LA Times: Guns are now permitted -- but not necessarily welcomed -- in national parks

[marmar]

Guns are now permitted -- but not necessarily welcomed -- in national parks
As the controversial law takes effect Monday, critics argue it could increase wildlife poaching, violence between visitors and against rangers, and destruction of historic and cultural monuments.

By Julie Cart
February 22, 2010


A federal law taking effect Monday may alter the standard checklist for many Americans as they pack to visit their national parks: insect repellent, snacks, hiking boots . . . double-barreled shotgun.

Visitors now can pack heat in any national park from Gates of the Arctic to Everglades, provided they comply with the firearms laws of the park's home state, according to the new law that was passed as an amendment to credit-card legislation.

In some instances, they may carry concealed and loaded firearms, including at campsites in Yosemite Valley, along trails at Yellowstone and at the rim of the Grand Canyon.

Gun advocates welcomed the law as overdue, saying firearms are allowed in national forests and other federal lands, many of which are next to national parks.

But opponents say guns don't belong in the nation's highly protected parks, where it remains illegal to fire a weapon or kill an animal and where employees, including most rangers, are unarmed. ..........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-parks-guns22-2010feb22,0,3561947.story

[sandnsea]

1. Discharging them is still illegal

unless your life is seriously threatened. The worst part is that people will start shooting animals instead of learning how to stay out of their way. I wonder how many endangered species we'll have to lose before we come to our senses again. Not to mention drunked up brawls. This is so stupid.

[joeybee12]

2. Park Service rangers and employees have their hands full keeping

the animals safe as it is, what with people speeding and feeding and doing other dumb stuff, and on top of that we now have gun-toting yahoos eager to fire at any animal, and don't tell me these nutjobs won't.

[Statistical]

20. So you can point to a long list of millions of examples in...

state parks, state campgrounds, national forests, federal wilderness, other protected federal lands, etc.

Oh wait you can't? Depsite it being legal to carry firearms there in most states for last 30 to 200 years?

So I guess all the crazies were holding their trigger finger for the big prize. I mean who wants to kill someone in a national forest when someday you might be able to kill someone in a national park.

Logic and antis don't mix very well.

[joeybee12]

48. Yeah, it doesn't mix...logic and you...

...tell me the state parks that are as huge as Yellowstone adn some aprks in Alaska that can't be patrolled because they're so vast.

[Spoonman]

126. Your own statement

gives the logical reason for allowing the possession of firearms!

state parks that are as huge as Yellowstone and some parks in Alaska that can't be patrolled because they're so vast.

I corrected your typos

Thank you for clearly identifying the PERECT reason why an individual should be allowed to have the means to defend themselves against man or beast!!!!!!!!!!!

[proteus_lives]

136. That's great!

:rofl:

He torpedoed himself!

[Spoonman]

25. These "nutjobs" will not do it, care to place a HUGE wager?

Just like the "streets will run red with blood" paranoia that was spewed forth by the anti concealed carry nutjobs, your assertion will also be proven false in time.

[Statistical]

35. Yup streets will run red with blood has been replaced with forrests will run red with blood

as the shrill anti claim of choice.

Instead of CCW getting into shootouts over parking spaces now they will "magically" get into shootouts over camping spots.

Except it won't happen and then some future law antis will make the same totally debunked claim yet again.

[joeybee12]

49. Yeah, I'm glad you can see into the future...

...too bad logic and intelligence aren't some of your gifts, though.

[Spoonman]

121. It is you claiming

to be in possession of some magical crystal ball.

we now have gun-toting yahoos eager to fire at any animal, and don't tell me these nutjobs won't.

YOUR assertion has NEVER occurred when the concealed carry laws changed, but somehow it’s now going to occur due to an expansion of the law?
That is neither logical nor intelligent.

In fact, it borders on delusional.

[Don Caballero]

3. Truly shameful

I will refuse to use the Parks system until this is overturned. And it will be overturned, trust me.

[SteveM]

15. Will this be "overturned" by U.S. or foreign forces?

[nosferaustin]

167. seriously?

US or Foreign forces?

Hyperbole will get you everywhere, I guess.

[beevul]

171. I guess you need a link.

See this post, and the entire thread for that matter:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=293831&mesg_id=293946

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

189. Here you go.

Don Caballero (1000+ posts) Wed Feb-17-10 08:50 PM
Response to Reply #6
7. I really don't think it would be as difficult as some think
Many people would simply turn in their firearms once they were outlawed. Confiscating the remaining firearms could prove to be difficult. Our military and the military of Canada and Mexico would probably have to assist.

[beevul]

169. OMG.

DUzy!!

[Statistical]

26. Your loss.

It won't be overturned.

Any attempt to do so will be challenged on grounds RKBA was recognized as a individual right in Heller v. DC.

As such it is subject to Strict Scrutiny just as any other right is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

Strict Scrutiny doesn't allow banning/restricting a right because you want it. Hell it doesn't even allow banning/restricting a right if IT IS A GOOD IDEA! The govt must prove

a) compelling governmental interest
b) narrowly tailored
c) least restrictive means

I mean it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that a complete ban of all firearms, at all times, by all people IS THE ONLY WAY POSSIBLE to serve the "compelling govt interest".

Even if a restriction is popular, or a "good idea", or "serves public good" if it isn't the least restrictive way possible to serve that public good it is unconstitutional.

Example:
banning all guns from all people - not least restrictive
banning guns from convicted felons - least restrictive

One is constitutionalism and one is constitutional.

Someday it is possible that non-violent felons could sue to have the ban overturned on the concept that an even more restrictive means would be to ban "VIOLENT FELONS". If they can prove public good is still served then the govt has overstopped its bounds and the restriction is unconstitutional.

[Spoonman]

29. Awsome!

The parks are way too crowded anyway.
Thanks’ for vacating a spot for me and my .357!

[proteus_lives]

134. You won't be missed there.

People go to the National Parks to relax, have fun and enjoy nature.

Not to control other people.

[depakid]

170. Whixh bewgs the question of why anyone would want to bring their guns

My take:

90% of it is cowardice.

[proteus_lives]

188. Why would they bring matches, a gps or extra batteries?

90% safety and why-the-heck-not.

That's my take.

[Kingofalldems]

4. Uh oh here comes the gun crowd---

Anyone disagreeing with this will be called a gun grabber.

[pipi_k]

10. Bring 'em on...

I've got six...maybe seven...guns at my house.

I've even fired some of them.


I still don't think guns should be allowed in National parks.

[proteus_lives]

140. Why?

If you're not a grabber then why does it bother you?

[pipi_k]

175. Because people can be stupid and do stupid things

Why do the gun people want guns in National parks? A lot of them say, "for protection".

I would ask, protection from what? Or whom?

Do they think they need protection from the wildlife? I beg to differ. Wildlife needs protection from US.

Are there gangs of gun-toting crazies roaming around through the National parks killing innocent campers and hikers? If so, it's something the news media have somehow missed sensationalizing.

Laws against discharging guns? yeah...sure. Tell it to the idiots who are going to think National Parks are a great place for a little target practice.

And not that I give a shit what happens to them, but I do care about the innocent wildlife they might shoot...accidentally or otherwise.


And it certainly detracts from the family type atmosphere of our National Parks.


But most of all it's the really stupid assertion that the gun-toters need "protection" in the National Parks. Hey...nobody's forcing them to go there. If things are that terrible, stay the hell home where it's "safe".

[Pavulon]

187. having ignored this law for years.

the wildlife was never a concern. Other people were the concern. You dont accidentally shoot anything. Never had any issue over the last decade or so.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

190. You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

[Don Caballero]

13. They always come

and they never convince anyone that they have a right to firearms.

[SteveM]

18. Do you mean by "they" foreign troops, patrolling our streets?

Hate to break it, but according to surveys most Americans are already convinced they have a right to firearms. Even most on DU.

[Don Caballero]

19. That may be the case but they are wrong

People in England and Australia too thought they had a "right". They were wrong.

[Spoonman]

30. Just in case you forgot.

This is not England or Australia.

What, you skipped geography class completely?

[Statistical]

38. There was no enumerated right in England or Australia.

Hence the problem.

Under English common law freeman did have a right to keep firearms and that was the understanding the founding fathers had.

However when Tyrants George started rounding up guns despite that contract between King and Subject it obviously shook their confidences in promises from the govt.

This was major reason for entire bill of rights. Despite the Bill of Rights it is more correctly a Bill of Restrictions on the govt. To makes sure some future govt won't "Forget" (like King George did) about the rights the people retain.

[SteveM]

51. Answered in # 30, #38.

[no_hypocrisy]

5. What kind of potential "dangers" would you need a gun for in a national PARK?

[marmar]

6. If Yogi steals your picnic basket......

..... you can bust a cap in his furry ass.

[pipi_k]

14. Well, then you've gotta rub out Boo-Boo too...

can't leave any witnesses....

