U.S. considers easing ban on guns in national parks

[MarkInLA]

Source: Los Angeles Times

Advocates of change say it will improve safety. Opponents are convinced it would do the opposite.

By Richard Simon and Judy Pasternak, Los Angeles Times Staff Writers
February 23, 2008

WASHINGTON -- In a victory for gun-rights advocates, the federal government is preparing to relax a decades-old ban on bringing loaded firearms into national parks.

Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne said Friday that his department would suggest new regulations by the end of April that could bring federal rules into line with state laws concerning guns in parks and public lands. His announcement came in a letter to Sen. Michael D. Crapo (R-Idaho), one of 50 senators who have written to him about the issue. Senators from both parties have backed a drive to repeal the ban, which has been in place in some parks for at least 100 years.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-guns23feb23,0,6348105.story

[Trajan]

1. Isnt this story like 2 weeks old ?

Hardly 'Latest Breaking' ...

[michreject]

40. This is new news

2 weeks ago they were only considering it. It's set in stone now. It's gonna happen.

[lligrd]

2. Oh Great. Chicken Hawks Afraid To Go Camping

without a gun?

[krispos42]

9. So what are you afraid of?

This law change will allow people that already have concealed-carry permits for a particular state to continue to carry while in the part of a national park that is in that state.

If they can carry safely in the most densely-populated urban area of a state, why can't they carry in a national park?

[pokercat999]

16. "If they can carry safely " sure right up until the instant

they no longer carry "safely". The answer (if there is a problem) is more rangers not more guns.

[krispos42]

23. Ah, the .00001% doctrine

If there's a .00001% chance they might commit a crime with their lawfully carried pistol, you must be in fear as if it was a 100% chance.

Never mind the fact that the such a change in the law would not affect the real problem, which is criminals carrying guns into the national parks.


You have far more to fear from the average citizen than the average concealed-carry permitee. Unless you're a criminal, of course.

[Thor_MN]

38. Ah, the .00000001% doctrine

The certainty that the average concealed-carry permitee will be able to deter some crime

[Mythsaje]

51. You DO realize that criminals prefer to prey on the unarmed, right? n/t

[krispos42]

65. You mean the .5% doctine?

1.5 million defensive gun uses a year in a population of 300 million. That's half a percentage point.

For every justifiable homicide by a citizen there are over 6,000 defensive gun uses.

[Thor_MN]

108. No, I mean bullshit made up statistics.

If there are indeed 1.5 million justified denfensive uses a year, I'm thinking it is the work of about 150 thousand wannbe vigilantes getting their wads off while looking for trouble.

I have several guns in my house, all predating any sort of registration. I'm not against guns - just against the idiots that think they need to armed all the time. I don't feel the need to wear a life preserver while in flood prone areas, nor the need to carry my handguns while shopping. Maybe I just live in a safe area, or maybe I choose not to life my life in a state of constant fear.

That said, if one was actually in the wilderness, a firearm is not a bad idea. However, in most national parks, I think the odds of someone coming back to the trail after a mid-woods whiz getting shot by a gun toting nervous nellie are higher than the odds of needing a gun to fend off an animal attack.

[pokercat999]

46. They don't have to commit a crime just do something

stupid. And as for the 100% chance it IS a 100% certanity for the few who get killed or injuried by the average concealed-carry permitee.

More cops/rangers enforcing real laws not "fighting" the bullshit "war on drugs".

[Paladin]

105. There's Probably A .00001% Chance Of Being Mugged

That doesn't keep gun militants such as yourself from acting like it's a 100% certainty and arming up accordingly.....

[winston61]

17. Is this really the most rational answer you can

come up with? In a nation where there are probably more guns than people, the answer is more fucking guns? It's like saying the solution to abortion is more abortions.

[krispos42]

24. No, actually, it's not

The "problem" with guns is that is that people of an opinion similar to yours refuse to see the difference between law-abiding people carrying guns and lawless people carrying guns.

The current prohibition is doing exactly diddly squat to disarm the criminals in the national parks. The ones that cultivate fields of marijuana and process crystal meth deep in the stillness of the park. The ones that the park rangers combat with a SWAT-style team.

Part of the answer is allowing those law-abiding, permit-carrying citizens that already have a state-issued concealed-carry licence to carry into the national forest, because THEY are not and never have been a problem.

[BearSquirrel2]

25. Agree on this one ...

Where I think that lots of guns in tightly populated areas are recipes for mayhem, Guns out in sparsely populated areas are good ideas.

The fact that you might encounter militant narcos out there would be my biggest concern. But I would say HANDGUNS only. If you were carrying a rifle, it would be difficult to pick out the poachers.

[krispos42]

26. That's what I'm talking about

If a person already has a state-issued CCW permit to carry in all public areas in the state, including urban and suburban areas, then where's the logic in prohibiting carring that pistol in the woods?

[winston61]

39. Sorry fellas- NO SALE!

the answer is not more guns. What will you say when some 'law abiding' gun owner kills some innocents by mistake? 'Oh well, the greater good outweighs the loss of a few innocent lives.' That sounds like these morons here in Texas who say that executing the odd innocent person is just the price you have to pay to maintain the magnificent death penalty.

