Feds to Open Parks to Guns

[fightthegoodfightnow]

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.

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

Check out the graph that shows the reduction in crime while the number of visits went up.

[robinlynne]

1. Jesus! the sell our parks, then fill them with guns. to shoot animals or people?

and which is worse? They are amazingly able to destroy every piece of good our country has.
Except for one. its people. who will one day take the country back.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

2. Such Is Their Notion of a National Sanctuary and Treasure

.

[pipoman]

33. Why do you do this??? ^^^

Why?? Is the actual length of the thread as important as having an artificially high post count for you?

[pipoman]

34. Nevermind, I read your comment below..

:eyes:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

35. If You Have a Point about Guns

...................






































you haven't made it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

36. OH Good Grief

Your post has nothing to do with guns.


























































































When it does, I'll be sure to respond in a way that furthers a discussion about ..................................... guns.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

37. Why is it You Fail to Discuss

GUNS?

[rfranklin]

3. People are "increasingly vulnerable"

yet they can produce no evidence of any instance where a gun would have been needed. (Sort of the defintion of paranoia, isn't it?)

By the way, NRA nutjobs, I do own a handgun.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

7. Uh Oh

Beware........... here they come.

Of course, you are right.

[AndyTiedye]

15. Why?

yet they can produce no evidence of any instance where a gun would have been needed. (Sort of the defintion of paranoia, isn't it?)

By the way, NRA nutjobs, I do own a handgun.

This begs the question, "WHY do you own a handgun?"

[fightthegoodfightnow]

16. Why Does THAT Beg the Question?

Is it really your expectation that everyone who owns a gun for defense or sport has to agree with the premise they should be allowed to carry them in federal parks?

Even I, a strong gun control advocate, would never presume to think that all gun owners think alike.

[AndyTiedye]

18. Which is Why It Begs the Question

Is it really your expectation that everyone who owns a gun for defense or sport has to agree with the premise they should be allowed to carry them in federal parks?

Even I, a strong gun control advocate, would never presume to think that all gun owners think alike.

Obviously they do not, which is why it begs the question.

I support the right to keep and bear arms, but have not found any compelling reason to exercise it personally at this time.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

22. Nah.......

It's simply irrelevant as to why he has a gun.

[sabre73]

55. Why is it......

that if I own a handgun then I am a "NRA nutjob" and you are not? So it is ok for you to exercise your second amendment right but if we want to we must be a nut jobs.

How pathetic.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

158. I'm Going to Go with Neither One of You Are

............but here's a question for you: why does the NRA have that perception among so many people including many of whom, like this person, who own and operate guns legally?

[slackmaster]

4. Neither the "advocates" nor "opponents" have any facts to back up their claims

Most likely it will have zero impact on safety, just like liberalized concealed carry has in the states.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

5. The Facts Not Withstanding

See chart.

[slackmaster]

6. Your chart proves absolutely nothing

Not a thing.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

8. Just the Facts

Here are the facts:

Guns banned.
Violent crime goes down
Visitors go up.

[slackmaster]

9. Nonsense

It shows that crime rates have been stable - About one per million visitors.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

10. Facts

Which thing didn't happen?

Guns banned.
Violent crime goes down
Visitors go up.

[slackmaster]

11. Repeating nonsense doesn't make it true

You're implying that the data presented show some kind of correlation between gun regulations and violent crime, while it does no such thing.

The chart only goes back to 1997. Guns were banned in 1908. Where's the rest of the data?

The other logical problem you have is that you continue to refuse to recognize the distinction between people who are lawfully carrying weapons for self-defense, and people who are carrying them illegally for criminal purposes.

Pure nonsense.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

12. Now It's Nonsense?

Laughing very hard.

Guns banned.
Violent crime goes down
Visitors go up.

Nah.......I'm not repeating anything other than the facts, which you dismiss as nonsense.


You write: 'The other logical problem you have is that you continue to refuse to recognize the distinction between people who are lawfully carrying weapons for self-defense, and people who are carrying them illegally for criminal purposes.'

Sorry those facts are a 'problem' for you, but it's your problem, along with trying to change the subject.

Of course there are millions of law abiding weapon carrying Americans who either have arms for sport or for defense. Good grief. Sounds like your inability to distinguish them from criminals is another example of YOUR problem....not mine

[slackmaster]

13. Your post makes absolutely no sense

:shrug:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

14. What a Surprise

.

[slackmaster]

17. The conclusion you want to believe, that the ban has helped public safety

Is not supported by the data you've presented.

If violent crime rates inside of NPs track with those of the country as a whole, that would suggest there is no effect at all.

It may also be the case that violent crime rates within NPs go down as the density of visitors goes up - More potential witnesses, fewer opportunities for someone to get away with a violent crime.

And not all violent crimes have anything to do with firearms. Much more detail would need to be examined to be able to logically support the conclusion you want.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

19. Conclusions?

You write: 'The conclusion you want to believe, that the ban has helped public safety Is not supported by the data you've presented."