[slackmaster]

7. The same kinds of dangers you might encounter in an urban or suburban park

Two-legged predators, mostly.

[kestrel91316]

9. You must not get to many national parks if you think there is a risk

in them similar to urban parks.

Oy. Get out a little more, ok?

[mvccd1000]

23. You should be safe if you're a ranger, right?

"Hitch hiking is discouraged in Yosemite, and for good reason. In 1995, a National Park Ranger picked up a seemingly-nice hitch hiker and was subsequently kidnapped. Don't do it." (http://www.yosemite.ca.us/faq/1.html)

It's probably safer back east, where things aren't so wide open as in the west. "Violent crime, including murder, has occurred on the trail in a few instances. Most have been crimes by non-hikers who crossed paths relatively randomly with the AT hiker-victims.

In May 1996, two women were abducted, bound and murdered near the trail in Shenandoah National Park. The primary suspect was later discovered harassing a female biker in the vicinity but charges against him were dropped, and the case remains unsolved. A total of 9 murders have occurred since then, including the notorious Ramsey/Mountford murder in 1981 and the Williams/Winans murder in 1996. On May 6, 2008, two fishermen from Virginia were shot, but survived near the trail in Giles County, Virginia, by the man behind the Ramsey/Mountford murders, Randall Lee Smith, who had recently met them not far from the 1981 murder site. Smith died four days later in jail of unknown causes." (http://www.harwardadventureministry.com/content/view/43/57/)

"BLAIRSVILLE, Ga. (AP) — Authorities said Saturday they believe a hiker who disappeared from the northern Georgia woods on New Year's Day is dead, and they charged the man who was reportedly last seen with her with kidnapping.
Bankhead said the search for the 24-year-old woman, who was hiking with her dog in the Chattahoochee National Forest, is now focused on finding her body." (http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-01-04-missing-hiker_N.htm)

Yep, no reason to protect yourself in a park.... you're PERFECTLY SAFE there.

[joeybee12]

50. Oh my...three incidents...SCIENTIFIC PROOF!

But when you have statistics about the bnloodshed from concelead weapons, in your illogical mind, that's just ANECTDOTAL evidence, right?

Pathetic.

[kestrel91316]

75. In order to compare, kindly please post a list of all violent crimes in

urban parks nationwide during the same time frame, because I'm talking about relative risk.

I know. DU doesn't have enough bandwidth for you to do so.

[fascisthunter]

161. ya got to be kidding us... this is your Proof?!

[pipi_k]

177. You do realize, I hope...

that more murders or attacks happen in an average-sized city in ONE DAY than happen in our National Parks in a year, right?


You're way safer in a National Park than you are walking a city street.

[Xithras]

60. You must not talk to rangers much if you think they're crime free.

Just last year in Yosemite valley there were several rapes (including a teenage girl who was raped in her tent), many violent fights (a couple of which required medivac flights), stabbings, armed robberies, etc., etc. A couple of years ago a German hiker walking in one of the more remote parts of the park was overpowered by drug growers, tied to a tree, and held prisoner for several days (they actually packed up and left him tied to the tree to die, but he got free). Two years ago, gang members on a day trip up from the SF bay area carved and painted gang signs on the granite leading up to Vernal Fall. And who can forget the kidnapping and murder of the mother and two teen girls visiting Yosemite several years ago? The mother and one teen were burned alive in the trunk of the kidnappers car, while the other 15 year old was brutally raped and beaten until the kidnapper "finished" and strangled her.

The park service obviously tries to keep these things low key, and tourists coming in out of the area don't often have the benefit of reading about these crimes outside of the occasional and rare headline grabbing murder, but you're fooling yourself if you think they don't exist. There is a REASON why there is a courthouse and a full time federal judge assigned to Yosemite. Parks are a reflection of the people who visit them, who are themselves a reflection of the societies they come from. 95% of the people who are in them are there to escape, but you always have that 5% who are there to make trouble, exploit people, or prey on victims who unknowingly think they can let their guards down in the "safe" parks.

[kestrel91316]

71. I never claimed they were crime free, as you well know. Kindly do not put words in my mouth.

I indicated that the comparison equating of crime risk in urban parks and national parks was inappropriate. And yes, I have spent a great deal of time in national parks, and live in Los Angeles which has a the nation's largest city park (Griffith) along with more than a few others.

Ask me where I would prefer to spend the night alone.

[Xithras]

89. Sorry, that wasn't my intention.

I will say, though, that at least you don't have to worry about bears tearing your car apart if you forget a candy bar under the drivers seat in Griffith ;)

[slackmaster]

73. I've been backpacking in NPs many, many times and never encountered a problem

Other than a few hornet stings and marmots stealing my food.

I've never had a problem in an urban or suburban park either.

I don't carry a firearm, but I am not willing to deprive someone else of that choice, particularly a person who has gone to the trouble to get a permit to carry one.

[proud2BlibKansan]

67. Cause Yellowstone is just like Central Park

:eyes:

[beevul]

172. In that...

In that the proscriptions against governmental power which make up the bill of rights apply there as well as central park, you are correct.

[SteveM]

22. Many folks want consistency in the law...

When visiting a national park (or passing through), anyone who is lawfully carrying a firearm while on the road must make arrangements to "store" the gun before entering/driving through the park.

I don't think many people worry about bears, wolves, elephants, lions & tigers, etc. But they do worry about criminals who use parks, national forests, management areas as a place to prey on visitors, or as a refuge -- for them, not the animals. Even hunters in national forests are warned to watch belongings; tree stands, carts, bicycles, tents, etc. when in the woods.

There is the usual cry over "blood in the Aspens," and predictions that rangers will be killed (already one of the more dangerous occupations you can have), but I'm willing to say a year from now, people will be using nat'l parks and this won't be on their mind. As for the criminals? They are already in the parks, and many are armed no matter what the law says.

[Lance_Boyle]

28. Defended covert grow-ops, armed criminals

Murders and rapes in National Parks are not unheard of, and the prospect of unwittingly encroaching on someone's grow-op is a bit disconcerting, too. People who choose to carry outside of Natl. Parks should be permitted to carry inside them, too. I don't see the big issue.

[LiberalFighter]

45. Sarah Palin shooting her mouth off in the park?

McCain giving himself an enema with a shotgun?

[Pavulon]

184. Some dude raped and murdered a couple off the parkway in watauga or ashe

county when i was spending a summer sleeping on couches and hiking up there. I have always followed the law, even dumb ones. I cut handles off of tooth brushes. Carried a tent that cost more than my car was worth, but always carried a pistol.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

191. Criminals mostly.

[kestrel91316]

8. I give it 6 months before a ranger gets shot. By a RWer.

[randr]

11. Far more likely will be a child who gets access to the family gun

[SteveM]

16. Hoping or just waiting?

[kestrel91316]

63. The people who "hope" for that sort of thing are found over on FR,

in case you hadn't noticed.

[SteveM]

80. You don't even make sense, even when supporting your argument.

BTW, I have not seen or heard of anything you support which suggests a "holier than thou" status when it comes to progressive politics. Care to show-yours, I'll-show-mine?

Gun-control is neither "liberal" nor "progressive." It is the adaptation of Jim Crow legislation by several northeastern cities, Chicago, D.C. and SF, and by those foolish enough to "nationalize" the issue in Congress.

www.georgiacarry.org Search locally for the brief submitted in the Heller case. An excellent summary of the racist history of gun-control.

[mvccd1000]

17. I'll take that bet.

If it happens within six months, I'll give you my next paycheck after that.

I suppose there are a lot of arguments for or against it, but it seems to me it really comes down to the state laws. I live in Arizona and there are places I can drive down the same road and pass through National Forest (gun ok), National Park (now I'm a criminal), into state forest (gun ok again), and back into the rest of the state (gun ok again).

It's ridiculous to make me a criminal for carrying a pistol that is perfectly legal in the rest of the state.

For an east-of-the-Mississippi example, how about Skyline Drive on the Blue Ridge Parkway? Get off I-64 in Virginia at exit 99 with a pistol in your possession and you've just gone from a law-abiding citizen to a criminal, simply for exiting the highway.

The old rules made no sense. I support this correction.

[DainBramaged]

21. Why do you NEED to carry a pistol anyway? Afraid of the boogie mans?

:eyes:

[SteveM]

24. Nah, just reasonable precautions against crims already there, already armed. nt

[Name removed]

33. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[marmar]

36. But these Grizzlies are out of control !!!!

[RaleighNCDUer]

84. Careful now, there's a constitutional right to arm bears. nt

[X_Digger]

39. 11 murders, 35 rapes, 16 kidnappings, 261 aggravated assaults (2006) n/t

[DainBramaged]

40. Out of how many visitors in the parks? Let's not color the statistics shall we

[X_Digger]

41. And if you or yours was one of those stats? n/t

[DainBramaged]

42. You just keep loving those guns yes sir.

I don't like you. Your singular focus on DU of spreading the religion of the gun is sad. Goodbye.