[primavera]

49. Yeah, that's exactly what they say

Every time some kid shoots himself with daddy's gun, every time some wife blows her husband away mistaking him for a burglar, every time some motorist gets road rage and starts firing, every time some idiot injures himself cleaning his weapon, every time a marital spat ends in homicide, every time a vice president mistakes another hunter for a deer and shoots him in the face, and so on and so on and so on ad nausea, it's always dismissable as the isolated acts of either "criminals" or "loonies" or some irresponsible "bad apple." It's a great logic in that it allows for no possibility of ever being defeated - no matter how many people die, it's always the exception, not the norm. Guns could kill every man, woman, and child on the planet and the last gun nut standing amidst all of the bullet-ridden corpses would still be raving about how guns weren't the problem, it was just the fault of a few aberrant individuals.

[Pavulon]

54. Dont worry

you will die in your car, or of heart disease, or cancer.

you will not be shot. you will not die in an airline accident.

5000 die a day in the us. a tiny minority are murders. of those murders very few are normal people.

[krispos42]

62. The same thing I saw when it occurs outside of the national parks

Bring it to a jury.


The ban, as it stands now, disarms the law-abiding while not disarming the lawless. The status of the arms in the hands of the criminals is not affected by this bill regardless of whether nor not it passes.

[BearSquirrel2]

115. They call it murder ...

They call it murder and It is effectively no different than if you shot them with an arrow or sliced open their jugular with a knife. Or ... hit them in the head with a rock. Or ... poisoned their water. Or ... stabbed them with a sharpened branch (spear). Or ... ran them over with an SUV. Or ... pushed them off a cliff. Or ... put bacon in their pockets to attract bears. Or ... cut their climbing so they would fall on an ascent/descent. Or ... threw a lit stick of dynamite into their tent. Or threw a neuce around their neck and strangled them to death. Or smothered them in their sleep. Or ... threw a live rattlesnake into their tent. Or ... just beat them to death.

There, get my point. Murder is murder. It doesn't matter which tool you use. Most people out at campsites aren't people you need to worry about.

So .. do you intend to outlaw ....
* Knives,
* Chlorine,
* Rope,
* Cars,
* Ban people from cliffsides
* food
* Anything Blunt and/or sharp
* Snakes
from national parks?

[michreject]

41. Or another state

that has a reciprocal agreement with your home state.

[villager]

3. Because it's not wilderness unless I have my widdle gun!

n/t

[sandnsea]

4. National Parks aren't wilderness

They're some of the most heavily patrolled areas of land in the country. This is just stupid. I hate these fucking gun idiots. They're not going to rest until there's gun fights at high noon again.

[nolabels]

5. Maybe the congress critters could start carrying them into the cloak rooms too

The only people more stupid than people who carry around those guns are the people who think they will win some kind of conflict because of it. The rule of thumb for every weapon you bring there will just someone else bringing more and bigger guns to fight you with. Of course most people don't want to understand that, they think war and armed conflict is something the government has plans for :shrug:

[Jack_DeLeon]

8. so people should just give up...

and allow any aggressor to have thier way, since if you fight well they might have something better?

Thats kind of an idiotic argument.

Depending on your views on religion, we may only have this one life so if someone were going to try to harm me or those I care about I would fight with whatever means are available to me to protect it.

Why wouldnt you want to do the same?

[nolabels]

103. Not at all, the suggestion would be to solving differences with logic and knowledge

I have no religion but also feel that attaching ceremony to human life and trashing the rest of it will not work either because our world is turning into a cesspool because of that kind of thinking or idea. Instinctively we hold our own lives near and dear to us; so to me it sounds illogical to try force any segment of society to submit through the threat of physical violence in todays small and interdependent world. I don't know where you live or your life situation but can understand it if you feel others would like to harm you or the people around you for any number of reasons. We live in an increasingly violent world because of diminishing returns. It's not even so much as people get greedy anymore, but more of people just get hungry for food even.

The point is we will either all end up having to cooperate with each other with all that there is left of things here on earth or our planet as we know it, isn't going to make it much farther. The people that have some material well being can see some of this but than others that are forced to live day to day often cannot(nor should they). I have been beat up a few times and have had many things stolen from me. As i have gotten older i see the lessons i learned from them incidents were way more important than anything i had to do without. May i suggest that things people want to acquire from others can be things that are not even tangible objects or even circumstances. They sometimes can even be just piece of mind, even the piece of mind that you are of their kind with like mind and think just like they do.

Really not to be trite, we all have to live with all kinds of concerns (some define parts of it also as FEAR). The concern for me is what we are doing together as a group or nation logical or are we blowing things out of proportion and wasting our time, effort and resources. Nothing i have or ever owned or might own would be worth the life of another as far as i am concerned. The logic being everything can be replaced but the life itself.

[Mythsaje]

6. National Parks aren't wilderness?

:rofl:

PARTS of National Parks are patrolled regularly, but only the parts used by the most people. The farther you get from the parking lots, the more wilderness it is. And, yes, things like cougars and bears live there, along with a lot of other critters.