Must have been the fact that the number of violent crimes went down and the fact that attendance went up.

You write: 'And not all violent crimes have anything to do with firearms.'

Of course not, but you would have more credibility if you acknowledge there is a relationship between the two. Not likely, but that's reality.

[slackmaster]

20. You are lacking any evidence that lawfully possessed firearms cause violent crime

That's the real crux of the matter.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

21. Must Be Easy to Be a "Lawful" Gun Owner

..........when you oppose and abate any proposed gun legislation while doing the bidding of criminals who might benefit from your advocacy.

That's the real crux of the matter.

[slackmaster]

23. Straw Man

...you oppose and abate any proposed gun legislation...

Wrong.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

25. Please ......... do tell me...........

......what proposed gun control laws you support?










































............just as I thought............you're a strawman alright.

[slackmaster]

126. National concealed-carry reciprocity; allow unlicenced people access to NICS, better data in NICS

By federally mandating and funding if necessary, that they promptly report all events that disqualify people from buying firearms.

............just as I thought............you're a strawman alright.

And that is a fallacious statement - Argumentum ad hominem. I happen to have a life other than posting on DU Forums.

[Spoonman]

42. No it's not nonsense, it's just not true

Possession of firearms is not illegal in National Parks, and has not been since 1983!!!!!!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

44. Unloaded and Stored --------- Works for Me

Unloaded and Stored --------- Works for Me

[Spoonman]

46. Try again,

try to maintain your big blue assertion!!!

If you can't, don't bother to reply with more baseless garbage speak.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

48. If You Had a Point

.... you didn't make it.

'Blue assertion"?

Is that like a "blue state"?

Oh, never mind.

Unloaded and Stored --------- Works for Me

[Spoonman]

50. Since your memory is failing

Check out the graph that shows the reduction in crime while the number of visits went up.

But I guess you'll deny that too!!!

100 years my ass!!!!!!

Face the music, you were WAY FUCKING WRONG!!!!!!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

54. LOOK AT THE GRAPH

These are the facts.

Guns were banned and shortly thereafter, violent crimes decreased and attendance went up.

Deny that.


As you say: Face the music, you are WAY FUCKING WRONG if and when you do !!!!!!

[Spoonman]

61. You have to be kidding right?

I have a hard time believing you can't follow something so simple.

Guns were banned BEFORE 1983, and your graph shows a decrease in crime AFTER they REPEALED the gun ban.

In SIMPLE terms, guns were allowed in, crime went down, attendance went up.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

62. WRONG

I have a hard time with you not understanding that the rules are NOW being being relaxed are being done so despite the fact that the such rules banning guns reduced violent crimes and increased attendance.

[Spoonman]

64. Can you even read english?

I listed the fucking law clearly showing there has not been a ban since 1983. This is a new bill to allow concealed carry.

They "relaxed" the law in 1983, hello, what so difficult about understanding that?

Crime decreased since they relaxed it 1983, what so difficult about understanding that?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

67. So DOOOOOOOOOOO Tell

Do you oppose the propose change and if not why is the change unnecessary?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

69. OH ..................

..............and please reconsider your MOTHERFUCKING language.

[sabre73]

71. Why should anyone other than you

reconsider their language. You drop every four letter word you can when replying to my post so get over it.

As far as the CCW in parks is goes well, I for one am happy that I will not be the only person carrying my sidearm in the parks now.

And before you throw any comments about me breaking the law please realize that as an agent I am authorized to carry my sidearm ANYWHERE in the United States!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

73. Well....... thanks for thinking I'm the standard you live by

............. but alas, I refrain from using four letter words and when I do curse, it is often with a ...................... * ............... in the middle of a vowel and never to characterize an individual as opposed to what s/he says.

I could care less about you carrying a firearm into a park because I have no personal knowledge of what reason you would have to do so. Perhaps you are a Park Ranger. Perhaps you are a Federal Agent. Perhaps you have some other legitimate reason to do so.

But the REALITY is that LOADED guns have been banned and crime was been reduced and nothing you can say will ever change that fact.

[sabre73]

87. You are stating half truths

The ban is not from 1997 on the ban is from the EARLY 1900's yet you have no graph to show the full time-line as it relates to these stats, Furthermore it has not been a "full" ban since the 80's though this is no new information to you.

I guess that I just don't understand why you are so frightened by legal CCW carry in parks? I would be afraid of the criminal element carrying guns (which they do) in the parks in violation of law.

And if you are afraid of that element alone then what is the point of this post? I will ALWAYS be happy to know that there are CCWs near my family and me because I know that there are criminals (who have never been handy caped by gun-control) everywhere that CCWs are not allowed to be.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

88. So Why the Need for the Change

Please do tell me.