[X_Digger]

43. Ta-ta, then. n/t

[SteveM]

47. You said: "I don't like you." Fear and hatred are the chief weapons of gun-control.

[Statistical]

53. All the antis have is emotional responses.

"LOVING" guns, not liking people.

Sadly I the 2nd will be incorporated (2 cases before Supreme Court right now) against the states.
Based on that except to see challenges on state/local gun bans across the country.

They will be overturned because Constitutionally speaking a ban on guns is no more constitutional than a ban on dangerous religion or scary speech.

I expect the antis to get even more emotional in the next couple years.

As support continues to grow for RKBA other than a few diehards most politicians will attempt to avoid the issue rather than get caught on the wrong side of it.

You could even see things like challenges on excise tax on firearms/ammo and challenges on the cost of CCW. Possibly a model like voting. States can require voting registration/license but it is at the cost of the state. Nobody would even consider the state charging a "modest" $50 to register you to vote (despite elections being very expensive to run).

[RaleighNCDUer]

85. Out of how many MILLIONS of national park visitors?

How do those numbers compare to outside the park stats?

[SteveM]

46. If you feel sick, take something for it. As for "paranoia," look closer to home...

like the mirror. What are YOU so paranoid about? Crims/thugs have always been in the park with guns, one of the reasons Park rangers are armed. Taking reasonable ameliorative steps to counter the threat of park criminality is what reduces fear. Please review the definition of paranoia to see where you fit in.

I don't know what you mean by "jam guns into every facet of society" since I have not seen that expressed. Can you point to source material which supports your speculation?

[DainBramaged]

120. "Park rangers are armed"

mostly, they aren't, so your facts are yet again wrong to suit your argument.

[SteveM]

133. "Mostly." And those who "aren't" have no access to them?

[DainBramaged]

138. Why don't you just go compare barrel lengths with your gun buddies m'k?

You really need to get a life.

[SteveM]

151. So this is the sum total of your argument...

when you are cutting out? "Barrel-lengths." Is that a quasi-anti-gay metaphor used as an aspersion? "You really need to get a life." Hey, I'm happy with mine, but I'm easily amused. All it takes is something original.

You should consider the possibility that it is YOUR life which makes you unhappy, since such projections onto others usually start close to home. m'k?

[DainBramaged]

154. Think about what this guy used to say at the end of his commercial

[SteveM]

198. Hey, sell it to the NRA; they pay royalties for anti-gun stuff.

Does it really melt in your mouth and not in your hand?

[proud2BlibKansan]

74. +1

[proteus_lives]

144. Your type makes me sick.

Always trying to control other people.

So I guess we're even.

[mvccd1000]

27. That's an argument for another place. Meet you in the Gungeon? :) nt

[DainBramaged]

34. Go argue in the mirror.

:puke:

[mvccd1000]

37. Why - better conversation? :) nt

[beevul]

173. Why do you NEED...

Why do you NEED to carry an umbrella or a spare tire and jack or an insurance policy anyway?


Afraid of rain or a flat tire or fire/flood/tornado?


Bad argument.

[Statistical]

62. Rangers already got shot when guns were banned.

I know it is hard to believe but criminals tend not to follow the law.

Rangers and visitors have been shot, killed, raped, beaten despite this super magical "anti gun forcefield".

The vast majority of mass shootings happen in "gun-free" zones.

[kestrel91316]

65. Well, I fully expect a lot of RW gun waving in the parks now that they are legal.

[Statistical]

72. How much "gun waving" do you see in urban areas now?

It is legal to carry a weapon in most states.
See a lot of "gun waving"? Everywhere you go people pulling out firearms and waving them around.

The legal definition of "gun waving" is brandishing and that is a crime.

The reality is if you live a state that allows CCW about 1% of the people you pass are carrying a firearm already.

[kestrel91316]

77. Well I sure hear a lot from RWers about how they have the unfettereed right to carry

any damned time they please, and damn the laws, and if they feel threatened by anyone, anytime, anywhere, they're gonna shoot first and ask questions later.

That doesn't gove me great confidence that they will behave responsibly, and given the hatred of all things federal and the hip-trendiness of murdering federal employees among RWers, well, national parks are just the sort of place where I EXPECT GUN WAVING AND SHOOTING AT FEDERAL EMPLOYEES.

[Statistical]

82. Why in national parks specifically?

Right now licensed individuals can carry concealed weapons every single day in urban and suburban areas and millions do every single day.

Where is the massive outbreak of "gun waving" in urban/suburban areas? Why would the same people who manage to carry weapons everyday in urban areas without "gun waving" suddenly be uncontrollable and "wave guns in the faces" of federal agents.

It would be laughable but sadly I feel you really think that way.

In last 20 years the number of guns has gone up
The number of state allowing "shall-issue" permits has gone up (from 6 to 42).
The number of CCW issued has gone up (massively).
The number of people carrying guns every day has gone up.
The number of locations people can legally carry has gone up.

During the same time the violent crime rate, homicide rate, accidental firearm death rate, and firearm injury rate have all declined.

Despite all that allow the same people and the same guns into a national park is going to spark massive bloodbath.

I think your emotional attachment to this issue obscures your ability to look at stats logically.

[RaleighNCDUer]

97. There's lies, damn lies, and statistics.

Look at the AGE of those who commit violent crimes and homocides.

The ONLY reason the rates have declined is the same reason they exploded in the first place. The boomers exploded the crime rates, and now that we are aging out of the high-crime demographic, the rates are declining again.

It has NOTHING to do with gun control, availability of guns, CC licensing or anything else.

[Statistical]

107. Violent Crime rate has fallen faster than population age change.

Even among the most likely to commit group (18-24 year old males) violent crime rates have declined.

It isn't just less young people (although that does help). The young people are also committing less crime.

Your theory also doesn't explain why crime peak later (1994).

The demographic most likely to commit crime is 18-24. Boomers were born 1943-1960. If Demographics were the only thing one would expect crime to peak around 1980 however it didn't until much later. Post boomer young adults contributed significantly to rising crime rate in 1990s.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

164. Again with the homophobic references. You should be ashamed.

[kctim]

12. Fear based society

Fear the muslim because he may have a bomb strapped to him.
Fear the hiker because he may have a gun strapped to him.
We now fear the rights of others more than we fear those who wish to take our rights from us.

What a chickenshit nation we have become.

[SteveM]

31. One way to quash the "fear" is to stop watching the nightly news...

"If it bleeds, it leads" is now the main goal behind the 6 o'clock stuff. Nationally, or crime rate has been going down since the mid-1990s and is rather low, in terms of recent history. That is why I don't worry too much about all the "bogeys" out there. Take reasonable precautions (I have a .38 by the bed), watch your surroundings, sleep well, and do good works.

[katmondoo]

32. Concealed weapons OK but don't go in a bank

with a hat and sunglasses. I live in Florida a hat and sunglasses are almost mandatory if you have eye problems and have the possibility of getting skin cancer. Carrying a concealed gun is Ok though

[NightWatcher]

44. I hate to break it to you, but a lot of people carried guns in parks before this was legal

this ruling didnt make it somehow legal to now start shooting people left and right. It is still very illegal to shoot and animal or merely discharge a weapon.

[proud2BlibKansan]

79. So you can carry a gun in a natl park but you can't shoot it?

Why the hell would you want to do that? :rofl:

[Pavulon]

185. If i had to shoot it the penalty would have been offset

by the fact i was not dead or at least got shot on my feet, rather than on my knees.

If you want to shoot a gun you go to a firing range.

[MadHound]

52. Another example of pandering to the unreasonable fears of the few

While only a minority of Americans own a gun, and an even smaller minority carries concealed, we still continue to pander to this minority.

While a majority of people believe that we should have reasonable gun controls in this country, we continue to pander to the minority by our ongoing repeal of reasonable gun control measures.

We continue to pander to this group's inherently fear based outlook on life. While gun owners state that they have a gun to defend themselves against crime, the fact of the matter is that crime rates have been going down since the '90's. Far more people are going to be involved in a car accident than be a crime victim.

But the gun crowd has used this fear and the Second Amendment to push back reasonable gun control measures, by any means necessary, even if the people have indicated that they want to keep the gun control measures in place. A perfect example of this happened in my state. The NRA and gun lobbyists pressed the Missouri legislature hard to pass a conceal carry bill here. It was vetoed by our then governor Carnahan. Unphased, the gun industry and their minions decided to, in a first, put the issue to a vote of the people. The people of Missouri voted against conceal carry, so the gun industry waited until there was a 'Pug governor in place to once again ram through a conceal carry law through our legislature, and of course our brand new 'Pug governor signed it into law. Against the clear wishes of the people.

