure and kill paper every time I go to the range?

Sigh. No, you are simply improving your inchoate skills at injuring and killing by practicing with paper. Have any other specious arguments to present?
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 10:34AM
Quote
eeek
Quote
Warpath101
So I injure and kill paper every time I go to the range?

Sigh. No, you are simply improving your inchoate skills at injuring and killing by practicing with paper. Have any other specious arguments to present?

You imply a firearm is designed to kill. This is incorrect.

Strictly speaking, a firearm is merely a tool designed to fire a projectile. The choice of projectile, as well as the intended use of the projectile, is entirely left to the intent of the user.

If someone INTENDS to use a firearm as a lethal weapon, they can use lead bullets.

People can also INTEND to use a firearms as:
A less-than-lethal weapon (rubber bullets, taser rounds, pepper shells, etc)
A flare launcher
A smoke or tear gas launcher
A hunting tool
Recreational equipment
Competitive athletic equipment (lots of olympic sports involve shooting)
A theatrical prop
Collection pieces
etc.

As you can see, a gun only turns from "tool" to "weapon" upon the intent of the user. What else follows this pattern?
Knives
Cars
Propane tanks
Gasoline
Broken lawn chairs
infants (there was a case where a disturbed mother used her baby as a club)
just about anything
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 10:37AM
Quote
chiefcrash
You imply a firearm is designed to kill. This is incorrect.

I don't imply it. A firearm is designed to kill and injure. You are being disingenuous when you claim otherwise.
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 10:58AM
Quote
eeek
Quote
chiefcrash
You imply a firearm is designed to kill. This is incorrect.

I don't imply it. A firearm is designed to kill and injure. You are being disingenuous when you claim otherwise.

A blank-only firing starter pistol is a firearm. Is it designed to kill?
An olympic target pistol is a firearm. Is it designed to kill?
A flare launcher is a firearm. Is it designed to kill?
A $40,000 engraved skeet shotgun loaded with birdshot is a firearm. Is it designed to kill?
Certain varieties of pepper spray are technically firearms. Are they designed to kill?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 11:08AM
Quote
chiefcrash
Quote
eeek
Quote
chiefcrash
You imply a firearm is designed to kill. This is incorrect.

I don't imply it. A firearm is designed to kill and injure. You are being disingenuous when you claim otherwise.

A blank-only firing starter pistol is a firearm. Is it designed to kill?
An olympic target pistol is a firearm. Is it designed to kill?
A flare launcher is a firearm. Is it designed to kill?
A $40,000 engraved skeet shotgun loaded with birdshot is a firearm. Is it designed to kill?
Certain varieties of pepper spray are technically firearms. Are they designed to kill?

Irrelevant "pseudo-pedantry" and off topic. You should look up the federal definition of a firearm before posting this nonsense again. Or at least have a long talk with Eddie Eagle.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 11:15AM
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
chiefcrash
Quote
eeek
Quote
chiefcrash
You imply a firearm is designed to kill. This is incorrect.

I don't imply it. A firearm is designed to kill and injure. You are being disingenuous when you claim otherwise.

A blank-only firing starter pistol is a firearm. Is it designed to kill?
An olympic target pistol is a firearm. Is it designed to kill?
A flare launcher is a firearm. Is it designed to kill?
A $40,000 engraved skeet shotgun loaded with birdshot is a firearm. Is it designed to kill?
Certain varieties of pepper spray are technically firearms. Are they designed to kill?

Irrelevant "pseudo-pedantry" and off topic. You should look up the federal definition of a firearm before posting this nonsense again. Or at least have a long talk with Eddie Eagle.

Seeing as I have a federal firearm license, I know the definition. In fact, the definition is hugely vague, including "any destructive device". So according to the federal definition, bombs, grenades, and modified propane tanks are firearms.

Explain how this is pedantic and off topic. Someone said a firearm is only designed to kill and injure. I just provided 5 examples of firearms that are NOT designed to kill and injure. That seems to be a pretty straight forward rebuttal...

So are you gonna do anything more than use big words in a dismissive fashion?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 10:55AM
This argument would be classified as feigned pedantry as a diversion from the central argument:

Quote

You imply a firearm is designed to kill. This is incorrect.

Strictly speaking, a firearm is merely a tool designed to fire a projectile. The choice of projectile, as well as the intended use of the projectile, is entirely left to the intent of the user.

If someone INTENDS to use a firearm as a lethal weapon, they can use lead bullets.

People can also INTEND to use a firearms as:
A less-than-lethal weapon (rubber bullets, taser rounds, pepper shells, etc)
A flare launcher
A smoke or tear gas launcher
A hunting tool
Recreational equipment
Competitive athletic equipment (lots of olympic sports involve shooting)
A theatrical prop
Collection pieces
etc.

Of course guns are not lethal-- gun injuries and death occur from the sudden surprise at being hit by a 10 gram projectile going 1000 fps!
You apparently are unaware of the concept of lethal force, have never trained to use a handgun in self defense, and are unaware of standard police policies dealing with use of a firearm. It is to be fired only when the intent is to kill and all shots should be directed to that objective. Brandishing is illegal so the only use of a concealed hand gun is to inflict (usually) mortal injury.


Here is a common argument tactic to make a false analogy that trivializes and desensitizes the subject:

Quote

As you can see, a gun only turns from "tool" to "weapon" upon the intent of the user. What else follows this pattern?
Knives
Cars
Propane tanks
Gasoline
Broken lawn chairs
infants (there was a case where a disturbed mother used her baby as a club)
just about anything

Surely you can tell the difference between a gun and a propane tank, can't you?



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 11:09AM
Quote
Frank Furter
This argument would be classified as feigned pedantry as a diversion from the central argument:

The central argument (at least the one I'm responding to) is that a firearm is inherently a weapon and inherently designed to kill. I can not see how anything I said was a diversion from that, seeing as I was pointing out how they're not inherently weapons and not inherently designed to kill people and more than other common objects.

Quote
Frank Furter
Of course guns are not lethal-- gun injuries and death occur from the sudden surprise at being hit by a 10 gram projectile going 1000 fps!


I never claimed that guns are not LETHAL. I claimed that they are not inherently DESIGNED to kill. They are DESIGNED to fire a projectile. Some projectile are specifically designed to kill. Some projectiles are specifically designed to NOT kill. Since a firearm can launch either projectile, you can not say that they are designed to kill or not kill, only that it is designed to launch a projectile. Intent of the projectile is determined by the user, not the gun.

Quote
Frank Furter
You apparently are unaware of the concept of lethal force, have never trained to use a handgun in self defense, and are unaware of standard police policies dealing with use of a firearm. It is to be fired only when the intent is to kill and all shots should be directed to that objective. Brandishing is illegal so the only use of a concealed hand gun is to inflict (usually) mortal injury.

Wrong again. I was in the military, and now work for with a sheriff's department. I am well aware about lethal force, have trained with a variety of firearms in self-defense and offense.

But you said it yourself, it's about intent:
Quote
Frank Furter
...standard police policies dealing with use of a firearm. It is to be fired only when the intent is to kill and all shots should be directed to that objective
BTW: drawing a weapon, and then not having to fire because the bad guy retreats is not brandishing. The majority of the time when someone's life is saved by a firearm, no one gets shot. Kind of like how nothing scares off a burglar like the sound of a pump-action shotgun...

Quote
Frank Furter
Here is a common argument tactic to make a false analogy that trivializes and desensitizes the subject:
Surely you can tell the difference between a gun and a propane tank, can't you?

Indeed i can. But the point is not a false analogy, nor does it trivializes or desensitizes anything. The point is that anything and everything can be used as a lethal weapon. Some very common objects that we think of as harmless can actually be more dangerous than firearms. Which is a more dangerous weapon: a handgun, or a propane tank modified into a bomb? Why are more people killed by cars than guns? Why are more people killed by DOCTORS than guns? And why are we more scared of guns than these things that kill us more often? Is that an irrational fear?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 11:41AM
There is no significance, except to obscure the argument, to claim that guns are not designed as lethal weapons. If you wish to think of a firearm as a projective firing device to reassure yourself, you are welcome to indulge your needs to trivialize the topic. Guns are not toothpicks, pliers, or whatever item you want to claim is a "tool" when it is convenient for your argument. This ploy is merely an attempt to trivialize a firearm by a false analogy. It just doesn't fly here.

Comparisons to other causes of mortality are irrelevant as well. The central issue here is not about "a gun" (grease, soldering, or whatever) but about whether more firearms in Yosemite is a rational and socially beneficial policy.

Those that carry weapons in this society unrelated to the requirements of their jobs, are frequently fearful individuals intent on providing a measure of reassurance against an imaginary threat. There is some evidence that possession of a firearm by civilians emboldens and endangers them by a false sense of security and may result in MORE risk of injury. It just doesn't seem like a good idea to give paranoid, fearful, and insecure individuals lethal weapons.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 12:10PM
Quote
Frank Furter
There is no significance, except to obscure the argument, to claim that guns are not designed as lethal weapons. If you wish to think of a firearm as a projective firing device to reassure yourself, you are welcome to indulge your needs to trivialize the topic. Guns are not toothpicks, pliers, or whatever item you want to claim is a "tool" when it is convenient for your argument. This ploy is merely an attempt to trivialize a firearm by a false analogy. It just doesn't fly here.

You keep claiming guns are designed as lethal weapons. I keep pointing out examples of guns designed NOT to be lethal weapons. You seem to think these exceptions don't matter, which is a Fallacy of Accident

I have yet to see anyone provide any sort of logical or rational basis to claim "firearms are designed to kill". Because they can't, it's too broad of a generalization. It'd be like saying all automobiles are cars. Some are cars, but others are trucks, SUVs, RVs, etc.

Quote
Frank Furter
Comparisons to other causes of mortality are irrelevant as well. The central issue here is not about "a gun" (grease, soldering, or whatever) but about whether more firearms in Yosemite is a rational and socially beneficial policy.

Those that carry weapons in this society unrelated to the requirements of their jobs, are frequently fearful individuals intent on providing a measure of reassurance against an imaginary threat. There is some evidence that possession of a firearm by civilians emboldens and endangers them by a false sense of security and may result in MORE risk of injury. It just doesn't seem like a good idea to give paranoid, fearful, and insecure individuals lethal weapons.

If causes of mortality are irrelevant, then why is there an issue about whether more firearms in Yosemite is a rational and socially beneficial policy? So people claim that because firearms can kill people, it's irrational to bring them into the park. I ask the question "If we shouldn't bring guns because they MIGHT hurt someone, why do allow all this other stuff that can do the same?" You might think this is irrelevant, but I do not.

Please state your reasons for claiming that gun owners are frequently fearful individuals, paranoid, and insecure.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 12:31PM
Quote
chiefcrash


Please state your reasons for claiming that gun owners are frequently fearful individuals, paranoid, and insecure.

You don't have to look very far to find the primary reason that guns are carried by civilians legally or illegally is for protection against a perceived threat. That represents fear and insecurity. In the extreme and when the threat is inconsequential, that represents paranoia.
Here is a simple example:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172857.pdf



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 12:41PM
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
chiefcrash


Please state your reasons for claiming that gun owners are frequently fearful individuals, paranoid, and insecure.

You don't have to look very far to find the primary reason that guns are carried by civilians legally or illegally is for protection against a perceived threat. That represents fear and insecurity. In the extreme and when the threat is inconsequential, that represents paranoia.
Here is a simple example:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172857.pdf

Fire extinguishers are often kept for protection against a perceived threat of fire. By your theory, that represents fear and insecurity. In the extreme and when the threat is inconsequential, it represents paranoia. Well, we have a fire department to deal with fires, so the threat should be inconsequential, right?

But there's a problem with your theory: what if the perceived threat is real?

The odds of being a victim of a violent crime during adulthood are greater than 2 to 1. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)
http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2010 12:42PM by chiefcrash.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 01:02PM
Quote
chiefcrash
. In the extreme and when the threat is inconsequential, it represents paranoia. Well, we have a fire department to deal with fires, so the threat should be inconsequential, right?

But there's a problem with your theory: what if the perceived threat is real?

