Guns in National Parks ? ! …
Read Time:44 Second
This post is very short…Guns in the National Parks? Two words…Dead Bear! I am sure there are those out there who do not really care if bears live or die…or for that matter fellow humans, but that is another story. We all know the possible outcomes that will arise when a Mother Bear decides that a drunk gun-toting person displays intent to harass her cubs, while they harbor the foolishly unfounded feeling of invincibility with their loaded “Nine” in their hand. One possible outcome is a dead bear and orphan cubs but…another is a shot and wounded bear frantically charging through the park…at our families. That is quite another disaster waiting to happen for the rest of us. Maybe we can have an alcohol test as we do on vehicle drivers and requirement that weapon carriers be restricted from drinking…
Happy
0 %
Sad
0 %
Excited
0 %
Sleepy
0 %
Angry
0 %
Surprise
0 %
0
0
Personally I’d arm the bears.
Yea, that may be a good idea bro.
If I may engage in Dimensiospeak for a moment, I have observed that advocates of civilian armament often rely upon predictions of unfortunate consequence resulting from decreased firearms ownership and possession limitation. However, as their predictions generally fail to manifest in reality, and as they rarely, if ever, rely upon actual data, their claims are increasingly lacking in credibility.
You dear Sir, can only be described as a man of sharp wit and senses…touche!
I dare say one of the most interesting men in the world…I bet you rarely drink…and when you do, you only drink Dos Equis!…sorry, I’ve had a few…
Perhaps, then, you could relate specific examples of such, rather than merely asserting that such failed predictions have been issued.
There are some people who believe in tasting shit before they realize it tastes and smells bad, I know that some day you will realize that putting guns in the hands of thugs cannot ever have a good result…especially thugs from NY. That docile gun control thing is only for the South, bring that shit up north and many people will get shot just for the fun of it! Hell, they do it already up here in NY. They don’t play games up here, they do shit for real.
I have issued no statement regarding “putting guns in the hands of thugs”. Either you have fundamentally misunderstood a previous statement that I have issued, or you are lying. Which, specifically, is the case?
Your argumentative style and phrasing seems quite familiar. Cory, is that you?
Who is “Cory”?
Just a hunch, sorry about that.
Are you saying that the gun laws would only apply to decent gun carrying folks and not apply to the thugs also?
Dimensio, You seem to be playing a game, maybe you feel the negative repercussions will not reach you or your family somewhere down the line…or you may just have the regular cynical and misplaced notion that if the country fails in some way, then a certain individual or group wins.
I have encountered these types of ideas before and I applaud your willingness to be a part of the downfall of America and the rise of others above us, good luck with that.
I am certain that proponents of federally prohibiting the carrying of deadly weapons in National Park lands can justify their advocacy both through reference of incidents resulting from individuals lawfully carrying firearms within National Forest and state park lands where such action is legal and through reference of incidents of incidents within National Parks that have occurred since February of this year following the allowance of states to establish policy regarding the carrying of firearms within such lands. Curiously, however, no such proponent has related such factual data to justify their advocacy of prohibition; instead, I have observed only the referencing of hypothetical suggestions, which do not constitute a valid data set.
In fact, I have observed that advocates of civilian disarmament often rely upon predictions of unfortunate consequence resulting from increased firearms ownership and possession freedom. However, as their predictions generally fail to manifest in reality, and as they rarely, if ever, rely upon actual data, their claims are increasingly lacking in credibility.
They should live in New York City, where the punks carrying guns think they aren’t pussies who like to go to target practice and shoot at non living targets. These mofo’s love to whip it out and do with it what it was invented to do, in a big way…shoot anything that moves!!…from 5yr olds and up! Their caring for animals and humans in parks?? HA! That’s a laugh!! Restraint? That’s for pussies!…not New York Thugs!…according to them!
I do not believe that your comment in any way relates to my comment.
Ok, let me explain, you are suggesting that your good gun-toting buddies are trustworthy and will be safe carrying guns in parks. BUT, as a result you are willing to give the freaks in New York free will to do the same. This is a mistake. The cunts in New York don’t give a flying fuck about your stupid rules and regulations and will shoot anything that lives, just because they run things…in their opinion. This gun-toting thing is a stupid idea, and I do think that some time your friendly gun-toting southerners will encounter a few armed New Yorker thugs in your neck of the woods and everyone will understand what I am saying.
I have issued no statement regarding “freaks in New York”. Moreover, your prediction is unsupported by any data, as you have provided no demonstration that “freaks in New York” who currently are legally permitted to carry concealed firearms in other states commit violent actions at any significant rate; until and unless you do so, your prediction that such individuals would commit violent action when on National Park lands is entirely baseless; if such individuals currently do not commit violent crime in other states when outside of National Parks, for what reason would you expect those same individuals to commit violent acts when inside of National Parks?
