Re: Packing Heat

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.

Quote
chiefcrash
short of mountain lion or sketchy guy trying to rape them

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote
traildad
I believe that in your campsite you could keep it handy

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".

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?

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.

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.

Quote
Vince
You will never notice the difference in Yosemite nor any other NP.

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.

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.

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

Quote

I'm a gun owner too. .

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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?

Quote

Should we pass laws to restrict the action of all drivers because of this and other similar actions?

Quote

I'm a gun owner of over 20 years, none of my guns have ever injured a single person.

Quote
Warpath101
Wrong.

Quote

A firearm is a tool, used to accomplish a task

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.

Quote
Warpath101
So I injure and kill paper every time I go to the range?

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?

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

Quote
Frank Furter
This argument would be classified as feigned pedantry as a diversion from the central argument:

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!

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.

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

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?

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.

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.

Quote
chiefcrash


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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Quote
Warpath101
A firearm isnt either.

Quote

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

Quote
Warpath101
Yosemite's own rangers carry pistols and are subject to the same fallibilities that we common laymen are.

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.

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

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.

Quote
FoT
The 2nd is OUR right.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Quote
chiefcrash
Care to debate on the fact that every able-bodied male aged 17-45 is in the militia by act of congress?

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.

Quote
chiefcrash
when confronted with the fact that the "militia" is about half the population, that's just a silly gun nut thing?

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.

Quote
chiefcrash
I guess an that means an act of congress is "chick-on droppings".

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.

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.

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.

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...

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?

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?

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?

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

We are arguing about gun carrying in national parks.

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.

Quote

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

Quote

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

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.

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.

Quote

your funny Frank.

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

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.

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)

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.

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.

Quote
DennisW
your funny Frank.

Quote

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

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.

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.

Quote
mrcondron
So the federal employees don't get shot?

Quote
FoT
It was one of the concerns about people carrying.

Quote
eeek
You're better off staying home where your mother can change your diaper when you get scared.

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.

Quote
mrcondron
I have a question.

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

Quote
mrcondron
You are absolutely correct. But to say that a firearm is not a weapon is a bit silly.

Quote
mrcondron
I have a question.

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

Quote
mrcondron
Duly appointed officers of the law. It's not complicated.

Quote
mrcondron
I have a question.

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

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?

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.

Quote
FoT
Can't have a discussion without resorting to name calling?

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?

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?"

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.

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.

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.

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?

Quote
mrcondron
dgniel,
Hooray, nicely stated.

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

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.

Quote
mrcondron
You can discharge a firearm if you feel you life, or the life of another is in mortal danger.

Quote
traildad
(Subdivision (g) of California Penal Code 12031 defines what constitutes a loaded weapon).

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.

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.

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.