Guns in National Parks

[freethefly 6]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I'm waiting for guns in Church...Headlines reading "a disgruntled worshipper shot...."

In the big church here in Jacksonville, a lot of the deacons are carrying during the service.

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

King of the Hill; Monsignor Martinez, "Vaya Con Diaz!!"

"...And once you're gone, you can't come back
When you're out of the blue and into the black."
Neil Young

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Undecided. I would feel more inclined to carry a gun in a big city than in a national park (and feel less remorse for having to use it). That said, mostly I have been in areas with just black bears and a few cougars (never saw a cougar in the wild), and I have only been in grizzly country a couple of times (never saw one) therefore my lack of desire to carry one may be skewed by my relatively mild backpacking experiences.

I would be concerned that many hunters would poach under the guise that "it tried to attack me". Maybe I would be OK with someone carrying a shotgun with an extremely short barrel and slugs, or a .44 magnum so as to ensure that people only shot at things that were dangerously close.

One thing I have heard and maybe you can confirm. I read somewhere that most people survive grizzly maulings (with considerable injury) and that shooting it just enrages it thus worsenning your predicament and increasing the severity of the attack. Has anyone else heard this?

Anyway I am curious to see where this debate goes.

If an animal is shot is self defense nobody has the right nor is allowed to keep the animal period.

If an animal in season and you kill it without a valid tag etc., you just broke the law.

The law that was imposed never stopped poachers, it only stop the law abiding public.

[billvon 2,991]

>The law that was imposed never stopped poachers, it only stop the
>law abiding public.

And the laws against rape never stopped rapists; it only stops law abiding citizens. But I think it's still a good idea to have a law against it.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Quote

So are they trying to allow hunting also or is this a personal protection thing?

Hunting is a seperate issue I believe. Many Parks allow hunting during the hunting season, and issue permits for that. Some even prohibit everyone else except the hunters during that time, for safety. But outside of hunting season, firearms are prohibited.

I once spent a week camping in the KOFA wildlife preserve, near Yuma, Arizona. Unarmed, to comply with the law. After coming back to civilization, I read news stories of campers being murdered by illegal immigrants coming across the desert, for their food and transportation. Lovely...

I think the Park Service would rather see honest campers murdered, then to see dangerous criminals shot in self defense.

Exactly so

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

>The law that was imposed never stopped poachers, it only stop the
>law abiding public.

And the laws against rape never stopped rapists; it only stops law abiding citizens. But I think it's still a good idea to have a law against it.

Bill that is not a very strong argument, you are equating gun owners to rapists.

That wasn't very nice.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

>The law that was imposed never stopped poachers, it only
>stop the law abiding public.

And the laws against rape never stopped rapists; it only stops law abiding citizens. But I think it's still a good idea to have a law against it.

Allowing people to have guns in national parks does not invalidate laws forbidding poaching. The two are not synonymous. Just possessing a gun does not make you a poacher.

A better analogy would be like trying to stop rape by banning penises. And I don't think you want to advocate for that. The mere possession of a penis does not make you a rapist.

[billvon 2,991]

>Bill that is not a very strong argument, you are equating gun owners to rapists.

Uh, no, I'm equating rapists to poachers. Law abiding gun owners don't poach; law abiding citizens don't rape.

If that offends you, try these on:

The laws against robbery never stopped theives; it only stops law abiding citizens. But I think it's still a good idea to have a law against theft.

The laws against terrorism never stopped terrorists; it only stops law abiding citizens. But I think it's still a good idea to have laws against it.

[rickjump1 0]

Ideally, spray the bears and shoot the people, If a bear is shot in a life-threatening situation, pay some kind of conservation fee that is dedicated to the preservation of bears. The dead bear does not go home with the shooter. As for dead people, don't stuff or mount, that might be against the law.

Do your part for global warming: ban beans and hold all popcorn farts.

[warpedskydiver 0]

Quote

Ideally, spray the bears and shoot the people, If a bear is shot in a life-threatening situation, pay some kind of conservation fee that is dedicated to the preservation of bears. The dead bear does not go home with the shooter. As for dead people, don't stuff or mount, that might be against the law.

Excellent idea

[warpedskydiver 0]

No Bill, the law was passed to stop anyone from possessing a firearm in a National Park.

There were already laws against poaching.

Therefore the law was passed to stop law abiding cititzens from carrying a gun in said parks.

The penis analogy was a good one.

You can lead by example if you feel so strongly about it.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

A better analogy would be like trying to stop rape by banning penises. And I don't think you want to advocate for that. The mere possession of a penis does not make you a rapist.

JR - some women's groups would disagree with you and would think this is a good idea

BV - your analogies are all pretty bad - JR's is funny and much more applicable. I can't believe you are for banning penises.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[christelsabine 1]

Quote

.... - JR's is funny and much more applicable. ......

What? where? Did I miss something during last weeks?

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

.... - JR's is funny and much more applicable. ......

What? where? Did I miss something during last weeks?

I don't know if he meant to be funny, but certainly wry. I don't think BV was really trying, those were terrible analogies - there wasn't a shuttlecock or a dart in there anywhere....... maybe if Kallend joins us we can get some QUALITY analogies - still hard to beat JRs.

gotta like a good analogy

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Richards 0]

Quote

A better analogy would be like trying to stop rape by banning penises. And I don't think you want to advocate for that. The mere possession of a penis does not make you a rapist.

[Richards 0]

Quote

If an animal is shot is self defense nobody has the right nor is allowed to keep the animal period.

In that case then fine. Playing dead would scare the shit right out of me. I would probably lose composure and start screaming once he started pawing me.

Let people do, it but impress upon people that this does not mitigate their moral obligation to do everything possible to avoid an encounter (ie all the same precautions one would take if not armed)

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Quote

A better analogy would be like trying to stop rape by banning penises. And I don't think you want to advocate for that. The mere possession of a penis does not make you a rapist.

Perhaps we shouldn't ban them, however you cannot carry a concealed penis (therefore we would all walk around naked).

Next there would be a penis registry.

The Emergence of the NPA (National Penis Association), who strive to defend the rights of law abiding penis owners

Like firearms they might actually have length restrictions for penis's, which could lead to discrimination complaints if there is any truth to existing stereotypes

[Richards 0]

Quote

um, uh, I was cleaning it, and it went off!

[Rainbo 0]

Sorry I'm taking it back to sane reasoning here I think there is more need to be able to protect yourself from small critters that have rabies which is much more prevelant than dangerous bears in the parks in the lower 48. Been there done that and it was a skunk, cute but dangerous.

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."

[warpedskydiver 0]

I wonder if Bill is in favor of shooting rabid penises?

[Rainbo 0]

I bet he would if he saw one coming at him frothing at the mouth

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."

[Richards 0]

Quote

Quote

Sorry I'm taking it back to sane reasoning here I think there is more need to be able to protect yourself from small critters that have rabies which is much more prevelant than dangerous bears in the parks in the lower 48. Been there done that and it was a skunk, cute but dangerous.

I have no experience defending myself from criters (other than mosquitos) so I just presumed that bear would be the biggest issue.

My biggest handicap is that sometimes the hole in the front of my head operates a tad bit faster than the grey matter contained within.