Parks officials urge lawmakers: Keep gun ban

This is a discussion on Parks officials urge lawmakers: Keep gun ban within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by GBS My views on self defense are about as permissive as can be, except for National Parks. Carry if you wish, but ...

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 48

Thread: Parks officials urge lawmakers: Keep gun ban

  1. #16
    Member Array Dihappy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Texas
    Posts
    272
    Quote Originally Posted by GBS View Post
    My views on self defense are about as permissive as can be, except for National Parks.

    Carry if you wish, but I am one of those who really does have a problem with carrying in a place where the natural instinct is to go into 'hunt mode'.

    I am not against hunting - in lawful areas, the sport has its rightful place in the giant scheme of things.
    I dont take offense to your opinion but i just dont get it. Just cuz there are "animals" in parks, doesnt mean someone will go into "hunt mode"

    I completely disagree with your post. I absolutely love hunting and i have never thought about shooting an animal just cuz i was carrying a gun. the right to self defense and the threat of being assaulted does not stop at the borders of a National Park.

    In Texas, there are more deer readily available outside of National Parks than there are inside and if CCW/CHL holders havnt started poaching around town then they arent about to inside national parks.

    Given the tendancy of CCW/CHL holders to be about 5 times less likely to commit a crime vs non CCW/CHL holders, i would say that the threat to our precious wildlife is more likely to come from non-CCW/CHL holders.

    I know your a site supporter, and i respect you for that, but i hope you dont take offense to me wondering if youve been living in California too long :)

    Quote Originally Posted by SpringerXD View Post
    If an animal presents a legitimate threat to a human life and every possible alternative is exhausted, then shoot the damned thing! I guarantee you I would shoot a bear if I saw no other way to get my kids safely away from it. I don't care how endangered it is. I would make every possible effort to avoid this, but sometimes there's no way out.

    I say let's drop the stupid and unnecessary gun restriction, but let them put the strictest animal-endangerment laws they want into action. That should work out just fine.

    Springer, the problem is that there are actually people who would say you were at the wrong place at the wrong time and would prefer that the bear hurt or kill another human than for another human to kill the animal in defense of themselves or another.

    SHOCKING but absulutely true.

    The name Timothy Treadwell comes to mind.
    "...trying to get a long gun into play while someone is all over you like a monkey eating a cupcake is not very conducive to good survival techniques." ~Bark'n

  2. Remove Ads

  3. #17
    Member Array Geds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Missouri
    Posts
    99
    I own forty acres of critter-infested woods, and have 3 handguns and a deer rifle. In all the years I've owned that property, I have never shot an animal on it. I regularly scare up deer and rabbits and squirrels ON MY WAY to shoot at the range I have on my property. Never have I been tempted to kill an animal just because I can.

    That gun-owners will be going into "hunt-mode" just because they are around animals and have a gun is just about the dumbest rationality against legitimate self defense I have ever seen.

    Are you sure you're not a politician from Illinois?

  4. #18
    Senior Member Array BkCo1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    1,056
    I agree with Geeds. 100%. I find your thinking very insulting. I also hunt. Hunters do more for game conservation than anybody else.

    Semper Fi

  5. #19
    VIP Member Array Supertac45's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Michigan's U.P.
    Posts
    3,657
    Hunting and carrying for self defense are 2 different things. Our National Parks have a high rate of crime with very little Law Enforcement available. I know I don't have a Officer with me when I'm in a Park, so I'm responsible for myself.
    Les Baer 45
    Sig Man
    N.R.A. Patron Life Member
    M.C.R.G.O.

  6. #20
    Distinguished Member Array lacrosse50's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    SW Ohio
    Posts
    1,283
    I don't care what their statistics say, or how they compare to our statistics. I don't care how safe or un-safe the parks are. I don't care if they are undermanned, or if there are going to be park rangers every 50 feet. All I care about is my safety and my rights, both of which are being threatened.

    I respect nature. I like camping, hunting, fishing, hiking, and just sitting and admiring the view. But I respect my rights a great deal more.

    No matter what the statistics or studies or experts or arm-chair quarterbacks say, it's all moot. My rights, and by that I mean American citizen's rights, trump all.
    The ultimate result of shielding men from the effects of folly is to fill the world with fools.
    -Herbert Spencer