The odds of being a victim of a violent crime during adulthood are greater than 2 to 1. (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Youth Violence Research Bulletin — February 2002)
http://www.witnessjustice.org/news/stats.cfm

You have not demonstrated that a carried weapon is a valid, safe, or optimal device for dealing with the perceived threat. You seem to be arguing that carrying a weapon continuously for 50 yrs of adulthood will successfully protect against a violent crime or crimes, will not result in collateral injury to the owner or bystander, and will, during the 50 yrs of use, not result in injury to anyone else during that period of use. In that scenario, it is much more likely that the gun will have injurious rather than beneficial effects.

But, to stay on topic, what is the risk of a violent crime that can be ameliorated with a gun in a National Park (the benefit) and what is the risk associated with the gun carry (the cost)? I find no evidence that sufficient risk exists in Yosemite to justify a gun. Given the nature of firearms and the risk to others, the burden is upon the gun owner to demonstrate that sufficient objective risks exist to justify the weapon.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 01:32PM
Quote
Frank Furter
You have not demonstrated that a carried weapon is a valid, safe, or optimal device for dealing with the perceived threat.
You seem to be arguing that carrying a weapon continuously for 50 yrs of adulthood will successfully protect against a violent crime or crimes, will not result in collateral injury to the owner or bystander, and will, during the 50 yrs of use, not result in injury to anyone else during that period of use. In that scenario, it is much more likely that the gun will have injurious rather than beneficial effects.

If a carried weapon is not a valid, safe, or optimal device for dealing with the perceived threat, why do we give every police officer a gun to carry?

I know from personal experience that a firearm is certainly a valid and safe option for dealing with the perceived threat. I also know from personal experience that it's the most effective option. Carrying a gun for just 4 years of adulthood successfully protected me from a violent crime. It also did not cause any collateral injury or damage, in fact, it didn't cause ANY damage because it didn't need to be fired (presenting the firearm was enough to stop the attack). I have known hundreds of men and women who've carried guns their whole lives and never hurt a soul with them.

However, YOU have not demonstrated that a firearm is NOT a valid, safe, or optimal option for dealing with the threat. You have said more than once it's "more likely" to cause problems, however have supplied no supporting details.

Quote
Frank Furter
But, to stay on topic, what is the risk of a violent crime that can be ameliorated with a gun in a National Park (the benefit) and what is the risk associated with the gun carry (the cost)? I find no evidence that sufficient risk exists in Yosemite to justify a gun.
Given the nature of firearms and the risk to others, the burden is upon the gun owner to demonstrate that sufficient objective risks exist to justify the weapon.[/quote]

I have no idea the risk of violent crime that can be mitigated by a gun, or "the cost." But that's an interesting question: what IS the risk associated with gun owners peacefully bringing guns into the park? Anyone got that one figured out? Just my wild as guess says it's about the same as the risk of needing a gun.

You find no evidence that sufficient risk exists to justify a gun. This isn't surprising seeing as you don't make note of what a "sufficient risk" is, and have claimed that anyone who feels there IS a risk is paranoid.

Quote
Frank Furter
Given the nature of firearms and the risk to others, the burden is upon the gun owner to demonstrate that sufficient objective risks exist to justify the weapon.
Wow. Just, wow. I really hope you don't believe that. A policy like that would open up a lot of unintended consequences. Given the nature of cars and risk to others, the burden is upon the car owner to demonstrate that sufficient objective cause exist to justify it being able to drive faster than 75 mph. You better have sufficient reason to justify climbing half dome, given the risks. You know, there's no real reason for all these big kitchen knives, better ban those until someone demonstrates sufficient justification. Come to think of it, there seems to be a lot of risk involved with the religion of Islam, better provide some sufficient objective analysis to justify going to the mosque. Hmm, doctor's mistakes kill more people every year than firearms. Given the nature of doctors and the risk to others, the burden is upon the sick person to demonstrate that sufficient objective risk exists to justify the doctor...

Luckily, our legal system doesn't work this way. Every thing is legal, unless there is a law making it illegal. And a law to make something illegal should only be passed after sufficient objective risks exist to justify the banning. As such, guns are generally legal provided all regulations are followed. The burden is instead upon the would-be gun banner to demonstrate that sufficient objective risks exist to justify banning the weapon.

But, I'm curious, what is this "given" nature of firearms and the risk to others? You post so often about all these inherent risks and dangerous of guns, yet never seem to expand upon them...
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 12:48PM
Quote
Frank Furter
The central issue here is not about "a gun" (grease, soldering, or whatever) but about whether more firearms in Yosemite is a rational and socially beneficial policy.

Forgot to add:

A lot of states have changed over to a "shall issue" concealed carry system. Their crime rates have gone down since then. If one were to believe that there was a correlation between these two events, why WOULDN'T more firearms in Yosemite be a rational and socially beneficial policy?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 01:12PM
Quote
chiefcrash
Quote
Frank Furter
The central issue here is not about "a gun" (grease, soldering, or whatever) but about whether more firearms in Yosemite is a rational and socially beneficial policy.

Forgot to add:

A lot of states have changed over to a "shall issue" concealed carry system. Their crime rates have gone down since then. If one were to believe that there was a correlation between these two events, why WOULDN'T more firearms in Yosemite be a rational and socially beneficial policy?

It is absolutely unproven that gun prevalence reduces crime.

Two parallel sets of data may be related by A causing B, B causing A, or both A and B caused by C. There is no evidence that guns reduce crime and lots of evidence that guns are associated with accidental injury and disproportionate response.

for one example:
National Academy of Science report on Gun Violence:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=1



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 01:23PM
Quote

You keep claiming guns are designed as lethal weapons. I keep pointing out examples of guns designed NOT to be lethal weapons. You seem to think these exceptions don't matter, which is a Fallacy of Accident

I have yet to see anyone provide any sort of logical or rational basis to claim "firearms are designed to kill". Because they can't, it's too broad of a generalization. It'd be like saying all automobiles are cars. Some are cars, but others are trucks, SUVs, RVs, etc
.


You are arguing the wrong issue. Firearms are weapons with lethality, whether you wish to use the federal definition of firearm or claim that they only fire projectiles is immaterial to me. But on the issue of fallacy, your attempt to diminish the generalization by an irrelevant exception is a fallacious argument called overwhelming the generalization.
Just because some "guns" do not deliver a projectile by explosive charge sufficient to cause death, does not diminish the generic danger of firearms.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 02:14PM
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote

You keep claiming guns are designed as lethal weapons. I keep pointing out examples of guns designed NOT to be lethal weapons. You seem to think these exceptions don't matter, which is a Fallacy of Accident

I have yet to see anyone provide any sort of logical or rational basis to claim "firearms are designed to kill". Because they can't, it's too broad of a generalization. It'd be like saying all automobiles are cars. Some are cars, but others are trucks, SUVs, RVs, etc
.


You are arguing the wrong issue. Firearms are weapons with lethality, whether you wish to use the federal definition of firearm or claim that they only fire projectiles is immaterial to me. But on the issue of fallacy, your attempt to diminish the generalization by an irrelevant exception is a fallacious argument called overwhelming the generalization.
Just because some "guns" do not deliver a projectile by explosive charge sufficient to cause death, does not diminish the generic danger of firearms.

So, what i'm hearing here is "no matter what evidence you present to contradict me, it doesn't matter".

My exceptions are not irrelevant. You are stating "because some firearms are designed to be lethal weapons, ALL firearms are designed to be lethal weapons." This is false, and known as a Hasty Generalization. I am stating "because some firearms are designed NOT to be lethal weapons, one can not say ALL firearms are designed to be lethal weapons." This is correct. Just like you can not say "all automobiles are sedans". It doesn't mean a PARTICULAR firearm wasn't designed to be a weapon, just that you can't lump everything into that category.

It's not because "some" guns do not deliver a lethal projectile. It's because nearly about ALL guns can be used as either a lethal weapon or non-lethal tool. Since ANY gun can be lethal or non-lethal based on the intent of the user, you can not lump all firearms into the category of lethal weapons anymore than you could do so with knives.

Also: i have never stated that there is not some inherent DANGER with firearms. However, this is irrelevant. There is an inherent danger with cars, knives, doctors, children's toys, synthetic rope, and just about anything. However, when properly used, firearms are just as safe as cars, knives, doctors, and etc. (notice "just as safe" does not mean completely safe, just as no matter how good of a driver you are, your car is not completely safe) Just because something can be dangerous if improperly used is not sufficient reason to ban it, or we'd have to start lining our world with bubble wrap.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2010 02:16PM by chiefcrash.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 07:17PM
Quote
chiefcrash
Also: i have never stated that there is not some inherent DANGER with firearms. However, this is irrelevant. There is an inherent danger with cars, knives, doctors, children's toys, synthetic rope, and just about anything. However, when properly used, firearms are just as safe as cars, knives, doctors, and etc. (notice "just as safe" does not mean completely safe, just as no matter how good of a driver you are, your car is not completely safe) Just because something can be dangerous if improperly used is not sufficient reason to ban it, or we'd have to start lining our world with bubble wrap.

At least you acknowledge that guns are inherently dangerous.
The question remains unanswered, why should this inherently dangerous item be allowed in National Parks to indulge excessive and unfounded fears in Yosemite?



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 01:58PM
Quote
Frank Furter

It is absolutely unproven that gun prevalence reduces crime.

Two parallel sets of data may be related by A causing B, B causing A, or both A and B caused by C. There is no evidence that guns reduce crime and lots of evidence that guns are associated with accidental injury and disproportionate response.

for one example:
National Academy of Science report on Gun Violence:
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?isbn=0309091241&page=1

I agree, it's absolutely unproven that gun prevalence reduces crime. Which is why I was very very careful not to say it. I have a full understanding of correlation, causation, and how correlation != causation.

BTW: your source pointed out that firearms are used defensively many times per day. Just thought you should know.

However, I can say that while the number of firearms owned by private citizens has been increasing steadily since 1970, the overall rate of homicides has not risen. I'm not certain, but I think that means there is no correlation between the availability of firearms and the rates of homicide in America. So, why are we trying to restrict them?

I have my own theories on the matter
Quote

Gun-control laws do not control crime because crimes are not committed by guns; they are committed by criminals. Criminals will always have guns because they do not obey laws, including anti-gun laws. Those without guns are easy prey for criminals with guns. Gun control encourages crime.

But this is a debate that goes back and forth. So if guns don't lower crime, and guns don't cause crime, why are we so worked up over guns?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 02:02PM
Quote
Warpath101
A firearm isnt either.

That's the biggest steaming pile of used food from a male bovine I've heard in years.

Quote

I own multiple firearms, all which have been fired multiple times, that have never killed anyone.

So? They are still designed for killing whether you have used them for that or not.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:36PM
You imply a firearm is designed to kill. This is incorrect.

Strictly speaking, a firearm is merely a tool designed to fire a projectile. The choice of projectile, as well as the intended use of the projectile, is entirely left to the intent of the user.

If someone INTENDS to use a firearm as a weapon, they can use lead bullets.

People can also INTEND to use a firearms as:
A less-than-lethal weapon (rubber bullets, taser rounds, pepper shells, etc)
A flare launcher
A smoke or tear gas launcher
A hunting tool
Recreational equipment
Competitive athletic equipment (lots of olympic sports involve shooting)
etc.

As you can see, a gun only turns from "tool" to "weapon" upon the intent of the user. What else follows this pattern?
Knives
Cars
Propane tanks
Gasoline
Broken lawn chairs
infants (there was a case where a disturbed mother used her baby as a club)
just about anything
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 01:17PM
Quote
Warpath101
Yosemite's own rangers carry pistols and are subject to the same fallibilities that we common laymen are.

Sounds like you will be able to protect yourself from the rangers.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 06:18PM
Quote
Warpath101
Do I need to go through a criminal background check to buy a car/motor vehicle? No
Do I need to show the dealer I can adeqately handle the car? No
Do I need to jump through hoops to buy gasoline? Nope (unless high prices are considered a hoop)
Do I need to take a test every 2 year in order to buy a certain type of car (or any car for that matter)? Negative.
Do I need to wait ten days after I buy a car to take it home? Nein.
Do I need to make sure my car has "evil feature" that could make it an "assault car"? Not in the least.
Do I need to make sure my car is on a roster of approved cars by the state of California? Niet.