Must have been that nonexistent increase in crime in parks you seem to think you need be armed to protect yourself from.

LOL.

[sabre73]

94. I need to protect myself

for more reasons then you would ever understand first off. Second the need for change is simple; an unloaded firearm in the hand of a CCW holder is about as good as a paper weight when confronted with an armed suspect.

You of all people should know that there is no reasoning with an armed criminal. THEY WILL HURT YOU. THEY WILL ROB YOU. THEY WILL KILL YOU. It all depends on their whim at the time but they will never do any of that to someone who is able stop them.

Furthermore, you have stated in past threads (for other posts) that the allowance of guns in certain areas where crime rates have gone down does not mean that the guns had anything to do with it yet you seem to think that your magic graph is gospel law for just the opposite.

Are all of your thousands of post filled with made up "facts" and self contradiction?

And you have not answered my question:

Why are you so afraid of legal gun carry in parks when there are so many criminals who will carry one no matter what?

And if you don't believe that then let me draw a parallel for you.......

It is a CRIME to commit murder. Laws have been passed on it for hundreds and thousands of years yet criminals still do it while us law abiding citizens do not.

so who is more likely to make you into a victim? I guess it must be those pesky law abider's.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. In a Park

Let me get this right............ you need to protect yourself in a park and you think a gun is going to do that.

Good grief.

[sabre73]

104. Oh good grief

What do you know FTGFN? You are as ignorant in the details of my life as you are in gun control issues.

Get a clue and answer a question for once. WE ALL GET IT....UNLOADED WORKS FOR YOU! Well I would venture to say that it DOES NOT WORK for more people out there then just you.

Maybe there is a reason people in DC have no representation in the Gov. If half of them are as uninformed and as full of crap as you and your stats are then I am not surprised.

Still waiting for an answer.

I guess I should wish in one hand, crap in the other and see which one fills up first? :banghead:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

107. WHAT'S STUPID

............is the notion that you think my right to vote is predicated on me agreeing with you on guns or any other issue.


Get a clue: it's not.


But heh............. thanks for claiming to be smarter than me and the half million other folks living on your plantation.

[sabre73]

110. where ever your delusions take you

is far beyond most reasonable peoples understanding.

STILL WAITING FOR AN ANSWER.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

112. Yessum Master

............. you be so much smarter than me's.

I just be learning how to write Master.

I do whats I'm told, because one day I's be counted as more than 1/3 of a person. I'z never good at math like u master.

[sabre73]

113. WOW!!!

You are a child acting like an adult! I get it now. GROW UP or take a nap it is way past your bed time.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. Nah.......

..............mes be as dumb as yous want me to be Master. Mes be happy just to live on ya plantation.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

115. Oh master...........

............... please don't whip my ass for being soooooooo dumb. I'z promise never to be smart like you and i knows i have no right to vote like ya do.

[Spoonman]

160. "MOTHERFUCKING"

I thought you were a Christian?

Cussing and lying......hmmmmmm I wonder how that's going to look for you at the pearly gates?

[sergeiAK]

75. Guns were banned 90 years prior to the beginning of that chart.

What he's asking is for you to provide data for before they were banned. Your chart shows a decline in crime, with the entire period being inside the gun ban. What he was asking for was a chart that included some non-ban period for a comparison between ban and non-ban. Simple question, but you ignore it. You regularly imply that anyone with a gun is a criminal, then blame us when we call you on it. Stop being obtuse.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

76. OH GIVE ME A BREAK

LET ME BE CLEAR FOR THOSE WHO LACK A BRAIN: Having a gun is not a crime.

Good grief.

The fact is that the ban on loaded and un-stored guns helped ............. and here is the big word....................REDUCED ............. violent crime.

Still waiting for someone to dispute that FACT. Stop being obtuse indeed.

[sergeiAK]

77. How do we know that?

We don't have data from before the ban was enacted.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

79. Look at the Facts

Crime went down during the ban and admittance went up.

We do have data on that.

[sergeiAK]

80. *During* the ban

So you have no data from before the ban? There could have been no crime before the ban, or it could've been like Detroit, but we DON'T KNOW. You claimed that the ban was the cause of that decline. Since you didn't include data from before the ban, we can't tell whether the ban had any effect.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

82. And Still You Cannot Refute the Fact that

.........crime went down and attendance went up after the ban on loaded guns being permitted in Federal Parks.

Is that correct? Oh never mind.

Facts never did impress you.

[sergeiAK]

83. 80+ years after the ban.

What year was the ban passed? 1908.

Facts never matter to you.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

84. Ban?

Nah........ read the article again.

Oh, never mind.

Live in your world of 1908.

Please do tell why then enacted the 'ban' as you say to begin with?

Gun advocates on this board can't even agree when the ban was enacted to begin with.

You all have a conversation among yourselves and report back.

Fact is the number of crimes has been reduced in the last 15 years and the attendance went up all while there was a ban on loaded guns.