By your circular logic argument, why would you need to have a gun in the park anyway. If you look at the circumstance as a benefit / detriment problem, then the possibility of a gun accident caused by a careless or paranoid shooter far, far out weighs the possibility of a situation occurring where you need to get the “drop” on someone wanting to cause you harm.
It is not illegal to have a boat, but rules are created like speed limits around the docks or where fishing on the banks is allowed. Just as a courtesy to their fellow citizen.
Why can’t your firearm be restricted as well?
“By your circular logic argument,”
Please explain the alleged circularity of my argument.
“why would you need to have a gun in the park anyway.”
“Need” is not relevant. A “need” for a defensive firearm is typically not ascertained in advance of the occurrence of the “need”.
“If you look at the circumstance as a benefit / detriment problem, then the possibility of a gun accident caused by a careless or paranoid shooter far, far out weighs the possibility of a situation occurring where you need to get the “drop” on someone wanting to cause you harm.”
Then you should be able to demonstrate such probabilities through reference to data from locations where civilians are lawfully permitted to carry concealed deadly weapons. Please do so.
“It is not illegal to have a boat, but rules are created like speed limits around the docks or where fishing on the banks is allowed. Just as a courtesy to their fellow citizen.
Why can’t your firearm be restricted as well?”
Restriction is rational and reasonable only when justified. I have, repeatedly, requested justification for the reinstatement of the currently discussed restriction. Thus far, however, no individual has actually provided a fact-based justification for such reinstatement; I have, thus far, observed only hypothetical speculation, which does not constitute a valid data set.
Centers for Disease Control, Atlanta report on firearm related injuries and fatalities.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/PDF/rr/rr5214.pdf
Deaths are 11.3 per 100,000
Injuries are 24 per 100,000
Total of 35.3 per 100,000 unintentional accidents caused by firearms
FBI Data on Violent Crime tabulations as reported by the National Park Service.
428 separate instances of a violent crime committed in National Parks.
http://www.fbi.gov/ucr/cius_04/offenses_reported/offense_tabulations/table_11.html
The number of people that visit National Parks as listed by National Park Service report 274,852,949
http://www.nature.nps.gov/stats/park.cfm
Since there was 274 million people that visited the National Parks and the FBI reports of 428 violent crimes that occurred in the National Parks that gives 1 chance in 6.5 million that you will be a victim of a violent crime during your visit.
If all the park visitors were in possession of firearms at the same rate as the general population, this gives you 1 chance in 2857 of getting an unintentional injury by a firearm.
1 in 6.5 million chance of being a victim of violent crime in National Park
1 in 2857 chance of being accidentally shot in a National Park
You stated that restriction is rational and reasonable only when justified. I think that those numbers, as reported by the National Park Service, the FBI, and the CDC, show that it is justified.
You, sir, have responded to the wrong person when talking about a valid data set.
Let’s hear your argument of why your need to carry a gun should circumvent the safety of the general public.
“1 in 6.5 million chance of being a victim of violent crime in National Park
1 in 2857 chance of being accidentally shot in a National Park”
Your stated statistic relies both upon the unsubstantiated assumption that rates of individuals in possession of firearms within National Park lands will be equivalent to rates of firearm ownership in the United States — thus establishing an unreasonably high limit initially — and the invalid assumption that risk of negligent gunshot injury is entirely uniform regardless of location, circumstance and context. As an example, the majority of unintentional firearm injuries occur in urban areas, and many such injuries occur in private homes; deriving a conclusion regarding the likelihood of negligent firearm-based injuries that would occur in a National Park based upon rates of injury in urban areas and in private homes is not logical. Your stated comparison is therefore invalid. Additionally, as no evidence exists that all individuals experience a 1 in 2857 risk of suffering a negligent firearm-based injury in most public locations where the carrying of firearms is not lawfully prohibited, your statement is unsupported by any known analysis of reality. You have, as an example, not demonstrated that a ratio of 1 to 2857 visitors to state park or to National Forest lands where the carrying of firearms is not prohibited suffer unintentional firearm injury.
You have attempted to derive a statistical analysis of the probability of an event under specific circumstances based upon an analysis of the rate of the occurrence in an entirely general context, while ignoring that specific circumstances may substantially alter the likelihood of the analyzed event. Your conclusion is therefore invalid.
“Let’s hear your argument of why your need to carry a gun should circumvent the safety of the general public.”