You have to do all these and more to buy firearms.

In fact, what does it take to get a car on the road? A simple test that you take once until you reach a certain age. But what can a car do? Think Tim Mcveigh, suicide bombers, and generally crazy people ramming into others. In 2008 there was a naked woman ramming her car into men because she lost her cat. A man rammed his plane into the IRS building in Texas. DUIs alone kill more people than guns do, but it is EASIER to buy alcohol than to buy a gun. Show up, provide verification of 21 and walk out the door.

I also find the idea laughable that, somehow, when I walk into a National Park from carrying my CCW everywhere else that I will be less careful than I was before. The most sketchy people I have met have been mostly in parks in the less populated areas of National Parks. Yosemite's own rangers carry pistols and are subject to the same fallibilities that we common laymen are.

Do I need to take a gun to Yosemite? No!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2010 06:21PM by tomdisco.
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 12:50PM
Quote
tomdisco
Do I need to take a gun to Yosemite? No!

Do you need to force everyone else to do the same? No!
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:17AM
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
FoT
Why do gun proliferation advocates insist that there are no gun-related problems in the US?


So you answer my question with a question? Nice..

To answer your question I don't know of any gun advocate that will say there is no gun-related problems.
The actions and intent of the NRA is to promote the idea that guns do not cause injuries-- people cause injuries. Most extreme gun advocates even deny that guns are inherently dangerous.

Not sure why the ideal of people causing the accidents is so hard to understand. Guns don't sneak out at night and randomly kill people.

Quote

People do use guns in nefarious actions. Those people are criminals. Gun owners and hopefully most reasonable people would place the blame on the person using the gun and not the gun or other law abiding citizens for that action

A convenient, gratuitous, and unimaginative argument of gun advocates that ignores the fact that often just before the accident, injury, death or lapse in judgment the gun user was a law abiding citizen. There seems to be a conviction by the NRA types that as soon as a problem develops with guns, the only cause for that event was the action of the psychotic, criminal, or hostile individual. Many countries with similar numbers of guns/person have far fewer problems than the US. We have too many guns in the wrong hands and places; the problem is less with "bad people" than bad politics and easy availability of guns. We cannot control the behavior of the crazy or impulsive or those with altered consciousness, but we can control the availability of guns to them. Unfortunately, there is little interest in these public health issues.

accident, injury, death or lapse in judgment the gun user was a law abiding citizen So you are saying every time a gun has been used to murder someone it was done by a otherwise law abiding person?

The next line of argument by gun partisans is usually to suggest that criminals will always get guns to use so I need them for self-defense. Wrong again. Although there are as many guns per household in Canada, a smaller percent of crimes involve firearms than in the US primarily because there are restrictions on the availability and transport of handguns. Crime victims who possess weapons are 4 times more likely to be shot than those victims without weapons.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090930121512.htm

And Switzerland has one of they highest gun ownership per capita in the world,and also has one of the lowest gun crime rates.

Quote

A drunk driver plows his car into a school bus killing children. Who as a society do we blame? Gm for making the car? Jim Bean for making the whiskey? Or the driver behind he wheel? What if the driver didn't have a valid license?

Firstly, if you are going to compare gun ownership to car ownership, you will need to demonstrate that the gun industry has implemented safety and design changes to reduce the inherent danger as have been implemented by car manufacturers. In addition, you will need to demonstrate that all gun users have the degree of training and practice required of vehicle drivers, that all guns and ammunition are as registered and traceable as vehicles , and that gun users, in nearly all venues, are specifically licensed for the activity they are pursing. Finally, gun ownership is largely a self-indulgent hobby as opposed to the more essential transportation needs served by automobiles.

I don't need to demostrat any of that to exspress who is responcible. If I went out and killed someone I would be responcible for that. Not congress for not passing enough laws, not the Big 5 that sold me the ammo, not John Moses Browning for designing the gun.

Quote

Should we pass laws to restrict the action of all drivers because of this and other similar actions?
We do exactly that. Driving while intoxicated is illegal and monitored to some extent. Drivers are required to demonstrate a valid license and pass testing.

And we still have drunk drivers right? So the laws aren't working. Lets add more laws. Most DUI's happen between midnight and 4 am, lets make anyone who drives during this time to get a special permit. Lets toss in a 25 mph speed limit for all drivers during that time as well. That is what we are doing with gun laws.


Quote

I'm a gun owner of over 20 years, none of my guns have ever injured a single person.
It always comes down to "me" and "mine". Presumably you feel your hobby should not be restricted in the least.
I never cease to be amazed how much selfishness and denial exists among gun promoters who think that any regulation to diminish the opportunities for criminal, irresponsible, accidental or suicidal actions that in the slightest poses an inconvenience to the "legal" gun owner is unacceptable. Does every car owner expect to take their vehicle anywhere they want? Are you going to argue for your right to drive to the top of Half Dome? It is selfish in the extreme to object to limitations on guns that would reduce gun injuries and death because it is an "intrusion" on a perceived 2nd Amendment privilege.

The 2nd is OUR right. You included. Presumably you feel your hobby should not be restricted in the least.
I never cease to be amazed how much selfishness and denial exists among gun promoters who think that any regulation to diminish the opportunities for criminal, irresponsible, accidental or suicidal actions that in the slightest poses an inconvenience to the "legal" gun owner is unacceptable
. Califonia has passed some of the strictist gun laws in the nation, and gun crimes rose in number.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 02:06PM
Quote
FoT
The 2nd is OUR right.

That's debatable. You in a militia?

The wording was constructed to be vague on purpose.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 02:25PM
Quote
eeek
Quote
FoT
The 2nd is OUR right.

That's debatable. You in a militia?

The wording was constructed to be vague on purpose.

Well we will find that out real soon.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:39PM
Quote
eeek
Quote
FoT
The 2nd is OUR right.

That's debatable. You in a militia?

The wording was constructed to be vague on purpose.

If you're a able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, then you're in the militia...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 12:55AM
Quote
eeek
Quote
FoT
The 2nd is OUR right.

That's debatable. You in a militia?

The wording was constructed to be vague on purpose.

The US Supreme Court ruled last year in Heller vs. DC that that 2nd Amendment is an individual right that does not require militia membership to exercise that right. So as far as the federal govt goes sees, it there is no debate.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 01:09AM
Quote
DennisW
The US Supreme Court ruled last year in Heller vs. DC that that 2nd Amendment is an individual right that does not require militia membership to exercise that right. So as far as the federal govt goes sees, it there is no debate.

That's how they ruled that time. Next time it may differ. Debatable it remains.
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 10:36AM
Quote
eeek
Quote
DennisW
The US Supreme Court ruled last year in Heller vs. DC that that 2nd Amendment is an individual right that does not require militia membership to exercise that right. So as far as the federal govt goes sees, it there is no debate.

That's how they ruled that time. Next time it may differ. Debatable it remains.

Care to debate on the fact that every able-bodied male aged 17-45 is in the militia by act of congress?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 10:52AM
Quote
chiefcrash
Care to debate on the fact that every able-bodied male aged 17-45 is in the militia by act of congress?

No, I just consider it to be another silly gun nut thing.
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 11:24AM
Quote
eeek
Quote
chiefcrash
Care to debate on the fact that every able-bodied male aged 17-45 is in the militia by act of congress?

No, I just consider it to be another silly gun nut thing.

So you consider the 2nd Amendment to apply only to the militia, and then when confronted with the fact that the "militia" is about half the population, that's just a silly gun nut thing?

Do you know what a militia is? How do you think the militia is formed?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 02:22PM
Quote
chiefcrash
when confronted with the fact that the "militia" is about half the population, that's just a silly gun nut thing?

I'm only saying that the claim, not matter where it originates, that half the population is a militia is chick-on droppings and only a silly gun nut would make such a claim.
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 03:09PM
Quote
eeek
Quote
chiefcrash
when confronted with the fact that the "militia" is about half the population, that's just a silly gun nut thing?

I'm only saying that the claim, not matter where it originates, that half the population is a militia is chick-on droppings and only a silly gun nut would make such a claim.

I guess an that means an act of congress is "chick-on droppings". Which might be true (personally, I think the Patriot Act was chick-on droppings), but it's is the law regardless of our opinions...

And only a silly gun grabber would claim that "the right of the people" means the people in the 1st Amendment, and yet means something else in the 2nd Amendment...
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 08:48PM
Quote
chiefcrash
I guess an that means an act of congress is "chick-on droppings".

You didn't know that? <boggle>
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 02:45PM
Quote
Frank Furter
Are you going to argue for your right to drive to the top of Half Dome? It is selfish in the extreme to object to limitations on guns that would reduce gun injuries and death because it is an "intrusion" on a perceived 2nd Amendment privilege.

That's funny. You think it's your right to drive and a privilege to own a gun!!!!
Driving is a privilege, not guaranteed you by the Bill Of Rights.

Gun ownership is a RIGHT that "shall not be infringed", not a privilege.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:10PM
Anybody,
Please elaborate on a constitutional right that does not have some sort of restriction or control placed on it. Please bear in mind also that the same constitution gave the congress, the judiciary, and the states the right to modify and amend that constitution. Plus the congress can pass laws that promote the common good that perhaps fly in the face of a narrow reading of the constitution.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 01:24AM
Quote
mrcondron
Anybody,
Please elaborate on a constitutional right that does not have some sort of restriction or control placed on it. Please bear in mind also that the same constitution gave the congress, the judiciary, and the states the right to modify and amend that constitution. Plus the congress can pass laws that promote the common good that perhaps fly in the face of a narrow reading of the constitution.

The right to bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. The 2nd Amendment protects that pre existing right. Yes, it can be changed by a constitutional convention, but until they hold one, the 2nd is still there as is. DC had a handgun ban for years that flew in the face of the constitution, but that got thrown out as unconstitutional last year. There are numerous cases that are challenging gun bans and silly gun laws, even in Ca. The Supreme court is hearing the case against the Chicago gun ban next week, by July that ban will be struck down too. The concensus is they will also rule the 2nd Amendment will apply to state and local govts too.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 07:18AM
DennisW,
Let me see if I have this correct. An amendment to the constitution is not a part of the constitution. Is that what I read in your post?
So if what you are saying is correct then the second amendment and all the other amendments are not constitutional rights.

And you wonder why people worry about people like you being armed. You can't think things through.



Old Dude



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2010 07:20AM by mrcondron.
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 10:39AM
Quote
mrcondron
DennisW,
Let me see if I have this correct. An amendment to the constitution is not a part of the constitution. Is that what I read in your post?
So if what you are saying is correct then the second amendment and all the other amendments are not constitutional rights.

And you wonder why people worry about people like you being armed. You can't think things through.

I think what he's saying is your rights aren't GRANTED by the constitution, so much as they've always existed and are merely PROTECTED by the constitution...

Kind of like the government doesn't grant you the right to free speech. You have that right merely by being alive, the 1st Amendment merely protects the government from infringing on that right...
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 04:27PM
Quote
chiefcrash
Quote
mrcondron
DennisW,
Let me see if I have this correct. An amendment to the constitution is not a part of the constitution. Is that what I read in your post?
So if what you are saying is correct then the second amendment and all the other amendments are not constitutional rights.

And you wonder why people worry about people like you being armed. You can't think things through.

I think what he's saying is your rights aren't GRANTED by the constitution, so much as they've always existed and are merely PROTECTED by the constitution...

Kind of like the government doesn't grant you the right to free speech. You have that right merely by being alive, the 1st Amendment merely protects the government from infringing on that right...

Exactly, thanks for clearing that up. no more sleepy posting for me.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 24, 2010 08:53PM
Quote
FoT
Why do people always assume the random gun owner is some trigger happy manic that is going to shoot a some strange sound in the bushes?

Why do you assume anybody here said that?
Re: Packing Heat
February 24, 2010 09:17PM
Quote
eeek
Quote
FoT
Why do people always assume the random gun owner is some trigger happy manic that is going to shoot a some strange sound in the bushes?

Why do you assume anybody here said that?