The East Coasters may have wiped out most of their dangerous predators and their "National Parks" might be like city parks these days, but that's not true out here in the West. Not at all.

[depakid]

10. And you'd try to shoot a bear? or a cougar

:rofl:

You'd never see the cougar coming, and all you'd do is piss the bear off!

There are better non-lethal solutions, as anyone who's ever been in griz country knows (or ought to know):

[Mythsaje]

11. You can know you're in cougar country

if you know how to read spoor. And if you do, you know how to keep an eye open. Bears are different. You try to avoid surprising them and you're generally okay. Cougars are more likely to surprise YOU than the other way around. It's a good idea to watch for tracks and other spoor and avoid taking the trails where they've been.

And if you run afoul of a cougar, "nice kitty" isn't going to do you any good at all.

Yes, I've spent some time in cougar and bear territory with people who knew their business, including former rangers and the like.

[slackmaster]

31. The cougar you are fortunate enough to see is unlikely to be a problem

The ones that sneak up on you are a problem.

[Mythsaje]

37. That's why it's wise to try to figure out where they might be and go before-hand. n/t

[sandnsea]

21. I live in the West

and a National Park IS NOT a wilderness. A wilderness is a completely separate designation. Olympia Nat Park in Wash state has some back country, and Alaska, but for the most part, National Parks all across the country are highly regimented locations with marked trails and designated locations where people are allowed to go. Sure there are wildlife in them, wildlife that is supposed to be protected. Are you suggesting people open fire at the bears in Yellowstone?

[michreject]

42. People get killed

http://www.yellowstone-bearman.com/yell_bear_maul_info.html

[ozone_man]

47. Lack of wilderness designation

doesn't mean that an area is not wilderness. The animals don't know anything about these land designations. Of course national parks have lots of wilderness in them. Look at Yellowstone NP or Glacier NP. They both have the largest populations of grizzly bears in the U.S., which is often a measure of wilderness.

[primavera]

33. Well, as gun advocates are so fond of pointing out...

... if you break into someone's home, they are within their rights to kill you. If you don't want bears and cougars to kill you, maybe you should refrain from invading their homes.

[XemaSab]

12. depends on which park you go to

n/t

[sandnsea]

22. Alaska maybe

Otherwise, no. Most of them are very highly managed to protect the fauna and wildlife. Too many people visit to not keep them well patrolled and managed. They would be destroyed otherwise.

[XemaSab]

32. Most western parks are mostly wilderness

You've just got to get away from the crowds. :)

[Jack_DeLeon]

7. Sounds good to me...

I hate arbitrary laws that restrict the rights of citizens.

Its perfectly legal for me to conceal carry, but if I go to a "national park" all of a sudden I cant?

[NJCher]

13. wrong direction again

Why is it that everytime I turn around, there's some new announcement of a program or policy that goes in the wrong direction?



Cher

[Demeter]

114. Welcome to BushWorld!

If I had any memory whatsoever, I would quote extensively from WestWorld screenplay....

[lanlady]

14. I hope the family--

--of the first victim of a loaded gun in a national park gets to sue the ass off any government official associated with this insanity.

Seriously, what IS the purpose of a national park visitor strutting around with a loaded gun? WTF? Will families have to put up with gun nuts shooting at trees or animals in what is supposed to be a place of beauty and peace?

[xchrom]

15. oh brother...

:eyes:

[pattmarty]

18. Leave it to the "conservatives" to take us back to the good ole days.....

..... of frontier justice. Maybe it could be just like "paint ball" with whole families getting involved, mom, dad, junior, and suzy. I can picture sittin' round the campfire, 5th beer in my hand, cleaning my Glock and AK, getting ready for the REAL fun after midnight.

[jody]

19. Article cites bipartisan support for RKBA meaning that for some Dems, the 2nd Amendment is important

"In a measure of the bipartisan support for relaxing gun laws, a majority of Congress -- 55 senators and 250 House members -- recently urged the Supreme Court to strike down the District of Columbia's handgun ban, one of the nation's strictest."

Note the 2004 Dem Party platform says, "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

[alarimer]

20. with all the shootings going on it is a terrible idea to start RELAXING gun laws

Fucking gun nuts. I want to go somewhere free of guns, just once in this stupid fucking country.

[idovoodoo]

27. You could hang out at Virginia Tech, it's a gun-free zone so nothing bad could ever happen there.

:eyes:

[slackmaster]

28. You are free to ban guns from your own home

There you go.

[idovoodoo]

30. I've noticed something odd since I've been here. Most of the folks hate and distrust the government

but a lot of them don't want anybody else to have arms. And some appear to think self-defense is a horrible idea.
Seems real strange.

[Mythsaje]

43. Makes no sense to me either...

As far as I'm concerned, the right of self-defense is inviolate. It's not even open for debate. They trust WHO to look out for them? The Cops? They aren't obliged to do so. The Feds? If you get on the phone and yell, "There's a terrorist of Middle-Eastern descent in my house!" they might respond quickly, but don't tell them he's an ordinary armed robber.

