Thread: Guns in National Parks

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

So...where is the discussion of the fact that this was tacked onto a COMPLETELY 100% UNRELATED bill on credit card rules?

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.

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 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

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 igitur55

There's that fear again. My wife hikes all the time in the National Parks, and is nowhere near as scared as you.

it's not about fear, it's about preparedness. see previous comments about owning fire extinguishers.

Originally Posted by igitur55

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?

I feel compelled to point out that your entire objection to the right to carry in a national park is based primarily on fear. Do you really fear your armed neighbors? Between one in four and one in three of your neighbors or coworkers have a gun in their home legaly. Do you feel less secure because the guy across the street might decide to use his gun to take your bling? He could, yet you're still able to sleep at night because you know the guy and he's not a psycho or a criminal. Why will he be more of a threat to your safety once he crosses into a national park?

Guns are pretty damned common here in my county. I'd say about 75% of the households have at least one gun. Is Pacific County WA a notably violent place? It's quite rural and has some national park land. We have a couple of meth-heads but they mostly stick to cutting the locks off of people's tool sheds (you're not likely to get shot over that). Are the people who own or carry firearms legaly a particularly violent demographic? I would say not, and I'd like you to find a credible statistic that shows otherwise.

It seems that you have a rather irrational fear of people who carry weapons legaly. I know quite a few of them, and I have found them to be pretty rational and even tempered people. You probably know some as well. Ask them if they plan on going on a crime spree in a national park now that they are "allowed to" by this new law.

Just because the crime rate is lower in national parks than in the city doesn't mean you should have the right to disarm me. I live in a brick house instead of a wood house, should I throw away my fire extinguisher? Should you mandate that I not have one because you perceive my risk as lower?

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.