It was one of the concerns about people carrying. The poster said friends had been maced while startling hikers and they were fearful of now getting shot..
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 24, 2010 11:39PM
A quick read of California law will narrow the gun toting to people with a license to carry and people while in a car camping campsite. I hope most if not all people in CA with a CCW permit are responsible. California law has pretty severe restrictions on where a gun can be used and under what circumstances. I don't think many guns will be taken into the back country. A CCW permit would be required to do so.
It's the problem of the car camping people that will be allowed to have a loaded gun in their camp site that feel they are in mortal danger if a bear wanders through their campsite.
I fear there will be bullets flying all over the place.

FoT,
Would you bring a gun to Yosemite now that you can?



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:29AM
Quote
mrcondron
A quick read of California law will narrow the gun toting to people with a license to carry and people while in a car camping campsite. I hope most if not all people in CA with a CCW permit are responsible. California law has pretty severe restrictions on where a gun can be used and under what circumstances. I don't think many guns will be taken into the back country. A CCW permit would be required to do so.
It's the problem of the car camping people that will be allowed to have a loaded gun in their camp site that feel they are in mortal danger if a bear wanders through their campsite.
I fear there will be bullets flying all over the place.

FoT,
Would you bring a gun to Yosemite now that you can?

I see no reason not to.

It's the problem of the car camping people that will be allowed to have a loaded gun in their camp site that feel they are in mortal danger if a bear wanders through their campsite.
I fear there will be bullets flying all over the place


CA stateparks have allowed guns at campsite,state law gives us the same gun rights in the campsite as if were our home. Have you heard horror stories of wild shoot out, bullets flying everwhere if bears or mountlion wanders in?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:36AM
Do you see a reason why you would carry a gun in Yosemite?

We are arguing about gun carrying in national parks.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 01:39AM
Quote
mrcondron
Do you see a reason why you would carry a gun in Yosemite?

We are arguing about gun carrying in national parks.

for that chance that the bear, mountain lion, etc doesn't run away.

In case I run into one of the pot farmers( illegally packin heat) that have their farms in the park.

To protect myself and family from any criminals that may choose to visit and apply their trade at the park.

Like was posted earlier, if the park service can tell me 100% and back it up that they can protect me from all criminals and wildlife in the park I will leave my gun at home.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 04:19AM
Quote


Do you see a reason why you would carry a gun in Yosemite?

Quote

for that chance that the bear, mountain lion, etc doesn't run away.
So back off.

Quote

In case I run into one of the pot farmers( illegally packin heat) that have their farms in the park.
So what? Are you going to "shoot it out" with them?

Quote

To protect myself and family from any criminals that may choose to visit and apply their trade at the park.
Highly unlikely.

Quote

Like was posted earlier, if the park service can tell me 100% and back it up that they can protect me from all criminals and wildlife in the park I will leave my gun at home.
The National Parks may just be too much stress for you. Better to stay home.

I can conceive of far better reasons to have a gun in the park:
1. To shoot the top off a beer bottle
2. To prop up that wobbly stove
3. As a weight to keep the table cloth from blowing off the picnic table
4. To complement your Rambo costume
5. To defend against any rabid pika
6. To add leverage to the wrench for those difficult lug nuts
7. So that you can say to other wingnuts, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours"
8. To use for a tent pole (if you bring a rifle or shotgun)
9. To add dead weight to your pack for aerobic exercise
10. As a conversation topic during those awkward moments when the SWAT team is trying to decide if you are armed and dangerous or just armed and stupid.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 06:10AM
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote


Do you see a reason why you would carry a gun in Yosemite?

Quote

for that chance that the bear, mountain lion, etc doesn't run away.
So back off.

Quote

In case I run into one of the pot farmers( illegally packin heat) that have their farms in the park.
So what? Are you going to "shoot it out" with them?

Quote

To protect myself and family from any criminals that may choose to visit and apply their trade at the park.
Highly unlikely.

Quote

Like was posted earlier, if the park service can tell me 100% and back it up that they can protect me from all criminals and wildlife in the park I will leave my gun at home.
The National Parks may just be too much stress for you. Better to stay home.

I can conceive of far better reasons to have a gun in the park:
1. To shoot the top off a beer bottle
2. To prop up that wobbly stove
3. As a weight to keep the table cloth from blowing off the picnic table
4. To complement your Rambo costume
5. To defend against any rabid pika
6. To add leverage to the wrench for those difficult lug nuts
7. So that you can say to other wingnuts, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours"
8. To use for a tent pole (if you bring a rifle or shotgun)
9. To add dead weight to your pack for aerobic exercise
10. As a conversation topic during those awkward moments when the SWAT team is trying to decide if you are armed and dangerous or just armed and stupid.

your funny Frank.

A sick or injured animal or a mama protecting her cubs might continue chasing you even if you "back off.

If a pissed off drug dealer is chasing me shooting at me for stumbling onto their farm, damn right I will have a shootout with him if it is the only was to preserve my life.

Ya, they always thought it was "highly unlikely" that crazy people would shoot up schools and workplaces years ago too but they do happen. Look what happened at Fort Hood, where the guy killed all those soldiers. Bet you thought it was "highly unlikely" that someone would do an attack on a military base. Nps are not immune to crime, there are even two links on this site talking about potfarms and one talked about reports of machine gun fire. ( I know the one was not in the Yosemite)
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 10:07AM
Quote

your funny Frank.

A sick or injured animal or a mama protecting her cubs might continue chasing you even if you "back off.
What is the risk of this occurring?

Quote

If a pissed off drug dealer is chasing me shooting at me for stumbling onto their farm, damn right I will have a shootout with him if it is the only was to preserve my life.

Again, what is the risk of this occurring? Do you have any idea?

Quote

Ya, they always thought it was "highly unlikely" that crazy people would shoot up schools and workplaces years ago too but they do happen. Look what happened at Fort Hood, where the guy killed all those soldiers. Bet you thought it was "highly unlikely" that someone would do an attack on a military base. Nps are not immune to crime, there are even two links on this site talking about potfarms and one talked about reports of machine gun fire. ( I know the one was not in the Yosemite)


Finally and again, what is the calculated risk of this occurring in the first place, and secondly, what is the likelihood that an amateur carrying a gun will have any impact on the events? This is not the stuff of Hollywood. Deal with real life.

Do you carry oxygen and nitroglycerin to treat a heart attack? Do you know how to do the Heimlich manuever? Do you cook on an open flame? Do you know how long someone will survive in 40 degree water?

I doubt that you are prepared for the most likely wilderness threats but have chosen to create absurdly rare scenarios that reflect more a fearful fantasy world than rational thought process.

Your concern with protecting yourself, you family and others should be directed at motor vehicle issues: If you have ever received a moving violation, have driven after drinking ANY alcohol or taking mood altering drugs, or have exceeded the Basic Speed Law in California, you have endangered yourself and others more than any scenario you have presented endangers you. A gun will not protect you from yourself and the reckless individual is the biggest danger to himself/herself and others in the National Parks.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan




Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2010 10:09AM by Frank Furter.
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 10:51AM
Quote
Frank Furter
What is the risk of this occurring?

Again, what is the risk of this occurring? Do you have any idea?

Finally and again, what is the calculated risk of this occurring in the first place, and secondly, what is the likelihood that an amateur carrying a gun will have any impact on the events? This is not the stuff of Hollywood. Deal with real life.

Do you carry oxygen and nitroglycerin to treat a heart attack? Do you know how to do the Heimlich manuever? Do you cook on an open flame? Do you know how long someone will survive in 40 degree water?

I doubt that you are prepared for the most likely wilderness threats but have chosen to create absurdly rare scenarios that reflect more a fearful fantasy world than rational thought process.

Your concern with protecting yourself, you family and others should be directed at motor vehicle issues: If you have ever received a moving violation, have driven after drinking ANY alcohol or taking mood altering drugs, or have exceeded the Basic Speed Law in California, you have endangered yourself and others more than any scenario you have presented endangers you. A gun will not protect you from yourself and the reckless individual is the biggest danger to himself/herself and others in the National Parks.

It doesn't matter what the probability of the risk is. The risk exists, even you don't try to dispute it. Highly unlikely, but possible. Whether or not you feel the risk is high enough to merit some sort of preventative action is a personal decision. You don't get to make my personal decisions for me. If you feel it's safe enough not to carry a weapon, that's fine. That's YOUR decision. I'm gonna do the same thing the rangers do: carry a little something to protect myself, JUST IN CASE.

What's the risk that your house is going to burn down? Because it's such a low risk, why bother getting a fire extinguisher or smoke alarm? What's the chances that YOU will need to know the Heimlich? We prepare for the silliest long-shot disasters all the time, why is it only when you prepare for potentially violent disasters you get labeled paranoid and absurd?

You are right though: reckless individuals are the biggest danger to himself/herself and others. Which is why we have laws against reckless behavior. We have laws against speeding, but we don't have laws restricting how fast your car can be. Why should guns be handled differently?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/26/2010 10:51AM by chiefcrash.
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 05:20PM
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote

your funny Frank.

A sick or injured animal or a mama protecting her cubs might continue chasing you even if you "back off.
What is the risk of this occurring?

Quote

If a pissed off drug dealer is chasing me shooting at me for stumbling onto their farm, damn right I will have a shootout with him if it is the only was to preserve my life.

Again, what is the risk of this occurring? Do you have any idea?

Quote

Ya, they always thought it was "highly unlikely" that crazy people would shoot up schools and workplaces years ago too but they do happen. Look what happened at Fort Hood, where the guy killed all those soldiers. Bet you thought it was "highly unlikely" that someone would do an attack on a military base. Nps are not immune to crime, there are even two links on this site talking about potfarms and one talked about reports of machine gun fire. ( I know the one was not in the Yosemite)


Finally and again, what is the calculated risk of this occurring in the first place, and secondly, what is the likelihood that an amateur carrying a gun will have any impact on the events? This is not the stuff of Hollywood. Deal with real life.

Do you carry oxygen and nitroglycerin to treat a heart attack? Do you know how to do the Heimlich manuever? Do you cook on an open flame? Do you know how long someone will survive in 40 degree water?


I doubt that you are prepared for the most likely wilderness threats but have chosen to create absurdly rare scenarios that reflect more a fearful fantasy world than rational thought process.

Your concern with protecting yourself, you family and others should be directed at motor vehicle issues: If you have ever received a moving violation, have driven after drinking ANY alcohol or taking mood altering drugs, or have exceeded the Basic Speed Law in California, you have endangered yourself and others more than any scenario you have presented endangers you. A gun will not protect you from yourself and the reckless individual is the biggest danger to himself/herself and others in the National Parks.

I do not have the nitro pills, but do have a full military field first aid kit in my Jeep. Along with MRE, plenty of water, extra clothes, blankets, spare parts and gas. Twenty years and counting active duty military training including firearms, first aid, and survival I think covers me on a lot of what you claim I am not prepared for. Also have been hunting and camping sometimes in very remote locations including winter camping for almost 30 years. I can hunt, kill, clean, and cook game, even over an open fire. I was born and raised in the country so I think I can handle myself in Yosemite or any other area.

I don't drink or do drugs and my Jeep can barely hit 70 so I don't think I am endangering other people on the road.

I have medical, housing, and auto insurance just in case something happens. I have smoke and carbon monoxide detectors, fire extinguishers throughout the house. Almost forgot the earthquake/ disaster kit with plenty of food and water and first aid supplies
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 10:28AM
Quote
DennisW
your funny Frank.

Yep. And he knows the difference between "your" and "your're" too.

Quote

A sick or injured animal or a mama protecting her cubs might continue chasing you even if you "back off.

Maybe. But you really don't need a gun to fight off a squirrel.

Quote

If a pissed off drug dealer is chasing me shooting at me for stumbling onto their farm, damn right I will have a shootout with him if it is the only was to preserve my life.

More likely he'd shoot you before you even knew he was there. Especially if he thought you were carrying a gun.
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 05:38PM
Quote
eeek
Quote
DennisW
your funny Frank.

Yep. And he knows the difference between "your" and "your're" too.

Quote

A sick or injured animal or a mama protecting her cubs might continue chasing you even if you "back off.