[sergeiAK]

85. The ban on loaded guns.

They enacted that to prevent poaching (as I have been told). Yes, the crime rate in parks mirrored the crime rate in the nation. Loaded weapons were banned in the parks.

What I'm asking is do you have data that directly supports the ban on loaded weapons reducing crime? As in two data points, one before the ban, one after. You haven't shown this.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

86. Attendance Goes Up and Crime Goes Down

You write: 'Yes, the crime rate in parks mirrored the crime rate in the nation. Loaded weapons were banned in the parks. "

So the prevalence of crime doesn't go up with the attendance?

Hhmmm.

You ask: 'What I'm asking is do you have data that directly supports the ban on loaded weapons reducing crime? '

The data you seek is in the article. Review it again.

[sergeiAK]

89. No, it's not.

The data I want is from before the ban on loaded guns. That data is not in the article.

In any case, I doubt this proposal will have any effect on crime in the parks, positive or negative. CCW permit holders tend to be lawful people, and crime is pretty rare there already. Do you think this proposed law will have any effect? If so, why?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

90. Review the Article Again

.

[sergeiAK]

91. I did, I see no data from before 1983.

Care to point it out?

Also, you didn't answer the question on the effects of the law.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

92. Care to Point Out When the Ban on LOADED Guns

.......... started?

[sergeiAK]

93. 1983

"Then the Reagan administration in 1983 required that visitors unload and store their firearms before entering most parks." 1983. No data for 1982 was in the article. That's what I wanted.

I'm still waiting for an answer to the question of what effect the new law will have.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

96. So Which Direction Did the Chart Go with the Start of the Ban on Loaded Guns

........... under the pro-NRA Reagan Administration?

[sergeiAK]

97. The chart started in 1997.

So I can't really tell, now can I?

Answer the question.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

100. If You Say SO

No surprise there.

So crime is going down and you still have the need to protect yourself even if you fail to acknowledge that the ban on loaded guns may indeed be a contributing factor to why crime is down.

Good grief.

[sergeiAK]

103. I don't see how the start date of the chart is in controversy

I said that we don't know how the ban affected crime because we have no data from before it was enacted.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

105. Crime Going Down Must Be a Bad Trend for You

How did anyone survive in the parks of your republic these last 100 years?

[sergeiAK]

106. Answer my damn question nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

108. LOL

No need........... you are SOOOOOOOOOO much smarter than me master.

[sabre73]

109. You are wrong again

Crime went down AFTER THE BAN WAS MODIFIED TO ALLOW GUNS INTO PARKS!

The "ban" was enacted in the early 1900's. the ban was modified in the 80's and magically VIOLENCE WENT DOWN!!!

that is awesome. So just allowing unloaded guns reduced violent crime! IMAGINE WHAT ALLOWING LOADED GUNS WILL DO!!! LOL!!!!:rofl:

It will probably reduce it even more!!

Now I see the point of your charts! You are advocating the removal of the ban because you have a brain and see all of the great potential for loaded gun carry! :thumbsup:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

111. All This From Your Nonexistent Statistics

Yessum master.............. you be real smart.

[sabre73]

116. As true as it may be

I am clearly far more intelligent than you (as you have shown by acting like a child when cold logic has shown you to be wrong.)

I don't doubt that you think the opposite to be true and I am sure you have a graph to prove it too.:boring:

Maybe you want to have an adult conversation? Or would you like for me to put you in time out while we grownups have "big people talk"?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

117. ...........yessum master

..............youuus be much smarter than mes.

[sabre73]

118. Do you honestly refute the possibility

that since unloaded guns contributed to the declination in violent crime (as you have stated as much numerous times) then a law allowing loaded guns will not continue to add to the trend?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

119. Mees be real stupid to

.......disagrezz with yous master. Mes no that yaz big guns gonna protect my neck.

[sabre73]

120. Are you done yet? nt

[fightthegoodfightnow]

121. Mees be grabbing my ankles and bending over for

.........yas master. pleazzzzzzzzzzz don't poke that rifle of yas up meees.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

122. Yessum Master

.............yas be far much smarter than meeeees.

[sabre73]

124. You might think that you are pissing me off but

I have to wipe the tears from my eyes as I laugh to finish reading your intellectual remarks. :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[sabre73]

125. I guess that you have run out of

childish and disgustingly RACISTS things to say?

Well know this, Everyone that reads your posts now understands what it is they are dealing with.....a waist of their time.

I am sure that you will honor me with another of your smart ass remarks since you feel that you must have the last word so I will not respond to them anymore in this post.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

129. What's Childish and Racist is Someone Who

........so easily dismisses the voice of half a million African-Americans by not allowing them to enact their own laws without review by a federal government and court system none of which we have voice in.

THAT'S RACISM.

Find and use the ignore button if you do not wish to further engage me.