This is how the gun industry and gun lobbyists work. There don't care that they are in the minority. They don't care about the will of the people. They use their money and their lobbying power to push through laws that go against the will of the majority of people in this country. Why do they do this? They certainly don't give a damn about people's safety, they are doing this because of the same reason that any other industry lobbys for unpopular legislation, they want to make money.

As the unreasonable fear factor in this country is ratcheted up, more guns, more bullets are sold, along with related businesses such as target ranges and such. It is all about money, and many, many people in this country are being played for fools by the gun industry using fear.

Don't get me wrong, I believe in the right of people to own guns, I have a few myself. I believe that the Second Amendment is a valid and valuable part of our Constitution. But like the majority of Americans in this country I also believe in reasonable measures to control gun violence and gun accidents. This includes prohibiting people from carrying concealed and from carrying in parks.

It is time we stopped being overawed by a minority of people in this country who use fear and the bloody shirt of the Second Amendment to continually act against the will of the majority. We, all of us, gun enthusiasts and gun haters, are being bullied and battered into an ever increasing loosening of gun controls for one reason and one reason only, to make more money for the gun industry. It is time that we woke up and stopped this undemocratic madness.

[X_Digger]

54. See recent Gallup polling..

You stated, "While a majority of people believe that we should have reasonable gun controls in this country"

While not a direct rebuttal, the actual data indicates that 57% of those polled want gun laws to remain the same (43%) or be relaxed (12%).

http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/Guns.aspx



eta: Forgot the CNN poll-

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/04/08/gun.control.poll/

"Now, a recent poll reveals a sudden drop -- only 39 percent of Americans now favor stricter gun laws, according to a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation poll."

[marmar]

55. "While not a direct rebuttal"

I'm glad you realize that.

[X_Digger]

58. Because it doesn't address the fuzziness of "reasonable"

There's no qualitative means to address what's reasonable.

And no, push polls by rethuglican word doctor Frank Luntz aren't any better.

But if you ask Americans generally should laws be stronger, weaker, or stay the same, a majority don't want them to be stronger.

*shrug*

[MadHound]

69. Are you even looking at your own poll?

44% want stronger gun control laws, 43% of the people want them to remain as is, only 12% want want less strict gun control laws.

Sure, none of those numbers is over fifty percent, but the largest number of people in this country want stricter gun control laws.

[Statistical]

76. The minority should never be subject to the whims of the majority.

The founders made sure of that....

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't matter what a majority wants if it violates an individuals rights.

What if a majority of Americans supported slavery, state religion, a theocracy, or only allowing "approved books"?

[MadHound]

81. Nor should the majority be controlled by a few fanatics acting out of fear

Again, you're constructing a strawman, one that is commonly constructed. In it you are equating gun control measures to the actual seizure of your guns or a prohibition that prevents you from owning a gun. That is simply not the case. Gun control measures are to keep people like convicted felons from purchasing guns, limiting what types of guns can be purchased, where they can be carried, how they can be stored, etc. Not one single gun control measure states that a non-criminal citizen of this country cannot own a gun, not one.

You're falling for that tired old NRA canard where gun control laws = gun grabbing laws. Wake up and realize that you're being played for a sucker.

[Statistical]

87. Seizing guns isn't the only form of illegal infringement.

If you had to get a $500 permit, be fingerprinted, entered into a FBI database, and only post where authorized by the govt your right of free speech wouldn't be completely revoked.

Nobody would consider those restrictions not to be infringement just because they weren't taken away completely.

The law doesn't allow criminals to carry guns, the law doesn't even allow all citizens to carry guns. The law simply allows citizens who have a legal CCW to carry and ONLY in states that allow that outside the National Park.

If someone is not a danger carrying a firearm 2 feet outside National Park boundary how/why would they suddenly become a danger by stepping 2 feet inside.

They won't. That is why the law equalizes the laws inside and outside that imaginary boundary.

[MadHound]

94. Apples and oranges there

When I shoot off my mouth, the worst that can happen is that somebody listens. When I shoot a gun, somebody can get killed. Not to mention the fact that unlike free speech, guns are used to commit crimes, guns are used to criminally kill people.

As far as CCW goes, I find it atrocious that in my state the gun industry used it's influence to act directly against the people of my state. In any other area that would be considered criminal, but because it involves the sacred gun, somehow it's OK? No, it isn't, it is a usurpation of the people's will and of our democracy.

As far as carrying inside the parks are concerned, yes, it leaves me nervous. I've seen the caliber of some people who get CCW permits in my state, and the caliber of some of the folks who use our park system. Put those two together and I can foresee trouble. Even if there isn't trouble, it is more cost and hassle for our park system which is already under staffed and under budgeted to begin with.

Sorry, but gun control laws are not an infringement on your Second Amendment rights. I'm assuming that you have a gun sitting in your house, I've got one sitting inside my house, and frankly gun control laws are not going to take those away. You are allowing gun industry propaganda and fear to shape your opinions. You wouldn't do this with other issues, so why are you doing it with this one.

[Statistical]

98. Nobody has ever been urged to do violence by words?

Guess we should remove all restrictions on hate speech right?

As far as gun in the home goes that is a weak argument. Rights don't end at the edge of my property. My right to religion, speech, or legal due process doesn't stop when I step foot off my property. Neither does the right to keep and bear arms.

If you don't like that fine. REPEAL/MODIFY THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

However to pretend this right doesn't exist at the same level and scope as the rest of the Bill of Rights is intellectually dishonest.

Once you accept IT IS A RIGHT and as such IT IS SUBJECT TO STRICT SCRUTINY likely you will be less dismayed in the future when more laws are repealed and/or struck down.

In the next decade expect court challenges and/or repeals on:
* city/state gun bans
* restrictive licensing & registration schemes
* "may issue" = "may infringe" permits
* charging for a right (CCW permit fees, etc)
* excise tax on firearms
* restrictions on places where one can legally carry firearm

[MadHound]

110. Oh I foresee all those possibilities

And frankly they scare the shit out of me. Opening up the country to more people carrying guns is going to lead to more gun violence and more gun deaths.

What scares me even more are an army of mindless drones who can be so easily be manipulated by corporate induced fear propaganda.

What are you so afraid of that you feel the need to carry a gun with you all the time?

Hopefully we wake up in time and put an end to this fear induced madness, but sadly we probably won't, and we'll degenerate to the Wild West, or worse yet, the Middle Ages when life was cheap and easily taken. Is that what you want?

Oh, and you can carry your gun off your property. In my state you have to have it plain sight however, which is fine by me. Frankly I think CCW is for chickenshits and is the coward's way out. If you want to carry a gun, do so openly so we all can see, rather than sneaking around with it like a thief.

[Statistical]

113. Why hasn't it? Honest Question.

Opening up the country to more people carrying guns is going to lead to more gun violence and more gun deaths.

I have been hearing this for 20 years now. Despite gun laws getting less restrictive for 2 decades the rate of violent crime has declined. Hell the homicide rate, accidental death rate, and firearm injury rate have all also declined.

I keep hearing after each law is repealed/modified that "this one" is going to lead to the massive amount of violence. So far it is a 20 year old broken record.

Funny you brought up middle ages. Ever wonder what brought an end to the practice of pillaging? For centuries armies were "paid" by sezing spoils of war. It kept costs down and encouraged participation. That very suddenly stopped. Any ideas why?

The emergence of firearm. A group of knights riding into a village had no real opposition compared to a group of untrained peasants with pitchforks. The emergence of firearms and town militias changed that. Suddenly those on a pillaging run for rape & profit faced the real possibility of death.

[MadHound]

129. Oh, geez, now you don't even know your history

Face it, you're just another one who has let fear and corporate propaganda override your decency and common sense to the point where you are ready to let the tyranny of the minority dictate what we do in this country.

Congratulations for being part of the problem.

[beevul]

179. "limiting what types of book can be purchased, where they can be carried, how they can be stored"

What kind of guns currently can NOT be purchased?

And why?

[X_Digger]

83. What's the definition of majority? More than half, usually..

It'll be interesting to see if the CNN poll numbers are reflected by the next Gallup iteration.

[MadHound]

88. Yes, and the vast majority of people want gun control measures to either stay the same or tighten up

That's exactly what your poll is saying. Furthermore, your poll is also stating that the greatest number of people in this country want gun control laws to tighten up.

Anything else you would care to try and parse?

[X_Digger]

91. Did you miss the CNN addition (edited after posted)?

I fully expect that if trend lines continue as they are moving, a "majority" as you call it will want the laws to remain the same.

Either of us can claim the middle chunk, but you do realize that my chunk is going up, just as your chunk is going down, right?

[MadHound]

101. First of all, these aren't "my chunks" or "your chunks" they are people, like you and me

Second of all, those who wish to loosen gun controls sits at barely double digits. I don't think that sentiment is going to change anytime soon.

But I do see that if we are continually tyrranized by the minority into loosening gun controls, the number of people who actually do want stricter gun control is going to go up.

[Statistical]

105. Gun laws have been loosened over last decade yet that number has declined.

Care to explain that?