Maybe. But you really don't need a gun to fight off a squirrel.

Quote

If a pissed off drug dealer is chasing me shooting at me for stumbling onto their farm, damn right I will have a shootout with him if it is the only was to preserve my life.

More likely he'd shoot you before you even knew he was there. Especially if he thought you were carrying a gun.

I claim iPod auto correct and lack of proofreading for that mistake. Guess every forum has a spelling Nazi.

So did all the bears and cats that live in yosemite get poached? I didn't realize that squirrels were the only wildlife that lived in the park. Thanks for updating me on that, I feel a little safer now.

Ya, he may shoot first but if he misses or doesn't kill me at least I might have a chance to protect myself instead of curling into the fetal position and waiting for him to come finish me off.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 06:27PM
Anyone want to venture a guess as to why privately carried guns are prohibited in buildings classified as "federal facilities" in Yosemite?



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 06:36PM
So the federal employees don't get shot?



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 06:53PM
Quote
mrcondron
So the federal employees don't get shot?

If guns are allowed and carried for personal security, it seems ironic that guns are restricted when security is really important.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 12:23AM
Quote
FoT
It was one of the concerns about people carrying.

No, it wasn't. What is a concern is having a gun in a Yosemite campground is going to lead to somebody shooting at a bear. This isn't theoretical; it has already happened. Fortunately in the one case I know of the gun owner only managed to hit a tree. He could easily hit a camper. For that matter he could have hit the bear and provoke the bear into causing serious injury or death.

If you really feel you need to carry a gun in Yosemite, you just don't belong there. You're better off staying home where your mother can change your diaper when you get scared.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 05:08AM
Quote
eeek
You're better off staying home where your mother can change your diaper when you get scared.

Should be "change your diaper after you get scared."
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:22AM
Quote
eeek
Quote
FoT
It was one of the concerns about people carrying.

No, it wasn't.
I was talking to a couple trail crew members who work in Glacier NP and they are most worried about instances when they are bushwhacking in the backcountry and spook a hiker who may have a loaded gun. Several of them have been bear-sprayed and screamed at in such instances where they are rustling in the brush and then emerge near people on the trails who thought they were hearing a bear. Or perhaps they are silently hiking along and spook a hiker. Both instances are common occurrence for trail crew members.
Quote from poster usnational





What is a concern is having a gun in a Yosemite campground is going to lead to somebody shooting at a bear. This isn't theoretical; it has already happened. Fortunately in the one case I know of the gun owner only managed to hit a tree. He could easily hit a camper. For that matter he could have hit the bear and provoke the bear into causing serious injury or death.

If you really feel you need to carry a gun in Yosemite, you just don't belong there. You're better off staying home where your mother can change your diaper when you get scared.

Can't have a discussion without resorting to name calling?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:31AM
I have a question.

Why would anyone carry a loaded gun in the sanctuary of Yosemite National Park?
Enforcement rangers excepted please.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:38AM
Quote
mrcondron
I have a question.

Why would anyone carry a loaded gun in the sanctuary of Yosemite National Park?
Enforcement rangers excepted please.

To avoid the fate of Carol Sund and Silvina Pelosso
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:43AM
I would ask two things of you:
1. How would carrying a loaded weapon in Yosemite prevented the death of those people?
2. Would you be willing to act like a lawyer for a bit and present arguments for both sides of the carry/not carry issue. I bring this up because a good lawyer can argue both side equally well regardless of his own position.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 09:17AM
Quote
mrcondron
I would ask two things of you:
1. How would carrying a loaded weapon in Yosemite prevented the death of those people?

I said avoid a fate like them, what would have happened if you hiked into that area while the serial killer is dumping the bodies?

2. Would you be willing to act like a lawyer for a bit and present arguments for both sides of the carry/not carry issue. I bring this up because a good lawyer can argue both side equally well regardless of his own position.
I'm not a lawyer, and have a hard time thinking of a reason guns shouldn't be allowed. Seems most people against this are against guns in general.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 09:23AM
Then how would carrying a gun in Yosemite have prevented a fate like theirs or even Joie Armstrong's?

I am a gun toting, arms bearing, multiple gun owning expert marksman. I still can't see the reason for a visitor to carry a firearm into the sanctuary of the park.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 09:41AM
Quote
mrcondron
Then how would carrying a gun in Yosemite have prevented a fate like theirs or even Joie Armstrong's

I am a gun toting, arms bearing, multiple gun owning expert marksman. I still can't see the reason for a visitor to carry a firearm into the sanctuary of the park.



Like I alluded to before what do you think will happen to a hiker and his/her family if they stumble on to a serial killer disposing of bodies? Will he just give them direction back to camp? Or maybe feel the need to eliminate witnesses? What is the saying rather have something and not need it, rather then need something and not have it.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 01:02PM
FoT,
Three of the four people that were killed by Stayner were not killed in the park.
Two of the tourists, the mother and the visiting friend, were killed in their motel room by Stayner, an employee of the motel. The daughter was killed elsewhere and her body dumped at Don Pedro on highway 120 many miles from Yosemite.

Joie Armstrong was subdued by Stayner in her home which was the little cottage near the barns at Big Meadow. She was killed a very short distance away with a knife and her body left there.

How does having a loaded gun in a car camping camp site at Upper Pines, Porqupine Flat, Tuolumne Meadows, Tamarack Flat, etc. campgrounds relate to these murders?



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 02:21PM
Quote
mrcondron
FoT,
Three of the four people that were killed by Stayner were not killed in the park.
Two of the tourists, the mother and the visiting friend, were killed in their motel room by Stayner, an employee of the motel. The daughter was killed elsewhere and her body dumped at Don Pedro on highway 120 many miles from Yosemite.

Joie Armstrong was subdued by Stayner in her home which was the little cottage near the barns at Big Meadow. She was killed a very short distance away with a knife and her body left there.

How does having a loaded gun in a car camping camp site at Upper Pines, Porqupine Flat, Tuolumne Meadows, Tamarack Flat, etc. campgrounds relate to these murders?

I was talking about carrying a fire arm, not leaving one in the car.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:18PM
If I read you right you are saying that if all four of those people had been wearing a sidearm they would not be dead?

To be valid the argument has to extend. So if every man, woman, and child in this country wore a sidearm there would be either no or at least only a few murders?

Would everyone wearing a sidearm really promote the common good? c'mon.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:43AM
Why exclude Rangers? Just because they have "training"? News Flash: Police are HUMAN. They make the same mistakes we common laymen do and are subject to the same imperfections. Recently, two LAPD officers beat a man with their pistols while off duty and severely injured him. Another officer pulled over a woman and held here at gunpoint and forced her to perform oral sex.

A badge does not mean squat. They are not super human. They also cannot be everywhere. Reliance on them is laughable, especially when the Supreme Court has ruled that Law Enforcement does NOT have the duty to protect you.

EDIT: For the relavant court cases: Castle Rock v. Gonzales, South v. Maryland, Bowers v. DeVito



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2010 08:50AM by Warpath101.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 09:18AM
I guess I asked to exclude rangers so the crux of the discussion would stay on visitors to national parks. The effectiveness of, the humanity of, the fallibility of, and the responsibilities of enforcement rangers is worthy of argument but not the issue here.

Users of the English language in order to be able to effectively communicate with one another have devised a thing called a dictionary. While not a perfect instrument it is generally used to document the commonly accepted meanings of words.

A gun/firearm is defined as a weapon.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:44PM
Quote
mrcondron
I guess I asked to exclude rangers so the crux of the discussion would stay on visitors to national parks. The effectiveness of, the humanity of, the fallibility of, and the responsibilities of enforcement rangers is worthy of argument but not the issue here.

Users of the English language in order to be able to effectively communicate with one another have devised a thing called a dictionary. While not a perfect instrument it is generally used to document the commonly accepted meanings of words.

A gun/firearm is defined as a weapon.

according to my dictionary, anything including a broken lawn chair can be defined as a weapon...
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:47PM
You are absolutely correct. But to say that a firearm is not a weapon is a bit silly.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:52PM
Quote
mrcondron
You are absolutely correct. But to say that a firearm is not a weapon is a bit silly.

Are *ALL* firearms inherently weapons?

Is an olympic target pistol inherently a weapon?
Is a .22 bolt action target rifle inherently a weapon?
Is a 20 gauge shotgun loaded with bird-shot inherently a weapon? (for those not in the know, a shotgun loaded with birdshot will only kill a person if you darn-near put the barrel to their head.)
Is a movie production gun designed to only shoot blanks inherently a weapon? (btw, just as lethal as a birdshot loaded shotgun...)
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:42PM
Quote
mrcondron
I have a question.

Why would anyone carry a loaded gun in the sanctuary of Yosemite National Park?
Enforcement rangers excepted please.

Here's a question:

Why should rangers be excepted but not other people? What makes rangers "special"?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:44PM
Duly appointed officers of the law. It's not complicated.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:47PM
Quote
mrcondron
Duly appointed officers of the law. It's not complicated.

The next logical question:

Why should "duly appointed officers of the law" be exempted?
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 01:53AM
Quote
mrcondron
I have a question.

Why would anyone carry a loaded gun in the sanctuary of Yosemite National Park?
Enforcement rangers excepted please.

If the park is such a "sanctuary" why do the rangers have to carry guns? If it is so safe they should not need guns right?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 03:51AM
Quote
DennisW
Quote
mrcondron
I have a question.

Why would anyone carry a loaded gun in the sanctuary of Yosemite National Park?
Enforcement rangers excepted please.

If the park is such a "sanctuary" why do the rangers have to carry guns? If it is so safe they should not need guns right?

A chicken and egg argument.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 10:53AM
Quote
Frank Furter
Quote
DennisW
Quote
mrcondron
I have a question.

Why would anyone carry a loaded gun in the sanctuary of Yosemite National Park?
Enforcement rangers excepted please.

If the park is such a "sanctuary" why do the rangers have to carry guns? If it is so safe they should not need guns right?

A chicken and egg argument.

Not really: if rangers have sufficient reason to carry a gun, why not non-rangers?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 02:09PM
Quote
FoT
Can't have a discussion without resorting to name calling?

Yawn.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 09:22AM
I have to admit that I am a bit impressed that I was able to make it about 3/4 through this thread before it deteriorated into the usual paranoia & rancor. By now, everyone here knows how I feel (based on the last rant on this subject) so I will keep moving on to the other threads.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 10:04AM
So what exactly is the BIG deal of carrying a firearm in a national park? I've read through the whole thread and it's only come down to individual rants.

The right not to carry a weapon in NPs is kinda goofy. The choice of self preservation is in the eye of the beholder. You can control your actions but you cannot control the actions of animals or criminals. Bears, mountain lions, snakes, boogymen, drunk rednecks, murderer's, rapists, don't hold "big signs saying here I am stay away ". As a last resort when/if you stumble upon any of the aforementioned you should be able choose....be still and pray, climb a tree, make a big noise, distract, piss yourself, run, run fast, call someone, give up, try to shake hands, try to give it a hug, give it a bullet, give yourself a bullet, throw a shovel at it, stab it with your intelligence, etc etc....they are all choice options. The law abiding citizen should be able to choose his tool/weapon of protecting himself and family. Whether it be a car or a gun. Who exactly is anyone to tell me how to preserve my life and or family?

Target shooting, poaching, warning shots, or killing another human being without cause is a criminal act of a criminal who is not regarding anyone else to begin with. You will find them everywhere. Next door to your little suburban house....just watch the news. Its already happened and it will happen again with or without laws.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2010 10:05AM by Live24/7.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 10:50AM
Quote
Live24/7
The law abiding citizen should be able to choose his tool/weapon of protecting himself and family. Whether it be a car or a gun. Who exactly is anyone to tell me how to preserve my life and or family?

There are limits. Frankly the bear situation has been brought up before. Eeek mentioned a case where someone legally packing in a campground tried to shoot a bear and managed to hit a tree. That doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies. A handgun is wholly unsuitable for the task of bringing down a bear, and in the case of a grizzly (Alaska, North Cascades, Yellowstone, Glacier, Grand Teton) being shot and injured would likely cause its aggression instincts to kick in. For a black bear they would be beyond unncessary and a little bit frightening. I frankly don't want someone camping in the rather crowded Upper Pines Campground thinking that a small-caliber handgun is going to be effective against a bear. It's more likely that a stray bullet will be effective against other campers. Tents aren't exactly very good at stopping lead projectiles. Even if a bear got hit, FMJ bullets could very well go right through and present a danger to humans.