[idovoodoo]

44. I actually was a cop many years ago...I saw some real sorry ones back then

and surely there are some now too but that isn't even the point: cops can't protect people except in a very general and indeterminate way...their function is -by definition- reactive! A home invader who's willing to stand there and wait for the cops to show up, assuming you have some way to call them, probably wasn't much of a serious threat to start with. :eyes:

[Mythsaje]

45. Absolutely.

It's not as though there's a cop on every streetcorner and, if there were, it probably wouldn't be a GOOD thing. Defense of self, home, and family is hardwired into us with good reason. The notion that we should put our fates in the hands of others we cannot depend on rather than making certain of our own safety when it comes up seems ludicrous to me.

Personally I have dogs. Better than a burglar alarm, IMO. Most criminals just don't want to deal with them, even aside from the prospect of being bitten. The possibility of home invasion doesn't particularly concern me. But if someone DID come into my house they'd be up a creek.

I hear a lot of people say "life is more important than property" but, on the other hand, if someone is in your home uninvited, we're talking about both life AND property. You can't know their intentions and it's both naive and dangerous to assume the best. People who engage in such activities SHOULD know they're risking their own lives by doing it. My PROPERTY isn't what's the most important to me. But if for a moment I believe my wife or my life is in danger, I'm not going to worry too much about the fate of the person putting us in danger.

I'm funny that way.

edited for grammar

[idovoodoo]

48. I agree that life is more important than property, as a general proposition, but

the life of someone trying to take away my property which I've spent my very -own- life to get, isn't of any particular value to ME. A thief who gets killed while stealing gets no sympathy from me. Hell, I don't even express much remorse for some idiot who gets splattered by a train while trying to beat it to the crossing! There are plenty of humans around, it's not like we're an endangered species...:eyes:

[Mythsaje]

50. I suppose if you go around sticking your head in a noose

eventually you're going to end up hanging yourself.

Then again, there's the argument that the only thing separating your average cat burglar from the CEO of, say, Exxon, is that the CEO has a better class of friends. Both are thieves. :)

[primavera]

53. Amen to that

Odd the way it's okay to blow away a burglar stealing a turkey sandwich and a Bud Lite from your refrigerator, but the CEO who impoverishes people by the hundreds of thousands, who helps to instigate wars which kill hundreds of thousands more, that guy appears smiling on the cover of Forbes for everyone to admire and respect. It's a strange world we live in, reason and logic evidently have no place in it.

[idovoodoo]

57. I hope you aren't suggesting that because some "big" guys get away with it,

we should give a free pass to the 'little' ones...? (I do a lot of hoping these days) ;-)

[primavera]

63. No, definitely not

Just wishing we had the same zeal for going after the big crooks. It seems hypocritical to crucify the low rent crook while festooning the high-rent crook with medals, honors, awards, and other accolades.

[idovoodoo]

66. Just as we sit back (most of us) and do zip while George Bush and his puppetteers

rape the planet. Yes, I know...fixing the problems of the world isn't all that easy.

[Mythsaje]

58. If a burglar was looking for a turkey sandwich and a bud lite from MY fridge

he might get the turkey, but he'd never find the beer...cept maybe about three weeks out of the year. And he'd be losing blood rapidly from ankle bites and trying to figure out where that big dog came from.

[idovoodoo]

55. I'm not at all sure the Exxon CEO circulates among "better" people...in fact

I'm pretty sure that's not even close to the truth. ;-)

It's just that the guy who's raping us on the level of a multinational corporation is usually out of range of any commonly available "equalizer"

[primavera]

52. Didn't you say you had been a cop?

Can you tell me which state(s) impose the death penalty for felony breaking and entering? I can't think of any personally, but, if there are any, do any of them allow for execution of sentence without a trial? Breaking and entry is undeniably a crime, but it always seems odd to me that we consider it morally justifiable to play judge, jury, and executioner of a death sentence, based upon a split second's worth of fear-befuddled consideration, should we happen to meet a burglar in our home. Some due process we've got there.

[idovoodoo]

56. Yes, I was a cop. I paid my way through college that way.

And your question about "death penalty for breaking and entering" is interesting but has a simple answer, none.
But that's all after the fact. Anybody who breaks into MY home is taking a huge risk. Might I be so bold as to inquire what YOU do when a burglar (who might potentially be a murderer or rapist, etc.) breaks into your house? Do you sing Kumbaya with him?

[primavera]

60. There are a variety of options...

... none of which involve singing Kumbaya. I might try calling the police for one. Better still, I might try climbing out of my bedroom window and getting the hell out of there, then calling the police. Taking it upon myself to be judge jury and executioner of someone who might just be a homeless guy looking for food would not be among my top choices.

[idovoodoo]

64. Well, forgive me if I think your approach is tantamount to submission like we Democrats

usually criticize when 'conservatives' say the girl 'deserved to be raped.'

If there's an invader in your house (I can't help thinking about the US Army in Iraq here), calling the cops even if you have some way to do it won't get you any relief for quite a few minutes. I don't understand why so many people here at democraticic underground think self-defense is such a terrible thing. Maybe they want somebody else to take care of them but isn't everyone else ALWAYS someone else?? What the hell is up with that?