Support for more gun control declines despite gun laws getting less restrictive?

Maybe most people don't care about the less restrictive laws?

[MadHound]

112. Geez, did you even look at the poll?

There is no popular support for loosening gun laws, that number there has fluctuated between two and twelve percent for almost twenty years. There is no great groundswell of popular support for looser gun control laws, just the ongoing amplified yammering of people such as yourself hyped up on fear based corporate propaganda. Stop being a pawn, seriously.

[Statistical]

116. Try reading again.

Despite laws getting less restrictive support for increasing restrictions has decreased.

One would think that 2 decades of decreased restrictions would increase support for restrictions if that is what the majority wants.

i.e. the less restrictive the laws get the more support to make them more restrictive grows.

[MadHound]

130. Look at the poll, try reading it for comprehension

Those who want looser controls have varied from two to twelve percent, that number hasn't changed. The only numbers changing are those who think we need more gun control and those who like it as is.

You are in the very small minority, yet you think that we should dance to your tune. How very undemocratic of you.

[Statistical]

139. However despite looser gun laws less want more gun laws.

Likely that means either:
a) people are unaware of gun laws until a law is repealed and then are not upset with that repeal
b) apathetic

Gun laws will continue to get less restrictive. If not through the legislative process then it will through the courts (like 2 cases before SCOTUS right now).

[MadHound]

142. Yet still it is the tyranny of the minority

Something you criticize about our current Congress, but are more than happy with when it comes to the issue of guns.

Hypocrisy much?

[Statistical]

152. Not at all. Our govt is setup that majority rules doesn't work.

That was intentional.

The will of the people is important but protection of the minority is important also. Our govt was designed to try and balance those two (often conflicted) goals.

Some (not all) gun control laws are Unconstitutional. They will be heard in court but it will take long time. Wheels of justice move slow. Heller v. DC took 8 years to be decided. A lot of cases were filed based on that decision. It will be years before all of them are resolved.

In Congressional action speeds up the process by repealing a law likely to be struck down anyways years earlier I am not going to complain.

[X_Digger]

114. Even as crime continues to fall?

The main justification for gun control is slipping away as crime trickles down since the early 90's. In that same time, laws surrounding concealed carry have spread, restrictions have been removed, etc. And crime continues to fall. So one of the main (illogical) arguments about gun control has been shown to be irrelevant to the issue ("more guns = more crime")

[MadHound]

131. You are still in the very small minority

Yet you want that minority to dictate to everybody else. How very undemocratic of you.

[X_Digger]

143. Talk to Monsieur Tocqueville about Tyranny of the Majority n/t

[MadHound]

146. I have probably read more Tocqueville in the past couple of years than you have read in your life

And frankly I doubt that he would have trouble with the majority setting the rules in this case. Why? Because there is already existing adequate forms of redress through the courts and other institutions that protect the minority.

Any other political philosopher you'd like to try and mangle to your cause?

[X_Digger]

150. Nah, I'm satisfied..

Any other fundamental civil rights you'd like to dribble away via majority decisions?

[MadHound]

57. Well thanks for helping prove my point

A total of 87% of Americans want gun controls to remain as they are, or to even tighten them up. In fact the largest number of that poll is those that want gun controls tightened up.

As I stated earlier, we're pandering to a minority of the people. Is that how a democracy is supposed to work?

[Statistical]

66. If majority of this country wanted to fom a state religion (Christianity of course) ...

would you support that?

Majority rules right?

Oh wait the founders didn't think that way either.
That is why they put restrictions on the govt ability to infringe on the individual.
One of those rights IS the right to keep and bear arms. You can not like it, or you can pretend it doesn't exist but it does.

Just like a state religion would be unconstitutional, or requiring people to pay to vote would be Unconstitutional, or only allowing "govt approved news" would be unconstitutional regardless of how much the scared majority feels they need it.

It is a right no more and no less than any other right in the BofR. Deal with it.

[MadHound]

78. Damn you must have been working for days gathering straw for that big ol' strawman

Having stronger gun control measures, or even keeping them as is now, is not infringing upon the Second Amendment. There is case after Supreme Court case affirming the Constitutionality of gun control laws. The vast majority of Americans want gun control laws either to remain at present levels or to become tighter. None of these laws are about banning guns or taking guns out of your hands.

I recognize and respect the Second Amendment, I take advantage of it myself (or did you just neglect that part of my OP). But I also respect the will of the people in a democratic system of government. And the will of the people is that we need to either retain, or increase the amount of gun control practiced in this country.

What is your problem with democracy?

[Statistical]

92. Constitutional ONLY if it follows strict scrutiny.

You can't infringe a right simply because you (or govt wants to).
You can't even infringe a right because it seems like a good idea.

Maybe if you actually understood even a little about the Democracy you claim I have a problem with you would understand that.

Read and you might learn something:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strict_scrutiny

First, it must be justified by a compelling governmental interest. While the Courts have never brightly defined how to determine if an interest is compelling, the concept generally refers to something necessary or crucial, as opposed to something merely preferred. Examples include national security, preserving the lives of multiple individuals, and not violating explicit constitutional protections.

Second, the law or policy must be narrowly tailored to achieve that goal or interest. If the government action encompasses too much (overbroad) or fails to address essential aspects of the compelling interest (under-inclusive), then the rule is not considered narrowly tailored.

Finally, the law or policy must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest. More accurately, there cannot be a less restrictive way to effectively achieve the compelling government interest, but the test will not fail just because there is another method that is equally the least restrictive. Some legal scholars consider this 'least restrictive means' requirement part of being narrowly tailored, though the Court generally evaluates it as a separate prong.

See simply having a compelling govt interest (public safety) IS NOT BY ITSELF SUFFICIENT to restrict a right.

The restriction must alos be narrowly tailored and be the least restrictive means to achieve that interest.

Nobody could logically look at the issue and say "the only way possible to keep people same in National Parks is to ban all guns, all the time, by all people".

The law fails to like up to Strict Scrutiny, there was a Constitutional challenge against it however that was rendered moot by the law being changed to allow CCW to carry firearms.

See the difference:

BAN ALL GUNS in a National Park = not least restrictive
Only allow those persons with a valid CCW to carry weapon in a National Park = least restrictive

[MadHound]

99. First of all, using Wiki to try and prove anything is just lame

Second of all, you're once again falling for the argument that gun control is an infringement on the Second Amendment. It isn't. You can keep your guns, you can use them in a fairly unrestricted fashion (geez, if you think you're oppressed go take a look at Canada's gun laws). Nobody is taking them away from you. You're simply drawing the wrong conclusion that gun control equals taking away your guns.

We have gun control laws in this country that prevent people from owning rocket launchers and other such arms. Do you also think that those laws should be done away with since they are "infringing upon your rights?"

[Statistical]

102. No those laws meet scrict scrutiny.

You want to find another source other than wiki then fine it will tell you the same thing.

For ANY RESTRICTION on ANY RIGHT to be Constitutional IT MUST meet Strict Scrutiny.

Simply passing a law because "it will do go" or "people want it" is not sufficient.

Strict Scrutiny is the line that divides Unconstitutional from Constitutional.

I never said all gun control laws are Unconstitutional.

However the idea that someone is safe enough to carry a firearm outside an imaginary line but stepping foot over that line the right to carry must be absolutely prohibited is laughable. To pass scrict scrutiny the ban would need to show that the ONLY WAY POSSIBLE to protect the public would be to BAN ALL GUNS ALL THE TIME BY ALL PEOPLE inside National Parks. The govt can't meet that burden of proof and if you look at it logically neither can you.

[RaleighNCDUer]

103. There's a stat missing from that chart.

Gun lobby money spent promoting anti-gun control message over the same time period.

[Lorien]

68. +1. It's always the same small, vocal, fear crazed, irrational minority

that has succeeded in making America LESS tolerable for the majority. It's the same crowd that foams at the mouth over immigrants, wants to take away the rights of women, screams about taxes and bad teachers and denies climate change. We're catering to the most paranoid, least intelligent and informed while calling this knuckle dragging group the "real Americans." You apparently can't be a "real American" unless you employ emotion over reason on every issue and reject education and intellectual curiosity outright. ENOUGH!It's time that WE took our country back!

[DainBramaged]

123. Hear hear

duck



:evilgrin:

[aikoaiko]

86. I don't understand why people are opposed to this?

What makes carrying in a NP any different from carrying outside the park but within the same state?

Some of the arguments I've heard are:

that people who are recreating will be careless with their guns, but the same risk exists in the rest of the state.

that people will poach animals, but the same risk exists in the rest of the state.

that people will shoot the rangers(are LEO), but the same risk exists in the rest of the state.

If the of the state can handle these risks and allow concealed carry, what is the problem with carrying in parks?

[Statistical]

93. You are using logic. For antis it is an emotional issue.

What you said is exactly true.