The NPS never, ever uses lethal force against campground raiding bears except when they've determined that they will destroy that bear, and do so far removed from other people. They use rubber bullets, pyrotechnics, paintball guns, etc. Now what I'd like to understand is whether or not paintball guns (loaded with clear practice balls) will be allowed. That's what Yosemite personnel use to haze bears.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 12:47PM
Absolutely on the limits. I get that. Handguns are last resort to a cornered response. With human or animal. While a .22 cal pistol would not be my choice for self preservation it could be actually be limited by law to a caliber size. Lets say...454 casull with proper ammunition. Again, not choice while hunting(logically a hunting rifle), it does have the capacity to do the job. Guaranteed...no(what is?), but lets face it, better chances of stopping the threat at its most immediate action. Now, in keeping a self preservation mindset, not a hunting mindset, where would that go?......for the law abiding citizen who chooses to carry while in a NP. People then at the same time get the choice to carry but with the most sufficient means of stopping power legally...for bear or even human. The whole idea is to be the one walking away and not dragged away. Game wardens or park officials are to be called immediately whether or not the animal is killed so it can be handled before its a threat to anyone else.

Now my experience with bears, from living, hunting, camping in Alaska(Bethel, King Salmon, Anchorage, and Wasilla) has presented plenty of encounters with bears. Close and afar. I don't hunt them as they bring nothing I want to the dinner table but you are in their habitat and you don't choose the time or place for encounters all the time. LOL...I also do not spend time in my tent 5ft away from 30 other tents. But it is what it is. So setting limits within camp grounds is a doable action as well. Limiting firearms to the sanctity of inside your vehicle when setting up camp within a village environment. Your choices in self preservation just went up with others around you to be of aide without first grabbing a gun and taking a chance at killing someone else. This would apply to any threats...human or animal. In any case, the law abiding citizen would be forced to use escalating force up to a hand gun in a self preservation scenario.

I would hope that the NPS would never use lethal force as a first means of bear or human preservation. There is a reason they carry guns though. That could even be an option of carry within the NP for law abiding citizens. Then again, with bears, you probably just pissed them off even more by shooting him with a rubber bullet. It is still a choice option.

We have all the laws regarding removal of firearms here and there. What is always failed in this orchestra is the that criminals don't follow the laws anyways. So the laws we make for the law abiding citizen are only for the law abiding citizen and favorable to criminals. Now what should be made law is training. We know what law abiding citizens buy due to the laws in place now. What isnot a law is training. Before we arm our Police to protect us.....we train them and test them. So as a law, law abiding citizens should have training and testing prior to purchase. Its no guarantee, but its a step further in preventing collateral damage and the choice of self preservation.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 01:10PM
Live24/7,
The threat to human life in any of the campgrounds in Yosemite over the decades has been zero.
What is the value add of or how is the "common good" promoted by having firearms present in these campgrounds? Is it possible that there might be a net loss of safety in them? A demoting of the "common good" perhaps?
Again I will ask, "What is the reason for being armed in a campground in Yosemite?"



Old Dude



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2010 01:29PM by mrcondron.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 01:51PM
Quote
mrcondron
Live24/7,
The threat to human life in any of the campgrounds in Yosemite over the decades has been zero.
What is the value add of or how is the "common good" promoted by having firearms present in these campgrounds? Is it possible that there might be a net loss of safety in them? A demoting of the "common good" perhaps?
Again I will ask, "What is the reason for being armed in a campground in Yosemite?"


I don't know...maybe this " http://www.cnn.com/US/9907/26/yosemite.murder.04/index.html"; . Unless you can control criminals around you and keep them out of the campgrounds. The value add would is self preservation. Nothing more coming from a law abiding citizen. Common good is demonstrated by you and I...law abiding citizens with common decency for each other, family, and personal property. Again, if you can control criminal intent and actions....I guess there would be no reason. This is an imperfect world we live in. So each of us have to decide on whether to become a victim or victor. I bring a blanket to keep warm, good boots to prevent fatigue, first aid for injury, and communication for help. Why shouldn't be able to bring a gun for my lively hood? I want every option and choice to enjoy my time in a NP. I also want the choice/chance to come home alive.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 02:07PM
The last time I'll ask, "What do these murders have to do with carrying a loaded gun in one of Yosemite's campgrounds?"



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 02:38PM
Thank goodness! Was getting worried about making you understand there for a minute.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:19PM
Live24/7 your outta my loop.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:41PM
Thank you!
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 01:15PM
Quote
Live24/7
I would hope that the NPS would never use lethal force as a first means of bear or human preservation. There is a reason they carry guns though. That could even be an option of carry within the NP for law abiding citizens. Then again, with bears, you probably just pissed them off even more by shooting him with a rubber bullet. It is still a choice option.

Well - of course they don't since they come in understanding. What we're worried about are the people who come in fearful of everything that might go bump in the night. As for the rubber bullets, they're actually quite effective against black bears. Black bears tend to shy away from anything that seriously tries to injure them. Some believe it's because their brains are hardwired to avoid the more dangerous grizzlies that used to share the same areas. I remember my last encounter with a campground bear. As soon as the bear heard the (unarmed) park ranger yell, it took off. I'm thinking she's probably shot that same bear before with either rubber bullets or paintballs, and it recognized her. Here's video of a park ranger hazing a bear with rubber bullets:





Grizzly bears are another matter, but apparently the same hazing techniques work when they're simply looking for food in campgrounds. At places like Glacier NP, they do use rubber bullets and pyrotechnics to scare them off. I understand it's a matter of whether or not they feel they're seriously injured if the aggressive fight instinct kicks in. I remember seeing video of a bear getting hazed in Anchorage, Alaska. It was going after trash and some bear response team tried the aversion technique of throwing a trash can at it.

Quote
Live24/7
We have all the laws regarding removal of firearms here and there. What is always failed in this orchestra is the that criminals don't follow the laws anyways. So the laws we make for the law abiding citizen are only for the law abiding citizen and favorable to criminals. Now what should be made law is training. We know what law abiding citizens buy due to the laws in place now. What isnot a law is training. Before we arm our Police to protect us.....we train them and test them. So as a law, law abiding citizens should have training and testing prior to purchase. Its no guarantee, but its a step further in preventing collateral damage and the choice of self preservation.

The fact that carrying firearms wasn't allowed in most NPS units was supposed to be a pretty good tool against poaching. It was pretty easy to identify someone with a gun.

If anyone is really worried about bears, I'd sooner have people lobby to allow for bear pepper spray to be allowed in Yosemite rather than pack a gun.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 01:54PM
Just a few minutes ago, this crazy puppy opened fire. In Minkler, practically on the front doorstep of Sequoia/Kings Canyon.

I wonder if he ever visits the Park?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2010 01:55PM by wagga.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:44PM
Sheriff's office reports that the SO detective has passed away. Unsubstantiated report that the Reedley officer has also died.

Update: As of 5pm (PT), the Reedley officer is on life support.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2010 05:22PM by wagga.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 02:31PM
Quote
y_p_w
Well - of course they don't since they come in understanding. What we're worried about are the people who come in fearful of everything that might go bump in the night. As for the rubber bullets, they're actually quite effective against black bears. Black bears tend to shy away from anything that seriously tries to injure them. Some believe it's because their brains are hardwired to avoid the more dangerous grizzlies that used to share the same areas. I remember my last encounter with a campground bear. As soon as the bear heard the (unarmed) park ranger yell, it took off. I'm thinking she's probably shot that same bear before with either rubber bullets or paintballs, and it recognized her. Here's video of a park ranger hazing a bear with rubber bullets:





Grizzly bears are another matter, but apparently the same hazing techniques work when they're simply looking for food in campgrounds. At places like Glacier NP, they do use rubber bullets and pyrotechnics to scare them off. I understand it's a matter of whether or not they feel they're seriously injured if the aggressive fight instinct kicks in. I remember seeing video of a bear getting hazed in Anchorage, Alaska. It was going after trash and some bear response team tried the aversion technique of throwing a trash can at it.

The fact that carrying firearms wasn't allowed in most NPS units was supposed to be a pretty good tool against poaching. It was pretty easy to identify someone with a gun.

If anyone is really worried about bears, I'd sooner have people lobby to allow for bear pepper spray to be allowed in Yosemite rather than pack a gun.

I understand people coming in and reacting to bumps in the night. Those same people could be my neighbors in town. Scary thoughts. Bullets go through walls too. Criminals still don't care either way. Training is key in the process and responsibility of gun ownership. We don't do enough training prior to arming law abiding citizens. That is a downfall lawmakers have not addressed.

The rubber bullet tactics seem to be really worth it for bear deterrents. I like the vids. I like the articles I read too. I also like the fact that it could be used in an escalating manor for self preservation. What are my options if those rubber bullets by chance don't work? Could a firearm be next to escalate to? Again, still need training. I wouldn't want a rubber bullet to the forehead because my next door camper heard a bump in the night.

I like the idea of bear mace being brought up. Its another option/choice in escalating force. I couldn't understand any other reason for a firearm other than self preservation in a NF. Used for anything else would be criminal. Again, criminals are called criminals for a reason and we are not clearing them out. Bears will be there no matter what, its their home and we choose to take chances on encounters with them. Can we have the choice to what extent we have on protecting ourselves?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 02:01PM
Quote
Live24/7
I like the idea of bear mace being brought up. Its another option/choice in escalating force. I couldn't understand any other reason for a firearm other than self preservation in a NF. Used for anything else would be criminal. Again, criminals are called criminals for a reason and we are not clearing them out. Bears will be there no matter what, its their home and we choose to take chances on encounters with them. Can we have the choice to what extent we have on protecting ourselves?

Actually discharging a firearm on national forest land can be legal. They even mention shotgun shells, although I'm not sure leaving lead shot is such a good idea. Of course hunting is still legal.

http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/recreation/shooting/

I have heard of a few cases on NF land where someone supposedly carrying a gun for protection went too far. I heard about one case where things sort of escalated when someone pulled out his open carry pistol, fired warning shots near some dogs, and eventually he ended up shooting/killing an unarmed person. He's serving up to 10 years in prison now. Before that he had no criminal record. I'm left wondering if cooler heads might have prevailed if the gun wasn't involved. The irony is that this guy claimed that he didn't fire a warning shot for the guy he killed because he was instructed never to fire unless he intended to hit his target. However - it all escalated because he fired a warning shot rather than remain calm and keep the gun in its holster.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:19PM
Sigmund Freud never said that. Somebody who read and subsequently bastardized his works said it.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/dqniel/
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:33PM
A law-abiding, yet poorly trained/informed, citizen with a gun who sees a black bear foraging for food in a populated campsite could easily cause unneeded harm to bystanders or the bear. Same goes for any other situation where the law-abiding, but mistaken, citizen misuses a firearm.

It's not an illogical fear. It would be an illogical fear if the following wasn't true:

~3 deaths attributed to bear attacks per year
~800 accidental gun deaths per year

You're right that criminals don't pay attention to the laws restricting gun usage and that law-abiding citizens will, but it seems as though the chance of being the victim of violence while in a national park seems to be low enough that one shouldn't feel the need to carry a gun to protect themselves, whether it be against wildlife or other humans. It just seems that given the statistics the risk of accidental injury/death due to accidental gunfire seems to be greater than the risk of being attacked by a person or wildlife (that couldn't be prevented by methods other than wielding a gun) while within national parks.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/dqniel/
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:37PM
dgniel,
Hooray, nicely stated.

But what is the cite for the three deaths per year due to bear attack?



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:45PM
Quote
mrcondron
dgniel,
Hooray, nicely stated.

But what is the cite for the three deaths per year due to bear attack?

"According to Taylor Y. Cardall MD and Peter Rosen MD, in their article "Grizzly Bear Attack" published in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, there were 162 bear-inflicted injuries reported in the United States between 1900 and 1985"

So injuries actually, not even deaths.