    NRA Life Member

  7. #21
    Member Array PeterCartwright's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Michigan's U.P.
    Posts
    207
    In addition to the threat of lawless persons, some of these places include admittedly rare but present threats from "lawless" fauna as well. Those who remind us about the importance of clean camping and bear wise behavior are right to do so, but there is no guantee that behavior as a model camper/hiker/visitor will keep one safe. Two issues come to mind: 1. There are a few "crazy animals" (just like there are a few crazy people) who's behavior defies expected norms. Do a search on human/bear encounters (usually black bears) over the last decade and one begins to discover that not all bears, black, brown or purple, have read the Disney script. 2. More importantly, the most bear-wise camper is often at risk because OTHER campers have taught animals bad behavior. Ten years ago, late in September @ about 5:00 p.m., my buddy and I were just setting up camp in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area. A butterball fat and very large boar walked into camp as if he owned it, sat on his butt about 40 feet away, looked at our food pack (which had not yet been hidden) and began to drewl (sp?). We weren't alarmed because his behavior wasn't agressive, but after taking our pictures, we discovered that "Yogi" had no intention of leaving...even after I fired a load of birdshot (grouse season) over his head. Ultimately one of us stood "guard" while the other packed up camp and we ceded the space to our very fat, camp wise friend. Our visit ended well with a wonderful memory, but I have to tell you, that 12ga. improved the pucker factor considerably.

    Am I a sissy for preferring to be armed against extremely rare but real danger? Probably. But I'll be a more comfortable sissy (grin). (By the way, when I got back home, I made a trip to the local gun store and bought my first handgun-a stainless Ruger Super Blackhawk. That tool has made all subsequent trips with me into wilderness areas where it was legal to carry it).

  8. #22
    VIP Member Array tns0038's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,117
    Critters are not the problem. BG’s who pray on the weak and unarmed are.

    I’ve already contacted both of Florida’s senators, and they confirmed they are for changing Federal Parks.

    Who else can I contact?

  9. #23
    Ex Member Array DOGOFWAR01's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    WYOMING
    Posts
    562
    It's about "people control (us) " and "job security (the park rangers)".

    Along with same unfounded fears of many across this Nation, that never happened.

    Many say they support the 2A, but do not by their words and actions.

  10. #24
    Senior Member Array allenruger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Kentucky
    Posts
    695
    Quote Originally Posted by tns0038 View Post
    Critters are not the problem. BG’s who pray on the weak and unarmed are.

    I’ve already contacted both of Florida’s senators, and they confirmed they are for changing Federal Parks.

    Who else can I contact?
    I contacted Senator Tom Coburn (OK) just to let him know that I supported his efforts on our behalf.
    Allen

    -"I may get killed with my own gun, but he's gonna have to beat me to death with it, 'cause it's going to be empty." -Clint Smith

  11. #25
    Member
    Array ArmedAviator's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Prescott, AZ
    Posts
    113
    Ditto on many posts her. I lived in Jackson Hole, WY for 20 years and when I went into the parks (Grand Teton or Yellowstone), I carried three things, gun, knife and bear spray. The kids carried something to make noise with so when walking around blind corners you could alert animals to your presence rather than surprising them. I also hunt, but as many have already said, I didn't become some crazy wild-eyed nut job bent on killing any animal I came across. Just out to enjoy God's creation and spend some time with the family.

    Given the precautions we took, we rarely saw bears and only a mountain lion from a distance. But animals were not the only dangers in the wild. Many transients roll through parks. Camp grounds and parking lots are easy targets for thieves. Robberies were common, but there were worse incidents including murder rape.

    Also, in many park areas, there is little or no cell phone coverage. Depending on where you are, you may see lots of people or you may hike/camp for a couple of days and see no one. Not a good place to be if the SHTF from the furry or bipedal sort. Park rangers are spread too thin given the large areas so you are really on your own.

    Given all this, I felt protection of my family was of first and foremost importance. I'm sure they (insert hippies and tree-huggers) would have strung me up had I ever damaged one of mommy natures blessed creatures (with a gun) but I was willing to take the risk for myself and family.
    The old sheriff was attending an awards dinner when a lady commented on his wearing his sidearm. 'Sheriff, I see you have your pistol. Are you expecting trouble?' 'No Ma'am. If I were expecting trouble, I would have brought my rifle.'

  12. #26
    Senior Member Array walvord's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    St. Charles County Missouri
    Posts
    991
    I hope the new law is passed and we're able to carry in our nations National Parks. In our subdivision, everyone has 3 acres or more that has our homes situated on them. Deer and other animals are always eating in our yards and crossing the streets. Not once have I had the urge to shoot any of them - IMHO that is a flawed argument for not having CCW in the parks.
    The most exhilarating thing in life is getting shot at with no results.
    - Winston Churchill
    Endowment Life Member - NRA
    Life Member - GOA
    Member - Oath Keepers, SAF, CCRKBA
    U.S. Army (72G) 1975-1980

  13. #27
    VIP Member
    Array kentuckycarry's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    kentucky
    Posts
    2,219
    Apparently GBS you are not a hunter, because your opinions sound kinda, well.......sheepish. I've bow hunted for 8 or 9 years. I buy a license every year and not once have I been tempted to shoot an animal without a license. The laws are there to be abided by. That stands in the city, the country, the woods or a National Park. I should be able to carry my ccw while bow hunting, but can't, and if I did, It wouldn't cross my mind to use it on an animal "just because it's there". Your post sounds no different than saying ccw should'nt be allowed on college campus .Law abiding citizens obey the law.
    Where is there an easier place to get away with rape or murder than out in the vast wilderness? I would use my gun to protect myself against a bear attack, but only as the last resort just like anywhere else.