[sabre73]

130. Do you even know my ethnicity?

Just as I thought. You are ignorant. Thank you for proving it yet again!

As a side note why would I ignore you? stupid people make me laugh!!:rofl:

Not that I am implying you are stupid but you do make me laugh.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

131. Irrelevant

You seem to know mine based on a message post and want to accuse me of racism.

[sabre73]

132. I only state that your behavior is what it is.

STOP blaming others for your shortcomings and get on with your life. If you have one.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

133. Got It

If and when you want to discuss the issue of guns intellectually, I'll return the favor.

I would start by having the maturity to recognize the immaturity of writing: "STOP blaming others for your shortcomings and get on with your life. If you have one.'

Anything to divert attention from the real issue.

[sabre73]

134. You are Soo right!

I guess that you use intellect in all of your threads and never stoop to immature things like...."yessum massa... Iz beez doin itst rightzt now massa!"

It must be so cool living in your demented mind!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

135. Right

Good for you. Now all you have to do is think why that was necessary.

Could it be because you constantly stoop to such antics or personal attacks without sticking to the issue?

If and when you want to discuss the issue of guns intellectually, I'll return the favor.

Still waiting.

[sabre73]

138. Wait bo longer.

I will gladly engage you in an honest and intellectual conversation. To start I will re re re RE ask you the question for which you have not provided an answer:

Do you honestly refute the POSSIBILITY that since unloaded guns contributed to the declination in violent crime (as you have stated numerous times) then a law allowing loaded guns will not continue to add to the trend?

Yes or No? And why?

:shrug:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

139. Rephrase

You ask: 'Do you honestly refute the POSSIBILITY that since unloaded guns contributed to the declination in violent crime (as you have stated numerous times) then a law allowing loaded guns will not continue to add to the trend?"

You're going to have to rephrase, because I'm not understanding what you are asking.

Unloaded guns contribute to what?
A law allowing loaded guns?

What's your question? Heck, what's your point.

Is your question does a loaded gun work better than an unloaded gun?

[sabre73]

142. Very well

You state that allowing unloaded guns into the parks led to the decline in violent crimes in parks (paraphrased).

Then is it not POSSIBLE that allowing loaded guns carried legally will add to that trend of a decreasing crime rate?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

144. I Did?

You write: 'You state that allowing unloaded guns into the parks led to the decline in violent crimes in parks (paraphrased).'

I did? Where?

You ask: 'Then is it not POSSIBLE that allowing loaded guns carried legally will add to that trend of a decreasing crime rate?'

Sure, so long as you can allow that it can also have undesirable consequences too. Wonder if there are more children in parks than in the general population playing increasingly with loaded guns that look like toys could possibly have bad consequences.

[sabre73]

146. I can allow the possibility....Sure...

but my experience makes me doubtful.

As far as your wondering about children in parks I am not sure what you are getting at. There is a huge difference in the mind frame one who just "owns a gun" for home protection and those who pay A LOT of money to take the CCWs courses and do the training that usually is expected of that group.

We don't leave our guns out for anyone to see, at home or on our person let alone in the park. And we don't let anyone "play" with them. They are not viewed as toys.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

147. But We Were Not Talking About Home

We were talking about federal parks and it is in that context I made the suggestion that a loaded gun in a park may have bad consequences.

[sabre73]

148. I realize that.....

I was just showing you that there is a difference in the mindset of those who carry concealed (into parks or anywhere else) that prohibits allowing anyone especially children to "find a loaded gun" of ours. If a child finds a loaded gun in a park then statistics in the crime lab indicate that the gun was tossed after it was used in the commission of a crime. Not left on the ground or somewhere else by a CCW.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

149. Perhaps

.............but I'm not entirely convinced given the inconsistencies between the states, that a CCW holder is less likely to be............. human and make a mistake.

[EricTeri]

150. Then you're a fool.

As a person becomes familiar with an action, he becomes less likely to make mistakes. Someone who has been driving for 30+ years for example, wont make mistakes anywhere near as often as a 16 year old with a new license.

Same thing with someone who carries a firearm. He is far more familiar with the process of handling a gun, and consequently, far less likely to make a mistake.

If there were any validity to your line of reasoning, you would be hearing of negligent discharges and illegal shootings by CCW holders all the time. Since you dont, it is logical to conclude that this does not happen.

What WOULD convince you?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

151. Does That Argument Carry Much Weight?

Calling someone a 'fool'?

You ask me: " What would convince you?"

Convince me of what ........... that a CCW holder is human? I know that. I also know that humans, like you, make mistakes.

What would convince YOU of that?

[EricTeri]

152. Your position was not that they were human

Your position was very plainly that they were just as likely as anyone else to make a mistake.

You can attempt to parse your words however you wish, but you'll find my interpretation of your statement is accurate according to the rules of the English language.