And yes, firearms were designed to KILL PEOPLE. Stop arguing semantics- it doesn't help your point. It's like saying clothes weren't invented to protect us from the environment but rather to form a layer of lowered thermal dissipation between carbon chains and a nitrogen-based atmosphere. It just makes you sound petty when rather than coming up with a good reason why they should be allowed rather than just nitpicking the tertiary facts in other peoples' good arguments.



http://www.flickr.com/photos/dqniel/



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/25/2010 03:48PM by dqniel.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 03:52PM
Ah. But I would like to bound this discussion to Yosemite as I don't think there has been even one fatality caused by a black bear. I could be wrong but I have no recollection of that happening in my lifetime which by the way has given me the the moniker of Old Dude.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 05:51PM
First and foremost... i have no intent to argue with anyone on what is right or wrong. The law is already in place as of Monday so the actual "argument" has been settled. In favor of gun toting law abiding citizens. Just discussion is all I seek.

I do respect those who wish not to carry a firearm in a NP. By all means it is yours and yours alone to make the decision. And now your fellow law abiding citizens have the choice to self preservation via a gun in a NP. Just as they do living next door to you. God Bless America!

Let us all remember to respect others and your surroundings when out this camping season.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 06:20PM
It would be an interesting protest to exercise this privilege to the maximum and have everyone show up with a gun. I think the absurdity of this would become obvious.

What is not mentioned, is the cost associated with this nonsense. I suspect that to indulge this NRA agenda, it has cost millions in new policies, signs, training of enforcement rangers, etc. Too bad that couldn't have been used on trail maintenance.



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 06:34PM
I'm betting the CA legislature now with something to do that doesn't require much thinking will pass something like Maine that will prohibit guns in churches, hospitals, schools, and national parks.



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 07:01PM
Quote
mrcondron
I'm betting the CA legislature now with something to do that doesn't require much thinking will pass something like Maine that will prohibit guns in churches, hospitals, schools, and national parks.

It is truly amazing where guns can be carried openly legally.

If discharging a firearm in the parks is a felony (I don't know if it is or not), then a loaded firearm (concealed or not) would constitute "intent to commit a felony", right?



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 07:28PM
You can discharge a firearm if you feel you life, or the life of another is in mortal danger. There is a huge element of shoot first ask questions after. A big legal question is what causes you to fear for you life. If you feel a bear passing through in your Upper Pines campground is a mortal threat to you, your family, or another camper, you can pull your weapon and shoot the bear. More than likely spraying the campground with misdirected lethal projectiles from you harmless tool. A normal citizen, i.e. J. Q. Public, is not expected to have the knowledge that the bear is harmless and therefore can blast away. There is no onus on JQP to acquire this knowledge. (a ranger is expected to have this knowledge and therefore cannot blast away at the bear but he can yell at it)



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 07:44PM
Quote
mrcondron
You can discharge a firearm if you feel you life, or the life of another is in mortal danger.

I don't believe this is in the federal regulations as a permissible action in parks (not including Alaska).

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2004/julqtr/pdf/36cfr2.4.pdf



The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 02:16AM
California law allows it. It's in the stuff about escalating the level of force.



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 09:35PM
Then everyone with a loaded gun is guilty of intent to commit murder. I think not.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 09:42PM
According to Wikipedia
Personal possession (i.e. carry) of a loaded firearm is prohibited in incorporated areas (such as inside city limits) or prohibited areas of unincorporated territory without a license to carry or other exemption provided for by law.[15] A license to carry "loaded and exposed" may be issued by a Police Chief or County Sheriff in a county with population of less than 200,000 persons at the last census.[16] No license or permit is required to openly carry a loaded firearm in unincorporated areas where discharge is not prohibited by local ordinance.

Despite these restrictions, there is no section of the California penal code that specifically prohibits open carry of an unloaded handgun (though possession may be restricted or prohibited in certain areas such as a State Park (CCR Title 14, Div.3, chap. 1, s 4313 (a), in a school zone (PC626.9) or federal properties like a Post Office or National Park (36 C.F.R. 2.4(a)).

Carrying a loaded magazine separate from the handgun is also not prohibited under the penal code (Subdivision (g) of California Penal Code 12031 defines what constitutes a loaded weapon).

In the case of People v. Clark (1996) a shotgun shell attached to the shotgun, although not chambered or placed in a position where it was able to be fired, was declared to be legal under California law and the charge of having a loaded firearm against Clark was dismissed.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 09:47PM
Quote
traildad
(Subdivision (g) of California Penal Code 12031 defines what constitutes a loaded weapon).

So let's see what it says (for the record):

(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 09:49PM
CPC 12031:

12031. (a) (1) A person is guilty of carrying a loaded firearm when
he or she carries a loaded firearm on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or in any public place or on any public street in a
prohibited area of unincorporated territory.
(2) Carrying a loaded firearm in violation of this section is
punishable, as follows:
(A) Where the person previously has been convicted of any felony,
or of any crime made punishable by this chapter, as a felony.
(B) Where the firearm is stolen and the person knew or had
reasonable cause to believe that it was stolen, as a felony.
(C) Where the person is an active participant in a criminal street
gang, as defined in subdivision (a) of Section 186.22, under the
Street Terrorism Enforcement and Prevention Act (Chapter 11
(commencing with Section 186.20) of Title 7 of Part 1), as a felony.
(D) Where the person is not in lawful possession of the firearm,
as defined in this section, or is within a class of persons
prohibited from possessing or acquiring a firearm pursuant to Section
12021 or 12021.1 of this code or Section 8100 or 8103 of the Welfare
and Institutions Code, as a felony.
(E) Where the person has been convicted of a crime against a
person or property, or of a narcotics or dangerous drug violation, by
imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county
jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
(F) Where the person is not listed with the Department of Justice
pursuant to Section 11106, as the registered owner of the handgun, by
imprisonment in the state prison, or by imprisonment in a county
jail not to exceed one year, or by a fine not to exceed one thousand
dollars ($1,000), or both that fine and imprisonment.
(G) In all cases other than those specified in subparagraphs (A)
to (F), inclusive, as a misdemeanor, punishable by imprisonment in a
county jail not to exceed one year, by a fine not to exceed one
thousand dollars ($1,000), or by both that imprisonment and fine.
(3) For purposes of this section, "lawful possession of the
firearm" means that the person who has possession or custody of the
firearm either lawfully acquired and lawfully owns the firearm or has
the permission of the lawful owner or person who otherwise has
apparent authority to possess or have custody of the firearm. A
person who takes a firearm without the permission of the lawful owner
or without the permission of a person who has lawful custody of the
firearm does not have lawful possession of the firearm.
(4) Nothing in this section shall preclude prosecution under
Sections 12021 and 12021.1 of this code, Section 8100 or 8103 of the
Welfare and Institutions Code, or any other law with a greater
penalty than this section.
(5) (A) Notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (3) of subdivision (a)
of Section 836, a peace officer may make an arrest without a warrant:
(i) When the person arrested has violated this section, although
not in the officer's presence.
(ii) Whenever the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the
person to be arrested has violated this section, whether or not this
section has, in fact, been violated.
(B) A peace officer may arrest a person for a violation of
subparagraph (F) of paragraph (2), if the peace officer has probable
cause to believe that the person is carrying a loaded handgun in
violation of this section and that person is not listed with the
Department of Justice pursuant to paragraph (1) of subdivision (c) of
Section 11106 as the registered owner of that handgun.
(6) (A) Every person convicted under this section who has
previously been convicted of an offense enumerated in Section
12001.6, or of any crime made punishable under this chapter, shall
serve a term of at least three months in a county jail, or, if
granted probation or if the execution or imposition of sentence is
suspended, it shall be a condition thereof that he or she be
imprisoned for a period of at least three months.
(B) The court shall apply the three-month minimum sentence except
in unusual cases where the interests of justice would best be served
by granting probation or suspending the imposition or execution of
sentence without the minimum imprisonment required in this
subdivision or by granting probation or suspending the imposition or
execution of sentence with conditions other than those set forth in
this subdivision, in which case, the court shall specify on the
record and shall enter on the minutes the circumstances indicating
that the interests of justice would best be served by that
disposition.
(7) A violation of this section which is punished by imprisonment
in a county jail not exceeding one year shall not constitute a
conviction of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding
one year for the purposes of determining federal firearms
eligibility under Section 922(g)(1) of Title 18 of the United States
Code.
(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following:
(1) Peace officers listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, or
subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, whether active or honorably
retired, other duly appointed peace officers, honorably retired peace
officers listed in subdivision (c) of Section 830.5, other honorably
retired peace officers who during the course and scope of their
employment as peace officers were authorized to, and did, carry
firearms, full-time paid peace officers of other states and the
federal government who are carrying out official duties while in
California, or any person summoned by any of those officers to assist
in making arrests or preserving the peace while the person is
actually engaged in assisting that officer. Any peace officer
described in this paragraph who has been honorably retired shall be
issued an identification certificate by the law enforcement agency
from which the officer has retired. The issuing agency may charge a
fee necessary to cover any reasonable expenses incurred by the agency
in issuing certificates pursuant to this paragraph and paragraph
(3).
Any officer, except an officer listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2,
subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, or subdivision (c) of Section
830.5 who retired prior to January 1, 1981, shall have an endorsement
on the identification certificate stating that the issuing agency
approves the officer's carrying of a loaded firearm.
No endorsement or renewal endorsement issued pursuant to paragraph
(2) shall be effective unless it is in the format set forth in
subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section
12027, except that any peace officer listed in subdivision (f) of
Section 830.2 or in subdivision (c) of Section 830.5, who is retired
between January 2, 1981, and on or before December 31, 1988, and who
is authorized to carry a loaded firearm pursuant to this section,
shall not be required to have an endorsement in the format set forth
in subparagraph (D) of paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section
12027 until the time of the issuance, on or after January 1, 1989, of
a renewal endorsement pursuant to paragraph (2).
(2) A retired peace officer, except an officer listed in Section
830.1 or 830.2, subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, or subdivision (c)
of Section 830.5 who retired prior to January 1, 1981, shall
petition the issuing agency for renewal of his or her privilege to
carry a loaded firearm every five years. An honorably retired peace
officer listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2, subdivision (a) of Section
830.33, or subdivision (c) of Section 830.5 who retired prior to
January 1, 1981, shall not be required to obtain an endorsement from
the issuing agency to carry a loaded firearm. The agency from which a
peace officer is honorably retired may, upon initial retirement of
the peace officer, or at any time subsequent thereto, deny or revoke
for good cause the retired officer's privilege to carry a loaded
firearm. A peace officer who is listed in Section 830.1 or 830.2,
subdivision (a) of Section 830.33, or subdivision (c) of Section
830.5 who is retired prior to January 1, 1981, shall have his or her
privilege to carry a loaded firearm denied or revoked by having the
agency from which the officer retired stamp on the officer's
identification certificate "No CCW privilege."
(3) An honorably retired peace officer who is listed in
subdivision (c) of Section 830.5 and authorized to carry loaded
firearms by this subdivision shall meet the training requirements of
Section 832 and shall qualify with the firearm at least annually. The
individual retired peace officer shall be responsible for
maintaining his or her eligibility to carry a loaded firearm. The
Department of Justice shall provide subsequent arrest notification
pursuant to Section 11105.2 regarding honorably retired peace
officers listed in subdivision (c) of Section 830.5 to the agency
from which the officer has retired.
(4) Members of the military forces of this state or of the United
States engaged in the performance of their duties.
(5) Persons who are using target ranges for the purpose of
practice shooting with a firearm or who are members of shooting clubs
while hunting on the premises of those clubs.
(6) The carrying of handguns by persons as authorized pursuant to
Article 3 (commencing with Section 12050) of Chapter 1 of Title 2 of
Part 4.
(7) Armored vehicle guards, as defined in Section 7521 of the
Business and Professions Code, (A) if hired prior to January 1, 1977,
or (B) if hired on or after that date, if they have received a
firearms qualification card from the Department of Consumer Affairs,
in each case while acting within the course and scope of their
employment.
(8) Upon approval of the sheriff of the county in which they
reside, honorably retired federal officers or agents of federal law
enforcement agencies, including, but not limited to, the Federal
Bureau of Investigation, the Secret Service, the United States
Customs Service, the Federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and
Firearms, the Federal Bureau of Narcotics, the Drug Enforcement
Administration, the United States Border Patrol, and officers or
agents of the Internal Revenue Service who were authorized to carry
weapons while on duty, who were assigned to duty within the state for
a period of not less than one year, or who retired from active
service in the state.
Retired federal officers or agents shall provide the sheriff with
certification from the agency from which they retired certifying
their service in the state, the nature of their retirement, and
indicating the agency's concurrence that the retired federal officer
or agent should be accorded the privilege of carrying a loaded
firearm.
Upon approval, the sheriff shall issue a permit to the retired
federal officer or agent indicating that he or she may carry a loaded
firearm in accordance with this paragraph. The permit shall be valid
for a period not exceeding five years, shall be carried by the
retiree while carrying a loaded firearm, and may be revoked for good
cause.
The sheriff of the county in which the retired federal officer or
agent resides may require recertification prior to a permit renewal,
and may suspend the privilege for cause. The sheriff may charge a fee
necessary to cover any reasonable expenses incurred by the county.
(c) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following who
have completed a regular course in firearms training approved by the
Commission on Peace Officer Standards and Training:
(1) Patrol special police officers appointed by the police
commission of any city, county, or city and county under the express
terms of its charter who also, under the express terms of the
charter, (A) are subject to suspension or dismissal after a hearing
on charges duly filed with the commission after a fair and impartial
trial, (B) are not less than 18 years of age or more than 40 years of
age, (C) possess physical qualifications prescribed by the
commission, and (D) are designated by the police commission as the
owners of a certain beat or territory as may be fixed from time to
time by the police commission.
(2) The carrying of weapons by animal control officers or
zookeepers, regularly compensated as such by a governmental agency
when acting in the course and scope of their employment and when
designated by a local ordinance or, if the governmental agency is not
authorized to act by ordinance, by a resolution, either individually
or by class, to carry the weapons, or by persons who are authorized
to carry the weapons pursuant to Section 14502 of the Corporations
Code, while actually engaged in the performance of their duties
pursuant to that section.
(3) Harbor police officers designated pursuant to Section 663.5 of
the Harbors and Navigation Code.
(d) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to any of the following who
have been issued a certificate pursuant to Section 12033. The
certificate shall not be required of any person who is a peace
officer, who has completed all training required by law for the
exercise of his or her power as a peace officer, and who is employed
while not on duty as a peace officer.
(1) Guards or messengers of common carriers, banks, and other
financial institutions while actually employed in and about the
shipment, transportation, or delivery of any money, treasure,
bullion, bonds, or other thing of value within this state.
(2) Guards of contract carriers operating armored vehicles
pursuant to California Highway Patrol and Public Utilities Commission
authority (A) if hired prior to January 1, 1977, or (B) if hired on
or after January 1, 1977, if they have completed a course in the
carrying and use of firearms which meets the standards prescribed by
the Department of Consumer Affairs.
(3) Private investigators and private patrol operators who are
licensed pursuant to Chapter 11.5 (commencing with Section 7512) of,
and alarm company operators who are licensed pursuant to Chapter 11.6
(commencing with Section 7590) of, Division 3 of the Business and
Professions Code, while acting within the course and scope of their
employment.
(4) Uniformed security guards or night watch persons employed by
any public agency, while acting within the scope and course of their
employment.
(5) Uniformed security guards, regularly employed and compensated
in that capacity by persons engaged in any lawful business, and
uniformed alarm agents employed by an alarm company operator, while
actually engaged in protecting and preserving the property of their
employers or on duty or en route to or from their residences or their
places of employment, and security guards and alarm agents en route
to or from their residences or employer-required range training.
Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed to prohibit cities and
counties from enacting ordinances requiring alarm agents to register
their names.
(6) Uniformed employees of private patrol operators and private
investigators licensed pursuant to Chapter 11.5 (commencing with
Section 7512) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code,
while acting within the course and scope of their employment.
(e) In order to determine whether or not a firearm is loaded for
the purpose of enforcing this section, peace officers are authorized
to examine any firearm carried by anyone on his or her person or in a
vehicle while in any public place or on any public street in an
incorporated city or prohibited area of an unincorporated territory.
Refusal to allow a peace officer to inspect a firearm pursuant to
this section constitutes probable cause for arrest for violation of
this section.
(f) As used in this section, "prohibited area" means any place
where it is unlawful to discharge a weapon.
(g) A firearm shall be deemed to be loaded for the purposes of
this section when there is an unexpended cartridge or shell,
consisting of a case that holds a charge of powder and a bullet or
shot, in, or attached in any manner to, the firearm, including, but
not limited to, in the firing chamber, magazine, or clip thereof
attached to the firearm; except that a muzzle-loader firearm shall be
deemed to be loaded when it is capped or primed and has a powder
charge and ball or shot in the barrel or cylinder.
(h) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person engaged in
any lawful business, including a nonprofit organization, or any
officer, employee, or agent authorized by that person for lawful
purposes connected with that business, from having a loaded firearm
within the person's place of business, or any person in lawful
possession of private property from having a loaded firearm on that
property.
(i) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from carrying
a loaded firearm in an area within an incorporated city while
engaged in hunting, provided that the hunting at that place and time
is not prohibited by the city council.
(j) (1) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the
carrying of any loaded firearm, under circumstances where it would
otherwise be lawful, by a person who reasonably believes that the
person or property of himself or herself or of another is in
immediate, grave danger and that the carrying of the weapon is
necessary for the preservation of that person or property. As used in
this subdivision, "immediate" means the brief interval before and
after the local law enforcement agency, when reasonably possible, has
been notified of the danger and before the arrival of its
assistance.
(2) A violation of this section is justifiable when a person who
possesses a firearm reasonably believes that he or she is in grave
danger because of circumstances forming the basis of a current
restraining order issued by a court against another person or persons
who has or have been found to pose a threat to his or her life or
safety. This paragraph may not apply when the circumstances involve a
mutual restraining order issued pursuant to Division 10 (commencing
with Section 6200) of the Family Code absent a factual finding of a
specific threat to the person's life or safety. It is not the intent
of the Legislature to limit, restrict, or narrow the application of
current statutory or judicial authority to apply this or other
justifications to defendants charged with violating Section 12025 or
of committing other similar offenses.
Upon trial for violating this section, the trier of fact shall
determine whether the defendant was acting out of a reasonable belief
that he or she was in grave danger.
(k) Nothing in this section is intended to preclude the carrying
of a loaded firearm by any person while engaged in the act of making
or attempting to make a lawful arrest.
(l) Nothing in this section shall prevent any person from having a
loaded weapon, if it is otherwise lawful, at his or her place of
residence, including any temporary residence or campsite.
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 04:30PM
Quote
dqniel
A law-abiding, yet poorly trained/informed, citizen with a gun who sees a black bear foraging for food in a populated campsite could easily cause unneeded harm to bystanders or the bear. Same goes for any other situation where the law-abiding, but mistaken, citizen misuses a firearm.