  14. #28
    VIP Member Array cphilip's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    South Carolina
    Posts
    2,183
    Lets be sure that we understand that Poaching and Hunting are two completely seperate things. And so is self defense a completely other issue. Poachers intent is to kill animals regardless of laws and where they might be. In most cases there is no hunting season in a National Park anyway. And poachers know this and no law seems to keep them out nor deter them from going about the business of poaching for whatever reason they do it for. They often are trying to gather items for unusual black markets. Such as Bear gall bladders and Bones for the oriental market. They don't now nor will they obey the no guns rules. Poaching is NOT hunting. It will not be curbed in any fashion at all by restricting guns from the law abiding. At its very root it is forbidden and yet it occurs anyway.

    As to self defense, there recently has been a rash of articles pointing out that crime has increased dramatically in our nations National Parks. And often it is cited that the number of Park Rangers is down compared to 10 or more years ago. And that being a Park Ranger is one of the most dangerous jobs in the Federal government now. So now we have Park Rangers, who know they are not sufficiently staffed to provide safety to themselves LET ALONE to visitors wanting to deny that right to the visitors? Makes little sense at all. If they could protect themselves then maybe I would listen. But they cannot! They cannot even protect themselves in the parks they oversee. They admit it too. There is about one Park ranger for about every 100,000 visitors and about 112,000 acres of land. Not even a small city police department is so poorly staffed. And even those cannot protect every resident 100% of the time. Violent people can easily take up in a camp ground. Its not like you can lock your doors either. And not like you will have dependable cell phone service nor fast emergency response. Let alone even adequate chance of response...

    Recently we have had a predatory killer in our area that took advantage of this fact. He sought his victims out along hiking trails knowing full and well they were alone or disarmed and relaxed to the threat of any dangers. He knows that it is not likely they will be armed. Luckily he messed up and left a few clues and they apprehended him long after he had killed at least three and suspected of several more. There have been other famous cases, solved and unsolved, of "trail killers". They all read the papers. You are likely to see more of them and you are not safe in the woods from them no matter how peaceful the surroundings.

    It is just a fact that violence occurs way off in the woods. And your being told that you can either take the risk or stay home. Leaving the woods to the criminals and the few Park Rangers that remain to fight it out.

  15. #29
    Member Array mattd's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    NC
    Posts
    38
    Ditto on that ******* that jacked the elderly couple in pigsah and then the young lady in Georgia (and probably another female in FL too). I'd like to have a few minutes alone in the woods with him and his baton.

    I really don't understand why this is even an issue up for debate. The number of folks who've been attacked (and most of them killed) by violent felons in the parks is staggering. I have talked to some non-gun folks about this issue. One of the significant misunderstandings is this: a lot of antis don't realize that we're talking about concealed carry. They're under the impression that every jo blow is going to be trekking down the path with a 44 on their belt (or, in a tacti-cool holster). This is entirely not the intent of the letter!

    My SIL is from CA - her arguments against CC in general seethe with ignorance. When she talks it sounds as if she learned about gun control on Oprah.

    If you do your homework, you'll quickly see that there have been many crimes in parks against unarmed visitors that warrant this amendment in a dire way. Now that I have two little ones hiking and fishing with me - you can be assured that I will always be armed when in the woods.
    Last edited by mattd; February 12th, 2008 at 04:01 PM. Reason: Spelled Oprah's name wrong - big sorry to the fans out there!

  16. #30
    Senior Member Array bobcat35's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    664
    seriously theres more endangered wildlife living on the ranges where i train than there is in any given national park. these critters survive even with tank round fire overhead, arttilery being called in and countless rounds of small arms fire as a routine occurance. i doubt a few dozen chl's is going to seriously impact the wildlife. and yes i do spend time outside.
    "Nothing in life is so exhilarating as to be shot at without result."
    -Winston Churchill
    Every well-bred petty crook knows: the small concealable weapons always go to the far left of the place setting.
    -Inara, firefly

Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Similar Threads

  1. Feeling the urge...
    By Barbary in forum Defensive Carry Guns
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: August 5th, 2010, 04:56 PM
  2. Crossbreed Urge!
    By Old Marine in forum Defensive Carry Holsters & Carry Options
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: January 2nd, 2010, 07:29 PM
  3. Have the Urge to get a Tac Light
    By Hivoltage in forum Related Gear & Equipment
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: November 6th, 2005, 04:49 PM