IF someone is allowed to carry a firearm legally 2 inches outside a National Park boundary how do they suddenly present so much more danger if the step across that line.

The reality is they don't.

The law simply makes land inside the line on a map the same as the land outside the line.

If a state doesn't allow CCW outside the NP then it is now allowed inside the NP.
If a state allows CCW outside the NP then it is now allowed inside the NP.

[MadHound]

104. The reasons vary, but the key point is that people object, lots of them

In fact probably the majority of them. I for one, and I'm not alone, are tired of having a small minority of people dictate the laws which we live under. I'm tired of having the gun industry ram through laws like CCW against the will of the people simply so that the gun industry can make more money.

Not to mention I've seen some of the winners who receive CCW permits in my state, and some of the winners who use our park system here. Putting those two together is a very bad idea.

[aikoaiko]

157. One of the great things about our country is that minority rights can prevail.

As long as the expression of those rights don't interfere with yours, then they should be allowed always.

Merely carrying guns concealed does not infringe on your ability to enjoy the park and I support the just enforcement of those who take advantage of these new laws.

[XOKCowboy]

194. OMG a reasonable argument. Well stated aikoaiko

Thanks.

[fascisthunter]

162. Fear is the Motivator, and fearful people do everything to get their way

even if most do not share their fear.


Great post.

[beevul]

176. Where to start...

"While only a minority of Americans own a gun, and an even smaller minority carries concealed, we still continue to pander to this minority"


80 plus million people may be a minority, but its not a small one.


"Don't get me wrong, I believe in the right of people to own guns, I have a few myself. I believe that the Second Amendment is a valid and valuable part of our Constitution. But like the majority of Americans in this country I also believe in reasonable measures to control gun violence and gun accidents. This includes prohibiting people from carrying concealed and from carrying in parks."

The bill of rights, combined with our representative republic form of government, prevent mob rule. Beyond that, how does prohibiting people from carrying concealed and from carrying in parks control gun violence and gun accidents?

Concealed carry holders as a group are statistically less dangerous than law enforcement, but I think its safe to assume you aren't all for diusarming law enforcement.

[SteveM]

56. "Double-barreled shotgun?" LA Times' Elmer Fudd approach to guns...

I'm not sure who is advocating that, but it makes good copy for someone out there. Can't think of a more unsuitable self-defense weapon in the big woods, especially if you are hiking. A light, large-caliber handgun is preferable.

This argument is all about symbolism and mythical culture-war scalps. A year from now, who is going to be kicking the gong on this issue, either side? While there is good argument for allowing firearms into national parks, one of the big reasons this law was proposed is due to the total blow-out gun-controllers have suffered in the political field of "battle." When one side routs another, then they are rolled up, and laws liberating the use of guns will surely follow. This is the way of political victory. People on both sides of the issue of gun-control have warned for years that this would happen if "gun-control" was pursued.

Future issues:
(1) open-carry
(2) concealed-carry without need for licensing
(3) guns no longer barred by state/fed law in many businesses and institutional buildings.

The future is here.

[MadHound]

59. Actually according to the NRA the best gun for self defense is a shotgun

You can fire it quickly, essentially from the hip, and it doesn't require a lot of aim. Not to mention that you can load it with some real good stopping power.

[SteveM]

61. In home, perhaps, but I wouldn't hike in a park with one.

[MadHound]

64. Depends on the gun

If you're thinking about an old fashioned shooting iron, sure. But there are some nice, light weight, powerful shotguns out there would do the job nicely.

[SteveM]

70. I've seen short-barreled large-magazine 870s in stainless...

used by guides for use against bears; no doubt a good choice. But when on a long-trek afoot, I wouldn't want to carry a long gun -- too much weight.

[marions ghost]

90. Now it won't even be safe to walk in national parks.

Damn, those people with guns control everything. We won't even be able to be relatively safe hiking in national parks now.

Pigs.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

95. People are allowed to carry guns at home, cars, stores, streets, public... etc.

the rate of CCW permit holders in permissible shall-issue states is about 2-4%.
Think about how often at least 25-50 people are around you...
Statistically, if in a permissible shall-issue state, someone has a concealed carry permit.

There is no logical reason to be more afraid in parks than elsewhere.

[marions ghost]

106. What I am saying

There WAS a reason to be LESS concerned about guns in parks than elsewhere. It was a form of protection for the defenseless hiker, and the animals. Now people can carry guns in parks and so, of course, things will be shot at. Of course.

Your stats are not very comforting either. As the people arm themselves, the world becomes less and less safe. It's all about delusions of control. Now the rest of us have to stay indoors.

We are all now in the line of fire (and I have been there 4 times).

All the RW fear-mongering has gotten this through. It's sick.

[Statistical]

109. Actually despite more people arming themselves violent crime rate is on 20 year decline n/t

[marions ghost]

115. You can't even get any decent statistics on this anymore

Not funded since Boosh, not even by the CDC

Statistical, you ain't got the stats.

[X_Digger]

119. FBI's UCR & BJS not good enough for ya?

According to the BJS National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS)--

* Since 1994, violent crime rates (murder, rape and sexual assault, robbery, and assault) have declined, reaching the lowest level ever recorded in 2005.
* Property crime rates (burglary, theft, and motor vehicle theft) continue to decline.

According to the Federal Bureau of Investigation's Uniform Crime Reports--

* The violent crime rate decreased 1.4% from 2006 to 2007. From 1998 to 2007 the rate fell 17.7%.
* The property crime rate decreased 2.1% from 2006 to 2007. From 1998 to 2007, the rate fell 19.5%.

[marions ghost]

122. And what study

shows those figures have anything to do with availability of guns?

Give me the stats on death by gun.

55% suicide (90% success rate, vs. death by overdose, 2% success rate).

[Statistical]

147. The stats are valid.

Last year less people were accidentally killed by guns than 20 years ago.
Last year less people are injured by guns than 20 years ago.
Last year less people were victims of violent crime then 20 years ago.
Last year less people were murdered with guns than 20 years ago.

If you don't believe me then find something to refute it.

I will direct you to the proper sources though (FBI, DOJ, CDC).

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

165. Sorry you are just dead ass wrong about that.

[marions ghost]

118. Give us the stats about gun deaths

rather than violent crime.

Deaths by gun.

[X_Digger]

125. Here ya go..

These are the closest you can get quickly.. but if you're feeling froggy, you can jump over to the FBI's UCR site and collect the data yourself (hint: it's going down.)

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/percentfirearm.cfm
"After 1996, less than 10% of nonfatal violent crimes involved firearm."


http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/firearmnonfatalrt.cfm

"Nonfatal firearm crime rates have been declining since 1994, before increasing in 2005. "

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/guncrime.cfm

"After peaking in 1993, the number of gun crimes reported to police declined and then stabilized at levels last seen in 1988."

[marions ghost]

127. I said Gun Deaths

not violent crimes, all gun deaths.

(Meanwhile send your lower crime stats to the daughter of a friend who got killed in front of a Target 2 weeks before her wedding).

All deaths by gun in America IS the shameful statistic you don't seem to dredge up.

[X_Digger]

137. The BJS doesn't have a nice graph that I can lay my hands on..

.. but if you really want to see the data for fatalities by firearm, here's a few tables to get you started-

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2008/data/table_20.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2007/data/table_20.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2006/data/table_20.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/05cius/data/table_20.html

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/documents/04tbl2-9a.xls (this includes the stats for 2000-2004)

http://www.fbi.gov/filelink.html?file=/ucr/Cius_99/w99tbl2-9.xls

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_98/98crime/98cius05.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/97crime/97crime2.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/96CRIME/96crime2.pdf

http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/Cius_97/95CRIME/95crime2.pdf

It's been trending down since the UCR started putting the tables online in 1995.

[Statistical]

149. gun death rate is on a 20 year decline (as it homicide rate and violent crime rate)

Sorry the facts don't support your agenda.
http://www.cdc.gov/injury/wisqars/index.html

2006 (latest year available)
Homicide Death Rate (by firearm) 12,791 (4.27 per 100K)
Accidental Death Rate (by firearms) 682 (0.21 per 100K)
Suicide Death Rate (w/ firearm) 16,883 (5.54 per 100K)

1990
Homicide Death Rate (by firearm) 16.218 (6.11 per 100K)
Accidental Death Rate (by firearms) 1416 (0.55 per 100K
Suicide Death Rate (w/ firearm) 18,885 (7.61 per 100K)

FBI and DOJ have more recent numbers but they don't always break out firearms.

Personally I would rather know the homicide rate than the "gun" homicide rate. Dead is dead.

Still even if we look at the somewhat useless "gun only" rate IT STILL IS IN DECLINE.

[arcadian]

96. This is a win for the NRA

I'm just wondering why so many who promote NRA talking points are aloud on a Democratic forum like Democraticunderground? The NRA is against the Democratic party and has demonstrated this time and time again.