You have, thus far, provided no evidence to support the premise that my carrying of a firearm in any way circumvents the safety of the general public.
Okay, let’s review here….
Fact
Yearly attendance record of 274,852,949 as reported by the National Park Service
Fact
Violent crimes that occurred in National Parks as reported by the FBI in their crime analysis report is 428
Therefore the chance of being a victim of a violent crime if you visit a National Park is 1 in 6.5 million. Those statistics are based on exact situational circumstances and tabulated data.If you do not agree with that, there is really no need to continue with this debate.
So the only thing that is under dispute is the “1 in 2857” right?
Since there is no previous history of guns in National Parks because it hasn’t been allowed, some correlation has to be established with the current circumstances.
We do know the rate of the unintentional accidents in the general population, correct? That has been established at 35.3 per 100,000.
What we don’t know is “Will the gun carry rate will be the same in the National Parks?”
Also “Will the accident rate will be different because it’s in a campground or RV, not a city surrounding?”
If this was a close comparison, I would say impossible to tell. But this is 1 in 6.5 million to compare against. You could have a variance of 500 hundred percent in the 2 above questions and still it would be obvious. You could have a variance of 1000 percent, doesn’t matter.
You are just rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. No matter how you adjust, the end result is the same.
Now if you are meaning that your right to carry a gun, no matter what the circumstances are, deserves special consideration, that is a different matter.
But you CANNOT claim that it is a increase in public benefit by doing so.
“Since there is no previous history of guns in National Parks because it hasn’t been allowed, some correlation has to be established with the current circumstances.”
The most reliable means to estimate possible undesirable consequences resulting from no longer federally prohibiting the carrying of firearms in National Park lands is to analyze data from similar lands where the carrying of firearms is also not prohibited, such as certain state park and National Forest lands.
“We do know the rate of the unintentional accidents in the general population, correct? That has been established at 35.3 per 100,000.”
You are again dishonestly comparing negligent firearm injury rate with firearm carry rate. The two statistics are not related, and do not result in a meaningful comparison.
“Now if you are meaning that your right to carry a gun, no matter what the circumstances are, deserves special consideration, that is a different matter.”
The fact remains that your stated probability regarding risk of injury from a negligent firearm discharge within a National Park is both entirely faulty and wholly unsupported by any data derived from similar locations such as state parks and National Forests wherein the carrying of concealed deadly weapons is not prohibited. Advocates of civilian disarmament who argue that no longer federally prohibiting the carrying of firearms within National Park lands will result in increased instances of injury from firearm usage bear the burden of providing reasonable justification of such a prediction. Because areas reasonably comparable to National Park lands exist where the carrying of firearms is not prohibited, a sufficient data source from which to derive such data is extant (however, as hunting is not lawfully permitted on National Park lands, any data regarding injuries resulting from negligence during an act of legal hunting should not be considered in an assessment). That civilian disarmament advocates have thus far refused to provide any data derived from such locations suggests either that they are unwilling to provide any research in justification of their claims or that they are aware that their claims are entirely unsupported by reality but that they choose to dishonestly continue to issue those claims.
“You are again dishonestly comparing negligent firearm injury rate with firearm carry rate. The two statistics are not related, and do not result in a meaningful comparison.”
The 35.3 accidents is relative to POPULATION of 100,000 not gun carry rate. It is directly from Mortality and Morbidity Weekly report from the CDC. If you don’t like that number, I suggest you call their hotline and present your case.
Despite your implying so, I am NOT an advocate of civilian disarmament. But I also know enough that complete freedom to own guns without control of any sort is not being practical.
I am curious, are you for any kind of gun control? Do you think a gun should be registered? If you don’t believe in registration, is it because of fear of government takeover or invasion of some sort?
And if this is the last comment on this thread, let me say that although I don’t agree with your assessment, you do present your case well. No ad hoc name calling or any of that crazy stuff. Good debate.
The way the gun lobby is winning battles in various States pretty soon everywhere you go will have the feel of being in Dodge City in the 1800s.
Now they will know how I feel living in New York where every punk carries a gun…illegally.
For what reason are you comparing individuals who carry firearms in compliance of local law with individuals who carry firearms in violation of local law?
They have medication to help you with that paranoia towards firearms. Too many homophobes, gun phoebes, religious phoebes and countless other phobias around today. Must be something in the water.
Our fascination with guns and the cooperation extended to that fascination by not only the legislatures but the courts is beyond my comprehension. Good post.
Thank you Mike, it comes on the heels of reflection that my son is taking his two cousins up to a hiking trail today, to a place called Break Neck Ridge in the Adirondacks.