Now you're attempting to redefine your statement because you have been called out on yet one more ridiculous statement.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

153. Evidence

I wrote: '......... I'm not entirely convinced given the inconsistencies between the states, that a CCW holder is less likely to be............. human and make a mistake.'

Still waiting for some evidence to refute what I believe. I'm open to considering it.

While you are at it, tell me how many mistakes are acceptable to you?

A loaded gun is a loaded gun and the notion that there are fewer accidents with loaded guns than unloaded guns defies logic.

[EricTeri]

154. I'll tell you what...

When you clearly state what it is you believe, and do not deviate from the original statement and meaning, I'll be more than happy to respond.

At the moment, it is impossible to refute what you believe since you continually redefine what you meant.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

155. Nothing Has Changed

I wrote: '........ I'm not entirely convinced given the inconsistencies between the states, that a CCW holder is less likely to be............. human and make a mistake.'


You disagree. Fine. You can do that without calling someone a fool and ignorant.

[EricTeri]

156. You ARE ignorant.

That is a fact. It is not insulting to point out that you do not have all the knowledge necessary to discuss this topic.

That you are a fool is an opinion, and no, i didn't have to state that.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

157. Sticks and Stones

Whatever.

Nothing in your post related to guns.

[sabre73]

165. I can see that you are not entirely convinced

and I can see your reasoning for that. What I don't understand is why you think that these are the people who cause or are likely to cause the violence in the parks? Just because someone carries a gun it does not mean that they are going to start shooting people.

Yes they are human and are likely to make mistakes for "all have fallen short of the glory".

But the Police are human also and are just as likely to make mistakes. Well, actually they are more likely to make mistakes because a lot of them don't care about guns until the moment they need to use it and by then it is too late.

I know that your experiences with your late boss tell you one thing; but that is not, nor has it ever been, the status quo. You are more likely to be injured by a Law Enforcement officer shooting at a subject than you are by a CCW. and here is a small list of reasons why.

1) Most police Depts. have a minimal standard for shooting that allows for officers to fail several times before they are terminated. (by several I mean that the process could go on for months)

2) Most Officers do not train outside of their quarterly qualification requirements (which usually has no training for for the officers to complete just shooting from a set distance onto a piece of non nondescript paper.)

3) Officers are often required to shoot only department issued guns and ammo and what you are issued is what you get. There is no allowing for adjustments to the gun or ammo in order to help improve accuracy for the individual.

With a CCW all of the opposite is true.

1) In most states if you fail to shoot a qualifying score with your pistol there are no mulligans or do overs. You fail. End of story.

2) CCWs often train based on scenarios that they can relate to. Not the standard "7 yard line" shoot while standing still (like LEOs). No. They can actually create scenarios that will induce stress and that require them to move from cover to cover while engaging targets on the move (which is very challenging).

3) CCWs get to choose what pistol they are going to carry and what type of ammo they get to use. This allows them to increase the accuracy of their gun by molding it to their needs. (One of the best parts of owning a gun is making it work for you!;))


Just food for thought.

[Spoonman]

41. Try again!!!! See my reply below n/t

[spin]

24. A few examples of crime in national parks...

A national park is "gun free zone"

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E03E7DF1F3AF937A25751C1A9649C8B63

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3693/is_199607/ai_n8749751

http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/14/162412.shtml

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003305418_safetrails15m.html

http://mylifeofcrime.wordpress.com/2008/01/08/gary-michael-hilton-serial-killer/

[fightthegoodfightnow]

26. Now Show the Links of the Crimes that Didn't Happen

.

[Wickerman]

27. FTGFN

What on earth is up with leaving all the white space in your posts? Clearly, it isn't a rule issue, but as a courtesy might I ask you to not do so? I know I'm gonna soon have carpal tunnel from all the mouse time, but I'd rather not get it early from scrolling through your posts. :hi:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

28. Wickerman

.
Do you think that it might, in this particular case have something to do with whether or not there are any web sights devoted to the lives that have been saved because of the policy, when it is far more newsworthy, to talk about and have newstories about the lives that have been lost during the ban? That's right ......... there are NO (as in space) web sites devoted to those who have been saved despite the fact that there have been. With all due respect, no one is forcing you to read my posts and there is, as you point out, nothing in the rules that disallow me from making my point creatively as I see fit. Also with respect, I'm not responsible for someone else's carpel tunnel. I do think that monitors are in a difficult situation because I'm certain they have opinions not only about the topic being discussed but about the individuals participating and how they do so.

[Wickerman]

29. Now that you point it out , I see your case for your creativity

though it hasn't always been obvious. Thank you for enlightening me. True, being a moderator is a volunteer job, reading your posts certainly doesn't enrich me fiscally, but as I have elected to take the job I would be remiss in my duties if I didn't read your posts.

Certainly no offense was intended, it was merely a request from a user, albeit one with a weary wrist.

edit- clarity

[fightthegoodfightnow]

30. Fair Enough

Thanks.