[Statistical]

111. Gun Rights isn't a Republican only value.

How are Democratic politicians hurt by this "NRA victory"?

[arcadian]

117. Why don't you look up your statistics

for which politicians(R) the NRA donate to overwhelmingly and get back to me.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

132. Democrats tend to vote against gun rights for some reason.

Not to mention that it is in the actual party platform to renew bans including other gun control measures.


The NRA supports ("endorses") politicians who support guns.
In cases where dem candidates have more support support for RKBA than republican candidates, the Dem gets the endorsement.
It's not "rigged"... more dems just supoprt gun control. Some don't, most do.

[Statistical]

141. That didn't answer the question.

HOW are Democratic politicians hurt by the fact that guns are allowed in National Parks (when allowed in the surrounding state & carried by lawful CCW holders)?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

166. Simple answer those that support gun rights Democrat and Republican.

[beevul]

180. Nra endorses Schweitzer (D) Richardson (D)

Endorsed by the National Rifle Association (NRA), Brian Schweitzer is an avid outdoorsman who has always fought to preserve access to public land, protect our air, water, and land for hunting, fishing, camping, and hiking, and uphold the long held traditions of Montana’s sportsmen

http://www.brianschweitzer.com/access

Richardson positions himself strongly as a man of the West--down to his cowboy boots and string tie. As part of this image, he promotes his support of gun ownership, which dates back to his opposition in Congress to the 1993 Brady Bill. When the National Rifle Association endorsed him in his second run for governor in 2006, Richardson joined them for the announcement at the NRA-sponsored National Police Shooting Championships, held, according to the group’s website, at “a new, state-of-the-art facility i Albuquerque’s Shooting Range Park, made possible with $1.4 million in funding and vigorous support from governor Bill Richardson.“ The NRA’s executive director reported that Richardson ”has treated us first class.“ Richardson, who supported a law allowin New Mexicans to carry concealed weapons, told an appreciative crowd that he had a concealed-carry permit himself. ”I an not packing today, though, because I have plenty of State Police officers here to protect me.“

http://www.issues2000.org/2008/Bill_Richardson_Gun_Control.htm

"The NRA is against the Democratic party and has demonstrated this time and time again."


I'm just wondering why you're "aloud" to say something so obviously and demonstrably untrue.

[Xithras]

100. As a gun owner, an avid hiker, and a hiker who occasionally carries a gun, I don't like this

I think the arguments about poaching, destruction of cultural sites, and concerns about rampaging drunken shootouts are bogus. The simple fact is that guns already are present in the National Parks and always have been. The current laws simply have the effect of keeping them put away and safely secured in all but the most dangerous of situations. You understand, when you carry in a park, that there's a good chance you're going to jail if you pull it out, and doing so gets reserved for situations that are truly life and death. Cougar is carrying a kid off, rapist is having his way with an innocent child, that sort of thing. You never hear about guns in the parks right now because those situations are exceptionally rare, so the guns almost NEVER come out. In those exceptionally rare situations, the rangers almost always look the other way, if the use of the firearm can really be justified.

My real concern is that the easing of the laws neutralizes that fear, and makes their use far more likely. Right now, if you're camping in Yosemite Valley and you forget a loaf of bread in your car, you can expect to be awoken at 3AM by the sound of a bear ripping the door off your car to get at it. The current solution is to pull out your pots and pans, bang them together, and hope it'll leave. That works about half the time (the other half of the time, the bear will just ignore you until its done). But what if the car owner has a gun? How many gun owners are going to sit by and do nothing while a large bear literally shreds their car? For that matter, lets take the car out of it. How many gun owners, with their guns, are going to just reach for them if a bear wanders into their camps one night sniffing around? For most people, doing so would be their FIRST reaction. You're startled, you're scared, a huge animal with large pointy teeth has wandered into your camp, your kids are sitting three feet away, and there's a gun strapped to your leg. What is your instinct going to be? That's tragic, as most bears can be scared off pretty easily if they haven't found food yet (and half the time, can be scared off even if they have). There hasn't been an actual bear attack in Yosemite in decades, but fear is a powerful motivator.

I don't think people will be shooting things up for the hell of it, but let's be honest here. There are lots of scary things in the forest, and fight or flight is a pretty primal response. When you're faced with a scary thing and you have a gun, the results are somewhat predictable. Wildlife is going to suffer in the one place designed to PROTECT that wildlife.

[RaleighNCDUer]

124. Not to mention, that if someone DOES pop off at a bear because he's

scared, chances are that will provoke the bear to attack. Instead of being merely curious, the bear (or mountain lion, or wolf, or whatever the scary critter is) will be hurt and angry, increasing the danger ten-fold.

The chances of taking down a black bear with a quick, frightened shot with your 9mm are infinitesimal.

[Xithras]

128. It also has a possibility of changing bear behavior.

Many people have commented over the years at how docile Yosemite's bears seem to be. They'll walk into your camp, take your food, and smile as they walk out (ok, bears don't smile, but you get the point). In every case, they'll either take your food and leave or ignore you until they're ready to leave on their own. Unless you do something incredibly stupid like get between a momma bear and her cub, they're going to ignore you, because they've become accustomed to the idea that we're not a threat. Since they're not interested in eating us, they're not interested in fighting us unless they absolutely must.

If people start shooting bears that wander into camps, the bears are going to become far more flighty around humans, and will become far more aggressive when placed in situations where humans are nearby because they will consider us a threat. Humans and bears have to coexist in these woods, and ready access to guns threatens to alter the relationship between our species when they do run into each other. It could lead to more bear attacks.

[Spoonman]

159. Having lived in "bear country" ALASKA

for several years, and having had no less than 100 bear encounters in my life, I would definitively state that your assertion is nonsense.

Unless you do something incredibly stupid like get between a momma bear and her cub, they're going to ignore you, because they've become accustomed to the idea that we're not a threat. Since they're not interested in eating us, they're not interested in fighting us unless they absolutely must.

The most dangerous bears are those that are accustomed to human presence. This has been well established by biologists world wide.

Bears can attack for any number of reasons simply because they are wild and unpredictable animals.
However, there are three distinct reasons why a bear attacks.
1. Defense of offspring
2. Defense of territory or food
3. Acquiring a food source

The most dangerous time of year to be in bear country is in the spring, when bears come out of hibernation. They are half starved from their winter sleep, and EVERYTHING is a food source. This is especially true of the most common bear, the black bear.

All it takes is simply to walk up on a moose kill, and you are in grave danger!

Walk down a trail that the bear "feels" is his and his alone, he'll prove it is his trail!

Spend 4-5 days in the bush, and you will start to smell like a goat, and that's your ass!

If people start shooting bears that wander into camps, the bears are going to become far more flighty around humans, and will become far more aggressive when placed in situations where humans are nearby because they will consider us a threat.

This is complete and utter nonsense.
First off people are not going to just start shooting bears simply because they “have a gun” and the bear comes into camp.
But let’s just run with your assertion anyway.
If people start shooting bears, they are going to die, not just become more flighty.
If people start shooting to scare the bears (intentionally missing them) the bears will become more flighty, NOT MORE AGGRESSIVE.
They will consider us a threat, and AVOID human contact by running like hell.

It’s called aversion therapy.

http://www.people.com/people/archive/article/0,,20125540,00.html

Bear Scarer - wildlife biologist Carrie Hunt at Yellowstone National Park

After tracking down a problem bear (usually found foraging at night in park garbage), Hunt and park workers chase him with three or four leashed, barking Karelian bear dogs—a breed used by hunters in Finland and Russia. Then she shoots off firecrackers and shouts, "Get out of here, bear!" If the beast doesn't take the hint, Hunt blasts it in the rump with rubber bullets or bean-bags.

Of the 60 bears, including 19 grizzlies, that Hunt put a scare into last summer, most were still "being good" when she left in the fall. Says Hunt: "The more I get to know bears, the more I realize how gentle and willing to avoid trouble they are."

Humans and bears have to coexist in these woods, and ready access to guns threatens to alter the relationship between our species when they do run into each other. It could lead to more bear attacks.

I think not, as proven false by all of the above.

Having worked as hunting and fishing guide in Alaska for several years and on the North Slope for several years gives me a little more insight into this information than most.
There were many fishing trips when I had to avoid Denali National Park boundaries because I was packing a pistol and a shot gun.
Funny thing, the bears didn’t give a shit what those boundaries were, and were just as dangerous whether they were 10 feet inside or outside the park!

Polar bears, don’t get me started, they see EVERYTHING as food including tasty environmental techs like myself.

[Xithras]

168. I was very specifically talking about Yosemite.

Yosemite bears are heavily acclimated to the presence of human beings and their behavior is markedly different from that of a "wilder" black bear from somewhere like Alaska, or ANY brown bear.