[Mythsaje]

71. You have to realize

that roughly fifty percent of us are left-libertarians. That means we believe that the government should help, but when it can't, or won't, we need to do it ourselves. The other half want the government to do EVERYTHING and will bitch and whine and moan because it can't or won't. "Protect me from this" and "protect me from that" and "there ought to be a law" even if that law is unenforceable, damned ridiculous, or downright tyrannical.

As far as I'm concerned, the "Oh, I can't imagine hurting anyone, even to protect myself or my family" crowd might as well be milling around in a field somewhere baaing and waiting for the Big Bad Wolf to show up.

Criminals LOOK for people like that. They deliberately TARGET people like that. That's how they operate. If they suspect that a citizen can and will defend themselves, they'll avoid that citizen like the plague...especially when there's so many easier victims to choose from.

You know what I'm saying.

People are scared, they don't bother to learn anything about defending themselves, and think that because THEY would be clueless, everyone else will be too. That it's about emptying a pistol into the intruder as soon as the intruder comes into sight. Those are the actions of someone who's OUT of control, not in control. But some people will never actually recognize the difference.

[idovoodoo]

79. You've just made one of the finest posts ever here. I just wish everyone would read it.

Thank you.

[Mythsaje]

81. I was raised by a vietnam era Marine Corps Recon vet...

I spent the first thirty years of my life steeped in all sorts of martial arts and was taught not only how to live off the land, but how to take care of weapons, including firearms, and keep my eyes open for potential threats from just about any direction.

My wife is a former paramedic and Corrections Officer. BOTH of us are big on self defense. It comes with the territory.

[primavera]

85. How do criminals recognize that?

Not to diminish your point - I'm quite sure that you're right that a crook would prefer to prey upon someone they knew to be harmless than on someone who looked likely to defend themselves - but how do crooks know which person falls into which category? I mean, it's not like people go around with signs around their necks describing themselves as helpless victims or rambos. Yet I hear this all the time from gun advocates that crooks avoid people who carry concealed guns. Umm, not to be obtuse, but, if they're concealed, how are the weapons warning off crooks? :shrug:

As for libertarianism, you're quite right, I'm not of that school of thought and, strangely enough, I don't think of myself as being whiney, but I do think that those of you who do embrace that philosophy take too lightly the potential consequences of being proactive and making mistakes. We have had first hand experince in this country with precisely the sort of every man for himself approach that you guys glorify: it was called the Wild West and a great many people died needlessly during that time.

[Mythsaje]

91. To someone who knows what to look for, as many criminals do,

they're not all that concealed. And people who are primed to defend themselves tend to carry themselves differently than those who aren't. Like any predator, criminals have a talent for recognizing prey. I'm sure our former police officer knows precisely what I'm saying here.

And the wild west wasn't precisely what Hollywood makes it out to be. It was sometimes very hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys, and not only because of the color hats they were wearing. The vast majority of those who died were, in fact, living by the sword and dying by it. They weren't exactly gunning down innocent bystanders on the street.

We're not talking about duels in the street at sunset here. We're talking about the right of a citizen to defend him or her self against criminals in their own home.

Left libertarians, as I said, realize that you can never entirely depend on the authorities to take care of you, though you can apply pressure and make deals to make it as likely as possible that it will be done. When you call the police, it could take several minutes for them to arrive, and there's NOTHING saying they're going to arrive in time. That's just one of the truths one has to grasp when dealing with such circumstances. If YOU don't act, there may not be the chance for anyone else to act for you.

[toopers]

96. One way the criminal gets better odds . . .

is to for the criminal to go to areas that do not allow guns.

[idovoodoo]

100. Gun-free zones work just fine until someone doesn't recognize them.

Virginia Tech is one example.
Washington, DC is another. Nobody ever gets shot there.

[primavera]

72. Interesting

I guess I sort of hear what you're saying, but I guess I tend to look on law enforcement as a matter for trained professionals. Someone with formal training is going to have a much better chance at least than I will of correctly evaluating the threat potential of a situation, ascertaining an intruder's intentions, select from an assortment of possible responses, and achieve the best outcome possible in a bad situation. I therefore don't think of leaving law enforcement to trained law enforcement professionals to be a cop out, any more than I think of it as being a cop out to leave brain surgery to brain surgeons, or nuclear physics to nuclear physicists. Encouraging indivuals to take responsibility for life and death situations for which they possess neither the skills, training, experience, nor judgment to competently deal just seems reckless to me, a surefire recipe for someone to get killed unnecessarily. I guess that's why I was surprised to hear that you had been a police officer - as someone who has been a professional in that environemnt, it surprised me to hear you encourage active involvement in such situations by untrained dilettantes who have no clue what they're doing.

[Mythsaje]

75. If someone's in your house

that you don't WANT there, leaving it to law enforcement to deal with it is standing in your shower stall naked with a possibly rabid weasel waiting for animal control to arrive. Long before there were police officers, people were defending themselves from all manner of threats. I realize that some people want to feel all cushy and safe in this artificially (and mostly illusionary) secure environment, but the truth is that all too many times, it's the scared everyman (and everywoman) who has to make the judgment call about how to deal with a potentially dangerous situation. The cops don't even HAVE to come rescue you according to the Supreme Court. If you're killed waiting for them to show up, tough shit.