It's not an illogical fear. It would be an illogical fear if the following wasn't true:

~3 deaths attributed to bear attacks per year
~800 accidental gun deaths per year

You're right that criminals don't pay attention to the laws restricting gun usage and that law-abiding citizens will, but it seems as though the chance of being the victim of violence while in a national park seems to be low enough that one shouldn't feel the need to carry a gun to protect themselves, whether it be against wildlife or other humans. It just seems that given the statistics the risk of accidental injury/death due to accidental gunfire seems to be greater than the risk of being attacked by a person or wildlife (that couldn't be prevented by methods other than wielding a gun) while within national parks.

Psychologically speaking you are correct. In fact a law-abiding, yet poorly trained/informed, citizen with a gun can sit and watch as a black bear mauls your next of kin. Put in any context there are negatives and positives.

-Wouldn't a 0 death count be good? Wouldn't we want to strive for zero? Even a single life is worth saving...or is 3 acceptable?
-800 accidental gun deaths per year - Car accidents, motorcycle accidents?...etc etc. The car or gun is not the accident...it's the human using/owning

" but it seems as though the chance of being the victim of violence while in a national park seems to be low enough that one shouldn't feel the need to carry a gun to protect themselves, whether it be against wildlife or other humans." That's an opinion you would have to make only for yourself. If you can guarantee all those who come to a NP complete and absolute protection from animals and criminals you might be on the right path. Statistics are only that until you become one. Then its shoulda, coulda, woulda, if you live through it.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:51PM
Quote
Live24/7
Quote
dqniel
A law-abiding, yet poorly trained/informed, citizen with a gun who sees a black bear foraging for food in a populated campsite could easily cause unneeded harm to bystanders or the bear. Same goes for any other situation where the law-abiding, but mistaken, citizen misuses a firearm.

It's not an illogical fear. It would be an illogical fear if the following wasn't true:

~3 deaths attributed to bear attacks per year
~800 accidental gun deaths per year

You're right that criminals don't pay attention to the laws restricting gun usage and that law-abiding citizens will, but it seems as though the chance of being the victim of violence while in a national park seems to be low enough that one shouldn't feel the need to carry a gun to protect themselves, whether it be against wildlife or other humans. It just seems that given the statistics the risk of accidental injury/death due to accidental gunfire seems to be greater than the risk of being attacked by a person or wildlife (that couldn't be prevented by methods other than wielding a gun) while within national parks.

Psychologically speaking you are correct. In fact a law-abiding, yet poorly trained/informed, citizen with a gun can sit and watch as a black bear mauls your next of kin. Put in any context there are negatives and positives.

-Wouldn't a 0 death count be good? Wouldn't we want to strive for zero? Even a single life is worth saving...or is 3 acceptable?
-800 accidental gun deaths per year - Car accidents, motorcycle accidents?...etc etc. The car or gun is not the accident...it's the human using/owning

" but it seems as though the chance of being the victim of violence while in a national park seems to be low enough that one shouldn't feel the need to carry a gun to protect themselves, whether it be against wildlife or other humans." That's an opinion you would have to make only for yourself. If you can guarantee all those who come to a NP complete and absolute protection from animals and criminals you might be on the right path. Statistics are only that until you become one. Then its shoulda, coulda, woulda, if you live through it.

But you're setting up an argument that this is something one really has to be worried about. I have never heard of any serious mauling from a black bear in Yosemite. The only case I've heard of in recent memory was someone who startled a bear, it quickly clawed at him (with minor injuries), and where the bear ran away. What I don't get is any supposedly rational argument that one would need a handgun to defend people against black bears in Yosemite. Bears frankly have more to fear from humans. National parks with large bear populations typically have bears dying from collisions with vehicles.

If you take a look a the only fatal bear attacks (both black bears BTW) recorded in 2009, they were for doing rather stupid things. The first was from someone who (in violation of state law) was feeding bears from a specially designed cage in her house. The second was someone who raised hers as a pet with an exotic animal permit.

The most dangerous wild animals in North America deer. Of course I realize that there are exceptionally rare cases of fatal predatory attacks by bears. I have never heard of that happening in California and it's so rare that I'd say one simply takes it as one of those freak things that can happen.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 08:57PM
Quote
y_p_w
Bears frankly have more to fear from humans. National parks with large bear populations typically have bears dying from collisions with vehicles.

Twenty five bears were hit by cars in Yosemite during 2009.
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 05:23PM
Must view video for both sides. (from Whitney Portal website)

http://www.backpacker.com/guns_in_national_parks/blogs/daily_dirt/1678



Old Dude
Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 06:18PM
That was funny....LOL!
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 25, 2010 06:50PM
I mentioned to my 89 year old mother the new situation with the gun de-banning and all. She has been going to Yosemite since 1936 when she was my father's girlfriend. Her jaw dropped in a WTF manner.



Old Dude
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 04:17PM
Mike,
How is your invited conference paper on psychoneurotic behavior coming along?
avatar Re: Packing Heat
February 26, 2010 06:37PM
Whoda thought?



Old Dude
Sorry, you can't reply to this topic. It has been closed.