As for being obvious, I find it over rated.


Does DU cover volunteers for workman's comp issues...............it's an issue before the courts. More to follow........ (on another board).


PS - My post is hardly 'enlightenment.' It's just a post.

[spin]

53. My links to crime averted by CCW would look like your reply...

blank.

Honest citizens don't carry in national parks. A national park is a "No Carry Zone". They are becoming a place for predators to find easy game to prey on.

If concealed carry is authorized in national parks, I probably will be able to provide you with links.

[sabre73]

68. SILLY SPIN.........

:rofl: Didn't you know that ACTUAL FACTS like that will never been seen for what they are (the truth) here?
:sarcasm:

I can't wait to hear what possible evidence to the contrary FTGFN throws at you for this!!

Keep up the real "good fight"! :toast:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

72. Actual Facts?

Fact is the change is unnecessary given the fact that violence has decreased without loaded guns and attendance has increased.

[L1A1Rocker]

167. Sabre called it!

Come on FTGF. Why should law abiding good guys be denied the right to carry?

[L1A1Rocker]

102. "Gun Free Zone"????

I reject the term. I believe that a more accurate term is "Free Kill Zone".

[gorfle]

31. A good step in the right direction.

The article isn't very clear on who will be allowed to carry weapons, but presumably you will require a CCW permit in order to carry firearms on your person in the State Parks that will allow concealed carry. It wasn't clear to me if the ban only concerns concealed carry or if now open carry is also allowed.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

32. And Yet It's Clear It's Going in the "Right Direction"

...... even if the policy is UNCLEAR to you. Got it. LOL.

[gorfle]

127. Any reduction...

It was clear that the policy is easing restrictions on the lawful carrying of firearms in National Parks.

That is a step in the right direction.

What is unclear is does this apply only to CCW permit holders or the entire public at large? Does it apply only to concealed carry, or does it apply to open carry?

[L1A1Rocker]

168. Tell me FTGF, I challange you

To tell me why law abiding good guys should be denied the right to carry?

Let's hear it.

I'M WAITING.

[L1A1Rocker]

175. You have been challenged FTGF, do you dare take it up?

[Turbo Teg]

38. Well

at least they're starting to take steps. Hopefully they will open up more places for concealed carry in the future. Thanks fot the article.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

40. Why Do You Think a Concealed Weapon Makes You Safer?

Is it because you are trained in how to respond to a hostage situation involving guns?
Is it because you have experience at responding under fire in violent situations with your concealed gun?
Does everyone with a concealed weapon prevail against those with a weapon not concealed?














.

[spin]

78. Because it at least gives me a chance...

No, I am not trained in how to respond to a hostage situation. I would call 911 and hope to find a trained person to handle the situation.

No, I have no experience at responding to fire in a violent situation...thank God!

No, not everyone with a concealed weapons permit prevails against an armed assailant. (You can do everything right and sill get killed.)

But if somebody comes at me with the intention to kill or harm me or those I feel responsible for, I would like the tools needed to at least make an attempt to defend myself. I never look for a fight, I try to treat everybody I encounter with respect. But if I find myself in a threatening situation with no other recourse, I rather go down fighting. At least I tried.

I hope passionately that nether you or I ever find ourselves in such a situation. Chances are we never will.

It would be great if both sides of the gun debate could work together to solve the problem of violence in our society. Education, opportunity and perhaps the media (movies, drugs, TV and extremely violent video games) contribute to the problem.

If we can reduce violence, we can reduce the desire of individuals to own weapons for self defense. If we can accomplish this, we might reduce the market for weapons in this country. A less violent and armed society would definitely be a better society.

Guns don't cause violence, but violence causes guns.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

81. Guns

You write: 'I hope passionately that nether you or I ever find ourselves in such a situation. Chances are we never will. "

AGREE.............. (although I already have been).

You write: "It would be great if both sides of the gun debate could work together to solve the problem of violence in our society. "

AGREE AGAIN.

I'm also glad that we can agree that having a concealed weapon does not insure that someone would survive an attack.

Where we disagree is with the notion that gun violence has nothing to do with .................. guns.

[spin]

123. Actually we do agree on that point...

More guns in the hands of people who are not honest or responsible does indeed result in more violence.

A gun is a very effective tool for both self defense and criminal activity. In skilled hands a gun can deter a criminal. A criminal can use a gun to rob, rape and pillage. A person who owns a gun for self defense but uses alcohol to excess or suffers from anger management problems can misuse the weapon to murder or injure others. A person who is untrained in handling firearms might suffer an accidental discharge and injure himself or a bystander. Weapons not stored securely may well be stolen and sold on the street to criminals who would prefer to bypass legal barriers.

Many people purchase firearms because they fear violence but never take the time to acquire proper training or experience.