The good news is that you're far more likely to die of any number of things before violence will get around to you. But each person has to determine his or her own level of tolerance for things that are potentially hazardous. Having a stranger in your home when you don't know anything about him or why he's there is about as scary as it gets. I know. I've been there. And I made a judgment call and let him walk out ten minutes later after the people he was hiding from had left.

My dad was in the other room and he probably would've shot him on the spot. But he was out cold and I prefered he stay that way for the moment. Now I could've paid the price for it, but the guy looked scared to me and, judging by how banged up he was, I was willing to bet he didn't have a weapon. Plus, I had a big honking knife and some idea how to use it if it came to that.

I swear, some people don't get the difference between wanting to have a weapon in case you need to use it and simply going around shooting everything that twitches funny.

[idovoodoo]

83. HAHA...sorry, it's just that I haven't seen anybody write 'dilettante' in so long

I assumed the word had simply vanished from our lexicon - it's encouraging to see it hasn't. :-)

But back to the crambins here - I'm telling you something here, it's absolutely honest and true: there are a LOT of
people "trained" in law enforcement who actually have absolutely no business attempting to do it. I was in the U.S. Air Force for some years and I saw a lot of 'stuff' go down that in a world of competent people should NEVER have.

[primavera]

89. I don't doubt it

But hopefully with training, you have at least a better chance of not fucking up than I do without training, no?

[idovoodoo]

94. I've always viewed the concept of "training" with a jaundiced eye:

If I want to learn something, I'll be happy if you or someone who knows how, just shows me how to do it. I guess training is too close to indoctrination for me. ;-)

[Mythsaje]

92. Did someone accidentally load nukes onto an airplane?

:evilgrin:

Yeah, and I've seen cops do some remarkably stupid things in my time. Seriously.

[idovoodoo]

97. I coordinated several "Broken Arrow" exercises back in the late 1960s

at Ent AFB (Now called Peterson, in Colorado Springs).

There is probably not as much oversight as you, I, or anybody else would like to imagine over these kinds of events.

Of course I could very well be some fatbody pimple-faced kid in mommy's basement posting on the internet.

[Mythsaje]

109. Yes, you could.

But I take things at face value unless I have reason to think otherwise.

If you suspect everything and everyone, there's really not much point to this--in my opinion.

[idovoodoo]

111. Heh, true enough. I mostly do too.

:-)

[Mythsaje]

67. Climbing out your bedroom window

is a great option for a single guy, but if you've got a spouse and/or kids to think of, it's not really an option unless you want to leave them there to see what happens, or think you can ALL sneak out the window before your uninvited guest catches you. And calling the police is a great idea, but you'd better hope they get there fast. If their intentions ARE evil, you don't really have five to ten minutes to wait until the police arrive.

But, then again, as I've said before, this is one of the reasons I have dogs. NO ONE, and I mean no one, is going to get in my house uninvited without taking some damage. They can leave any time. I won't stop them.

[idovoodoo]

69. Our dogs are large and loud. As a deterrant they're great but if somebody actually

hopped over the fence and offered them a hunk of liverwurst they'd probably give him an armed escort to the barn where all the expensive boat stuff is located. ;-)

[Mythsaje]

73. LOL

We've got four. The min-pin is useless in that regard, and my Shiba is the World's Friendliest Dog. But, on the other hand, we have a 25 lb Pomeranian who thinks that EVERYBODY'S a crook and has evil intentions except us and my best friend and former roommate, and a 55 lb Jindo who is downright scary. She's utterly quiet if she's coming up on someone, but barks VERY loudly if she's trying to warn someone away.

We had one guy do a run through our yard one day running from the cops (I assume) and one of the neighbors saw him vault our front fence. He looked at me and said, "boy, he's lucky your big dog wasn't out."

"Oh, yeah," I said.

We live on Hilltop Tacoma. Everybody on the block knows about OUR dogs. LOL

[idovoodoo]

77. My only recollections of Tacoma are the zoo (Defiant something?)

And they're not happy memories...the Beluga whale that kept making the exact same swimming path over and over and over and over.................the poor thing was clearly driven into insanity, and I walked out to where 2 elephants were tied down with chains on their feet to stakes in the ground - one just stood there and the other just continued to raise one foot that wasn't locked down...for a few seconds...and put it down again. I was OUTRAGED...wanted to walk over there and let the poor creature loose - which would of course be counterproductive since it would be killed by some idiot cop if it were free ("free")...sorry to get off on a rant, I really hate the way we humans operate sometimes.

[Mythsaje]

80. Pt Defiance...

When it was first conceived it was on the cutting edge...it at least TRIED to create the general habitat of the creature in question.

Zoos are, to me, at once a heartbreak and a solace. Heartbreak because they're often not what they should be, and solace because at least there's someone doing something to educate the kids about the animals, and working to preserve them.

Chained the elephants? Weird. They're certainly not chained these days. Saw them last summer with my kids. The Beluga still swims around and around, but the walruses and the polar bear seemed to be having a good time. And the seals.

NW Trek is a little better, environment-wise. The poor wolves at the zoo looked miserable. They looked a lot more relaxed at NW Trek.

