Thread: Guns in National Parks

Originally Posted by igitur55

Our busy legislators don't have time to actually discuss something as uncontroversial as guns--just slip into a bill that is sailing to approval, and nobody will notice. Seriously, this was a disgusting maneuver, and further shows the cowardice / venality / deviousness (as applicable; more than one may apply) of our representatives in Congress.

To be fair, our honorable representatives on BOTH sides of the isle do this quite often, in all sorts of unrelated bills. Just wanted to be clear that I didn't mean to bring up party issues here. It's the practice I have a problem with.

I'm saddened by how afraid you all are of a percieved threat.

I wonder how many otherwise appeaseable situations will turn nasty if guns are allowed in national parks?

I did a quick check and in 2006 some 272 million vistors to national parks, 11 deaths investigated. looks to me like 4 of those could not have been prevented (DUI, a few accidents and a suicide) and 1 of them (a stubbing during a drunken brawl) might have turned out worse. 1 also was investigated with in the national park system because that's where the skull was found, but it could have happened any where. So 5?

There were also 320 assaults without weapons, 1,950 weapons offenses, 843 public intoxication cases, and 5,752 liquor law violations - I imagine some of those could have ended in a long night for every one.

I'm simply presenting an alternate view point, I don't nessercerily believe it's a bad thing, I just, once again, note the level of fear.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

To be fair, our honorable representatives on BOTH sides of the isle do this quite often, in all sorts of unrelated bills. Just wanted to be clear that I didn't mean to bring up party issues here. It's the practice I have a problem with.

Nothing party political at all about my post. Lawmakers of both parties voted in droves for the Bill.

Originally Posted by gregs656

I'm simply presenting an alternate view point, I don't nessercerily believe it's a bad thing, I just, once again, note the level of fear.

Very good points.

In these discussions--which I don't get to have with anyone else outside of SRP btw, so I do appreciate the exposure--I also notice the almost unchallenged belief that if you can't take your gun(s) (= all of them?) somewhere, then your rights are being infringed. Fascinating.

Originally Posted by igitur55

Nothing party political at all about my post. Lawmakers of both parties voted in droves for the Bill.

I meant it as a clarification of MY position only, I didn't mean to imply anything at all about your post. My apologies if it seemed otherwise.

Originally Posted by igitur55

also notice the almost unchallenged belief that if you can't take your gun(s) (= all of them?) somewhere, then your rights are being infringed. Fascinating.

lets say your teen daughter is going hiking in a national park


would you like to prevent her from arming herself?

really?

I'm sure you think Ranger Rick will be there to hold her hand?


no daughter ?

how about your wife?

mother?

all this assumes that these people are capable of defending themselves with firearms

bear spray instead?

remember when the national park service outlawed bear spray?

OH BUT GW
YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO CARRY BEAR SPRAY !!!!!

so says YOU

the NPS said NO
oh I'm sorry, did I point out the folly in your argument?

I say you should be able to carry a gun

Hobbes says you should be able to do anything required to defend yourself

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

Hobbes says you should be able to do anything required to defend yourself

Getting out of a state of nature into a state of society

(¶19) Having seen where Hobbes is going, let us look at how he gets there. In nature, according to Hobbes, everyone has roughly equal power. The weakest can kill the strongest by "secret machinations". Everyone is equally vulnerable. However strong you are it does not stop someone creeping up behind you and stabbing you in the back (Hobbes 1651 , 13.1). So people have a common interest to escape their vulnerability. Hobbes says that there are "laws of nature" discovered by "reason". The first of these is that, because the state of war is so awful, people should seek peace. But how do people get from the state of nature and war to civil society and peace? Especially seeing that the second law of nature is that we should defend ourselves by all the means we can (Hobbes 1651 14.5 Margin: The second Law of Nature).

Hobbes states that life outside of society is cold, brutish, and short.

Let us also not forget that Hobbes is also making these statements from the vantage point of being in a state of War or Nature. In society, civilized society there is no state of war or nature. It is warm, friendly, and long.

If the position is that every time you leave your house/property you are at war, well I really do not know how to respond to that.

Society is a means of survival via rules and regulations meant to benefit the many without hindering the few or hindering the few in as inconvenient a way as possible.

Admittedly when you go into a national park with out law enforcement, you take away some of the security of the society. However there are still rules and regs that must be followed to prevent anarchy and chaos that are a part of that NP. If you are looking for someone to cite on Rules and Regs that benefit society look to Rawls. I understand that I must protect myself, but not to the degree that I think that everyone is out to get me, or that by sacrificing my weapon at the gate that it makes me meat for the animals. A gun is not an equalizer in a fight, it is a tool and for some it is an abused tool and a crutch.

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

lets say your teen daughter is going hiking in a national park would you like to prevent her from arming herself?
how about your wife? Hobbes says you should be able to do anything required to defend yourself

There's that fear again. My wife hikes all the time in the National Parks, and is nowhere near as scared as you. Do you spend much time in the NPs? My heart goes out to you if you or yours have suffered personal harm in the parks. If that is not the case, check out the earlier poster who wrote on the comparative safety of the parks, and how bringing in guns threatens to destabilize that. I would really like to take the emotion (fear/anger) out this debate. Can we do it?

Originally Posted by gratewhitehuntr

would you like to prevent her from arming herself?

I would hope that she would not feel the need. I would suggest that if she was not happy to go any where unarmed, then she probably shouldn't be going there. I would also remind her that accidents do happen, and I would hate her to be one of the 120 or so people who shoot and kill them selves unintentionally each year in the 10-19 age category, or indeed shoot some one else accidentally due to a bordering on unfounded perceived fear perpetuated by the media.

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

I meant it as a clarification of MY position only, I didn't mean to imply anything at all about your post. My apologies if it seemed otherwise.

No problem! I appreciated your attempt to bring debate around to the political process itself ... doesn't seem to have worked, unfortunately.