FWIW, with only a couple of exceptions, I've hiked the Yosemite backcountry pretty much every summer for the past 20 years. In those two decades, I've had more bear encounters than I can count. For the past 15 years, I've carried a revolver in my pack as a "last resort" defense following a close call I had with a cub and angry momma bear. In those 15 years, despite those countless run-in's, I have never once had a situation where I actually needed to PULL the handgun from my pack, much less fire it. I have seen some incredibly angry looking bears back off when confronted by an equally angry adult human screaming at them and waving their arms. I have also seen THREE bears actually charge hikers, all of which were warded off by bear spray.

Can the Yosemite black bears attack people? Of course. It's happened before, and it will no doubt happen again at some point. But shooting them is almost never needed. They don't view humans as a threat, and they don't view us as prey, so they generally pay us no more interest than they pay a passing buck.

That could change rapidly if scared hikers start shooting them and they begin to associate humans with pain and death.

[depakid]

174. Given the density of humans in Yosemite- this is very bad idea

irrespective of whether your argument re: bear behavior makes any sense or not.

Even then, as you mention- Bear spray is by far the more effective alternative.

[Statistical]

145. So you believe you have the right to violate the law?

If so you shouldn't have the right to own/carry a weapon anywhere or at anytime.

No rule of law is only option:

Either
a) guns are illegal in NP and if you carry one in there I want you arrested as a felon and your gun rights stripped for life
or
b) guns are legal

There is no gray area where it should be illegal so some people don't carry them but those who think they are above the law will carry them.

[Xithras]

153. I'm just saying that's the way it's always been.

It's the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" of the forest. Rangers don't stop and ask ANYONE if they have a firearm. If you pull it out without an immediate, life threatening reason to do so, you're going to get arrested. Why? Because there is no valid reason for pulling a firearm in a national park WITHOUT an immediate, life threatening situation in front of you. You "told", so you get arrested. If you pull it out WHILE trying to stop an immediate threat, there is a good chance that you're going to get arrested anyway, but few juries will convict in that circumstance so they are rarely prosecuted.

Every park works this way, and they always have. If you have ever hiked in the backcountry of any national park, you've either hiked with, or hiked past, people who are carrying firearms. I gurantee it. I'd wager real money on it. You don't see them, but they're there.

What I would like to see is a merger of the two systems. Yes, you can legally carry, BUT: If you fire the gun for ANY reason, even if the reason is to save your own life, you get slapped with a $5000 per shot fine. Whether you shoot into the air, into the ground, or into an animal, you pay $5000 per shot. You can contest the fine in court, but the burden will be on the defendant to prove that there was NO other reasonable way to resolve the situation. That would provide an escape for those who are facing those rare but real life and death situations, while severely punishing those who shoot without first trying other options (hint: if a black bear wanders into your camp in Yosemite, shooting it is NEVER justified unless it's actually biting someone...which never happens).

[Statistical]

155. There shouldn't be a "DADT" of the forest. We are/should be a country of RULE OF LAW.

If you want to carry weapons in forest it should be legal.

"Few juries will convict" yeah that is comfort for the few that do. Rule of law should be clear and absolute. There shouldn't be defacto law ("this is the way it is done") and paper law.

There is just one law.

If you support it being illegal to carry firearms in NP then you accept NEVER under any circumstances to EVER carry a firearm there. Period.

As far as a fine for discharging a firearm. I am pretty sure there already is a fine for discharging a firearm. I do not support a system where I am found innocent of any crime (used firearm in self defense) and then I need to go hire another lawyer to contest the $5000 fine for following the law.

Sorry. Rule of law is the only true form of liberty. Sometimes it is hard and sometimes it is difficult but there is no liberty if you can be fined/arrested for following the law or have to "know" you can break the law because "everyone does it".

Pass a law. Enforce it. Too easy.

[Xithras]

156. I gave you an example I'd support.

As for that, my position is simple, but I apparently wasn't quite clear enough. I'm saying that discharging a firearm, even in self defense should be a crime. The bar shouldn't be "I discharged to protect myself or others", it should be "I discharged because it was the only possible way to protect myself or others". If a ranger or wildlife expert can show the court that you had other options to protect yourself and you failed to use them, you should be prosecuted anyway...even if your discharge saved your life or the life of another.

You should read up on Teddy Roosevelt's thinking when he created the national parks system. The National Forests were designed to be publicly held land set aside for the common use of man, be it for recreation, profit, etc. The National Parks, on the other hand, were publicly held land set aside for the use of nature. The needs and rights of the natural environment must come first. While I do NOT advocate letting animals kill people (obviously, I wouldn't carry myself if I did), the use of force against them MUST be reserved for only the most dire situations where no other alternative exists. If firearms, devices specifically designed to maim and kill, are going to be allowed into the parks, their use should be regulated according to that perspective.

[Statistical]

158. "I'm saying that discharging a firearm, even in self defense should be a crime."

Sorry never going to support that in a million years.

I would actively campaign against any candidate (I don't care the party) who would make it a crime for me to defend myself.

We will just need to agree to disagree. The very idea to make self defense a crime is tyranny in my book.

[Xithras]

160. IN NATIONAL PARKS. Those are the key words there.

And yes, I would make it a crime for you to defend yourself with a firearm if there were other ways to handle the problem. In the national parks, man is simply a visitor. You can defend yourself if attacked, and can even do so with a gun if it's the only way, but it had damned well better be the only way and you'd better be able to prove it. The law here needs to be extremely narrowly defined, highly restrictive, and enforced vigorously.

Outside of the parks, my opinion is radically different. You can look up the details in my posting history if you want (I've discussed it a few times over the past decade), but I'm one of the very few people here on DU who has actually shot another human being (to stop an armed rapist mid-rape). I'm not anti-gun, or anti self-defense, or anti-hunting, but I simply consider the rights of man to be of secondary importance when we're talking about the National Parks.

Carry your gun. Defend yourself. But if you skipped on buying the bear repellent because you have .45 bear load in your pack and decided you didn't need both, you should be prosecuted if you end up shooting the bear. By skipping the nonlethal alternative in favor of a firearm, you've placed your own convenience ahead of the protection of nature...and the protection of nature is the PRIMARY purpose of the existence of these parks in the first place.

[Statistical]

163. So if firearm is only way to defend myself my choices are...

a) defend myself and be charged with a crime and possibly lose in court because I can't prove my lack of guilt.
b) die or be injured or allow someone else to die or be injured.

I understand what you are saying 100%.

"Lucky" for me, our court systems are based on this quaint thing called "innocent until proven guilty".

Something attacks me I defend myself. The burden of proof is on the state not the criminal. The requirement for the convicted to prove a crime DIDN'T happen doesn't even apply to career felons killing ANOTHER HUMAN BEING.

You don't need to keep explaining. I understand EXACTLY what you are saying and I think it is an utterly horrible idea. I will never support it, I would even go so far as to actively support it. This is something I would go beyond parties line to help defeat and ensure anyone who has such casual disrespect for rule of law never gets to be in position to inflct that kind of damage again.

The BofR is important to me. All the amendments not just the second amendment. Guilty until you can prove you are innocent is NOT acceptable. Not on this situation, not in any situation.

[tranche]

108. This decision will effect people in NO way.

Unless you want to stick it to the NRA then this decision is meaningless.

[SteveM]

135. Yep. Just more culture war. And Democrats are bad at culture war. nt

[proteus_lives]

148. It's funny to watch people freak-out over nothing.

Guns were in National Parks before and they're there now.

It's always amazed me how people think being anti-gun is being liberal/progressive. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[glinda]

178. So if a person kills/poaches an animal in the woods and no one hears it does that mean

"they didn't". LOL! What a pile of crap! This rule is for sport shooters and not for wildlife or even people.

[LanternWaste]

181. personal prudence compels me...

All things being equal, personal prudence compels me to put National Parks on the list of Places to Avoid for the time being.

[beevul]

182. As opposed to...

As opposed to places with strict gun control that are "safe" like Chicago and D.C.?

[marmar]

183. And how often do bad things happen to visitors to downtown Chicago or Washington DC?

Hint: Not very often.

[beevul]

186. More often...

More often than the state parks that the poster I responded to said he/she was going to avoid.


Which was my entire point.

[beevul]

193. Are you sure...

"All things being equal, personal prudence compels me to put National Parks on the list of Places to Avoid for the time being."

Are you sure you don't mean "All things being equal, personal prejudice compels me to put National Parks on the list of Places to Avoid for the time being"?

[XOKCowboy]

195. Please do. I'd be worried about stepping out your front door also...

Because the park regs are now just like anywhere else.

[slackmaster]

199. Good

Fewer people is always better.

[old mark]

192. This means all anti gun people should stay our of the parks. In fact

you should all stay home.

mark

[XOKCowboy]

196. YEEEEHAWWWWW! Jethro grab the guns and the moonshine! We're going to Yellowstone!

:eyes:

[ManiacJoe]

197. Now the laws will be consistent in each state

between the state parks, national parks, and national forests.
Good news!