[idovoodoo]

90. Pt. Defiance, yes...this was years ago...about - I guess 1989??

Good god almost 20 years ago now. Hopefully the pachyderms were treated better after my observations...I just feel so awful about how those and so many other animals are either mis or mal-treated. Maybe the elephants were where they were temporarily but honest to God I won't ever forget seeing that one just standing there and seeming to be thinking "why have these humans done this to me?"...

[primavera]

74. I have dogs too, but...

...mine would probably show the burglar where the silverware was kept, at least if the buglar offered them a cookie. But I agree - dogs, even marshmallows like mine, are a good deterent to the casual intruder who doesn't know that they're just marshmallows.

And you're right, my wife and I have no kids, so us getting out the bedroom window is an easier option than it would for someone with kids sleeping in the room down the hall.

[Mythsaje]

76. It's a scary situation.

And people should have the right to feel secure within their own home.

[Mythsaje]

59. If you're in someone else's home

why should THEY assume your intentions are simply larcenous and not murderous? They didn't come into YOUR home. They don't know WHAT you're up to, or what you might have hidden in your waistband or what your ultimate intentions are.

If you've got kids and/or a spouse to protect, are you going to be standing there scratching your ass or are you going to make sure they're safe?

Gross stupidity has ALWAYS carried the chance of the death penalty. If you go breaking into other peoples' homes, you take your chances.

[primavera]

61. So lack of knowledge of someone's intentions

...makes homicide justifiable? How about you? I don't know what your intentions might or might not be, does that give me the right to kill you?

[Mythsaje]

68. If I'm in your house uninvited, I invite you to take your best shot.

Criminals LOVE tasty little sheep.

[idovoodoo]

70. Shooting an obvious intruder isn't homicide. Maybe you run around with people who

barge unannounced into homes in the middle of the night...most of us don't.

[primavera]

78. If you kill them, it is

I didn't say it was murder or wrongful death or unjustified, just homicide as defined by the dictionary: the killing of one person by another. Justification is another story.

What I don't get is how you can feel so confident that you would make the right decision. I mean, okay, if someone is actually shooting at me, I think I can safely assume that they intend to do me harm and, if I owned a gun, I could probably see myself returning fire and killing that person and still somehow managing to live with myself afterwards, because I would be 99.99% sure of the intruder's intentions at that point. But burglary isn't synonymous with assault. Most burglars are just thieves looking for property, who want to get in and out of your house as quickly and quietly and with as little fuss or complication as possible. If I were to kill someone who just wanted to steal my stereo, I think I'd feel pretty bad about it, that I'd recklessly brought about the death of someone who maybe deserved to be arrested, but didn't deserve to die. And, as you guys are so quick to point out, you can't really know the intruder's intentions most of the time, whether they pose a serious threat to your life, or just to your ipod. But those sorts of considerations don't trouble you at all?

[toopers]

84. When someone steals property from me . . .

they are taking a piece of my life with them. Therefore, I am defending my life.

[primavera]

87. You can't be serious

Somebody steals a millionth part of the cheap plastic MalWart crap cluttering up your home and you equate that with your very life? Please tell me you're joking.

[toopers]

88. No, I equate that with a part of my life.

And just as you cherish your life, I cherish my life.

[Mythsaje]

93. Don't worry...I'm not coming from there at all.

When I talk about defending one's life, I'm talking about it literally. I wouldn't shoot someone for trying to steal my stuff, though if they try to steal my laptop, or one of my dogs, they'd damn well BETTER be armed if I catch them, because if they're not...bad things are going to happen.

[toopers]

98. Would I kill someone who . . .

"steals a millionth part of the cheap plastic MalWart crap cluttering up your home"? No, but the problem is I do not know a person's intention and I am not a mind reader. The other things that I am protecting are too important for me to take chances of coming across a benevolent thief.

[primavera]

99. Glad to hear it

Although I have to admit, if anyone were to take off with my dogs, which sadly would be all too easy since they'll follow anyone with a biscuit, I'd take umbrage too.

On that note, I'm going to go curl up in bed with Naomi Klein's latest book, which, btw, if you haven't read yet, you should: Shock Doctrine, the Rise of Disaster Capitalism - it talks a lot about the high-rent crooks we were discussing earlier. Thanks for the chat and have a good evening! :hi:

[Mythsaje]

86. If you assume the worst and act upon it, the other person might die.

If you assume the best, and don't act upon it, YOU might die. Of course, we're not talking about stepping around a corner and unloading on the person. A frightened, clueless amateur might do that, but not someone who knew something about weapons and self-defense in general.

If you find someone in your living room with your television in his hands, he's a little occupied to do any shooting. Blowing him away would be unnecessary. Telling him to put it down and put his hands on his head would be a reasonable reaction. If he broke and ran at that point, trying to get out, I'd simply let him go. If he reached for something on his person, on the other hand... well...

[pipoman]

106. This has been a very good and thoughtful exchange

it is nice to see.

My family has smoke detectors/fire extinguishers, and a storm cellar. We have defensive weapons too. Since our kids have been very young we have periodically practiced response to various scenarios. Everyone knows what to do in case of fire. We all know what to do in case of tornado warnings (tornado alley residents here) and we all know what to do in case of intruders. In the case of the latter the plan has always been for the kids to immediately seek shelter in one of 4 predetermined 'safe zones' in the house depending on where they are when/if this ever happens. My wife and I both have fairly easy access to defensive weapons. Our first choice is a pump action shotgun. This shotgun is stored loaded without a round in the chamber, meaning that for the gun to fire the slide must be actuated. The sound of a slide being actuated is a very distinct sound which would get any intruders attention. In 99.9% of cases I would suspect that sound would send an intruder bounding for the nearest exit..no violence needed. We are both well trained in the use of firearms and quite capable. We are not anxious to kill someone but are not naive enough to believe law enforcement will be able to do anything beyond draw chalk outlines and investigate after the fact, that is their only responsibility after all.

[Robb]

29. Well, why not?

Guns are allowed in other places. I don't see any reason they shouldn't be allowed in NPs.

Or, put another what, what's the special condition that exists in a NP that makes it a sensible place to ban guns in the first place?

[Doctor_J]

34. The Republikkkons are trying to inflict as much damage on the country as possible

before they get booted to the curb in January.

[idovoodoo]

35. Are you sure? From the article:

"Senators from both parties have backed a drive to repeal the ban, which has been in place in some parks for at least 100 years."

[Bilbo Heugan]

36. The gun laws re public lands don't need to be weakened.

Show the damage done to gun owners while those laws have been on the books.

[toopers]

82. Has anyone on this website ever heard of . . .

Gary Michael Hilton? Who knows how many people would still be alive if it law abiding citizens had been allowed to carry guns in national parks.

[idovoodoo]

101. Doesn't matter. If you are a Democrat, you have to oppose guns!

And anybody who has one or more. Something like that, it's hard to figure out the rules here.

[Stump]

102. Really...

I hate that shit. All of my GOP buddies at work (I'm the only Democrat there) always rail on me for my positions and always include gun control. It's bullshit.

[Mythsaje]

110. I'm a pretty strange kind of Democrat, then.

As are a lot of those who inhabit DU's Gungeon. I don't, mainly because I don't see much point in arguing about it all the time.

People have a right to defend themselves against those who would respect NO laws regarding possession and use of weapons. Of ANY kind.

[idovoodoo]

113. I know, I was trying, not very successfully apparently, to be sarcastic.

;-)

[defendandprotect]

95. ".....cause guns don't kill people . . . " ---- !!! ???

[Xithras]

104. The guns are already in the parks.

I don't want to get into detail here too much except to say that handguns are ALREADY fairly common in the parks. All Reagans ban did was change the previous open carry tradition into a "keep it in a readily accessible pack pocket" tradition. I gurantee that every hiker here has, at some point, hiked with a person carrying a firearm without realizing it.

Remember that nobody ever gets searched in the parks. It's well known that you will ONLY get caught and charged if you PULL the firearm and are reported.

[pipoman]

107. Please, someone help me out here

Concerning this National Park issue. If there were fences and access points with metal detectors and plenty of security I would be quite cool with gun free zones. If gun free zones are left to the honors system, the only ones abiding are the honorable. What is the solution for the dishonorable? Please someone tell me?

What is the problem with allowing the honorable to defend themselves and their families.

It just seems to me this law only effects the law abiding, the non-law abiding are armed right now.

[MikeSOM]

112. If my daughter went camping I would want her to be able to carry.

If my daughter went camping I would want her to be able to carry.

[benEzra]

116. My dad had a "save" with a handgun in a National Forest.

Back in the 1970's, when I was a child, my dad had a "save" with a handgun one evening in an isolated area on Federal lands here in eastern NC, just off the Neuse River. Thank God this was National Forest land (Croatan National Forest) and he was legally allowed to have a gun. His would-be attackers saw the gun, looked at each other, backed off, and left.

I think this is a good thing, and allowing those with CHL's to legally carry the guns they are licensed to carry has NOT been a problem in National Forests and BLM lands. The level of scaremongering here is ridiculous; if someone is trustworthy enough and has a clean enough record to be licensed by the state to carry a weapon in public (the mall, the supermarket, the gas station, the sidewalk), then WTF is the problem with that person discreetly carrying a weapon while camping in an isolated area with their family? Most states specifically allow you to have a weapon while camping or hiking in remote areas.

[hollowdweller]

117. I'm all for this it's not a big thing.

When most states changed their laws allowing concealed and opened carry, predictions were we'd end up like the Wild West.

I just haven't seen it. I also haven't seen any widespread foiling of criminals with people carrying, but really if allowing people to carry hasn't caused any massive national problem what's the big deal in National Parks??

[boilinmad]

118. Theres a couple of...

.....posts right next to this one, in LBN, that illustrate the beauty and glory of the wonderful gun. Check them out.....GUNS FUCKING SUCK.

[benEzra]

119. Then don't own one.

----------------------
Thoughts on Gun Ownership

Dems and the Gun Issue - Now What? (written in '04, largely vindicated in '06, IMO)

The Conservative Roots of U.S. Gun Control