Concealed weapons classes do teach basic gun handling skills and the legal aspects of using a weapon. To be able to use a weapon effectively and safely in a stressful situation requires a LOT of practice. Even with practice, the stress and adrenalin flow in a perilous situation might cause the shooter to miss and injure an innocent person. It's hard if not impossible to prepare for a real life and death encounter. Even trained police officers tend to miss more often than they hit in a violent confrontation.

Since you mention that you have been in a really bad situation, I can understand your aversion to guns. Obviously you survived. I knew an excellent judo instructor who felt that a persons wallet, money and feelings of courage or bravery were unimportant in a real dangerous encounter. A wallet that contains a drivers license, credit cards and money can always be replaced. Your life can't. His advice was to look into the adversary's eyes as the eyes are the mirror of the soul. If you felt the person intended to kill or injure you, then you used the skills he had taught you. Survival was the most important thing.

I originally purchased a firearm for my wife to use for self defense. Rumors were that a prowler was roaming around our trailer park at night. I worked graveyard shift and was concerned with her safety.

We both went to the range and learned how to shoot. We both found shooting a challenging and fairly inexpensive hobby.

When our daughter was old enough we got her into a judo class with the instructor I mentioned. I was worried about the increase of the level of violence where I was living and felt the training would help her deal with dangerous encounters. It did enable her to handle bullies at school and one child molester who attempted to attract her to his car. In the encounter with the child predator she merely ran to a neighbors door, knocked and asked for assistance.

When she was old enough, I took her to the range and taught her how to shoot. Late one night a man attempted to break into our house while I was at work, despite the fact a burglar alarm was sounding and a 60 pound Labrador Retriever was in the house. When she entered the kitchen she found him forcing the sliding glass door open. When he said "I'm going to rape you". she pointed a .45 caliber revolver at him. He wisely decided to leave.

I attribute her survival to the skills she learned in judo and to the confidence she had in handling a gun. She didn't panic because of the judo training and she looked like she knew how to protect herself with a firearm because of the shooting practice at the range. Without her calm but resolute appearance, he might well have continued to force his way into the house, disarmed her and raped and possibly killed her.

So we find ourselves on opposite sides of the gun control issue.

But I think we both would like to see a decrease in the level of violence. Less violence should lead to fewer guns and break the vicious cycle we appear to be in.

If only target shooters and hunters felt guns were necessary we would find ourselves in a better world.

If we all work together to find and cure the root causes of violence and elect politicians who want to solve this problem and not merely use it as a wedge issue to attract voters, we might just succeed.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

136. Glad She Survived

Well........ first, let me say I am glad your daughter survived that.

I suspect we are a product of our experiences. Mine has clearly contributed to my perspective. Like your daughter, I've had to face someone who would do harm to me.

Having said that, I don't view the legitimate concerns of those who support gun control as being supporters of a wedge issue. I agree that we should all work together to find and cure the root causes of violence and elect politicians who want to solve this problem. But I also think who has guns is part of the problem rather than a wedge issue.

[HiDemGunOwner]

179. Isn't this a clear example of how a gun in the home kept someone safe?

In the situation where the young girl was able to prevent an attack/rape with a firearm (one she didn't even have to fire) it was clear that the firearm played a crucial role. If, as you suggest, and as your locality requires, that firearm was not available to her to use, what would you suggest as alternatives? She had the alarm and a dog. Also, since this was obviously a justified use of the firearm, doesn't that lend some credibility to the need to have them available to those that choose to use them?
And, how in the world was this girls possession and use of that gun "part of the problem? It was clearly part of the solution!

[gorfle]

128. Because some chance is better than no chance.

Why Do You Think a Concealed Weapon Makes You Safer?

Because having the ability to shoot back when being shot at is better than not being able to shoot back when being shot at.

Is it because you are trained in how to respond to a hostage situation involving guns?

Even without such training, having the ability to shoot back when being shot at is better than not being able to shoot back when being shot at.

I would rather have an armed, untrained good guy on my side in such a situation than an unarmed good guy of any training.

Is it because you have experience at responding under fire in violent situations with your concealed gun?

Even without such experience I would rather be armed when under fire in a violent situation than unarmed. But personally I am VERY confident in my abilities with my firearms as I train regularly. In fact, it is a beautiful Sunday morning here and as soon as I finish this post I am heading to the range to do just that.

Does everyone with a concealed weapon prevail against those with a weapon not concealed?

No one has claimed such. All we claim is that a chance is better than no chance. And we want people to have the right to make the personal choice for themselves as to whether to be armed or not.

You seem to be implying that carrying a concealed weapon does not have any effect on your personal survival in an armed confrontation situation.

I disagree.

I think you should listen to this lady's story:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PhyuJzjOcQE

[fightthegoodfightnow]

137. Where We Disagree

You write: 'All we claim is that a chance is better than no chance."

By not having a gun?

My personal experience is I survived without a gun and my boss who had a gun did not both during the same crime. So much for his chances.

[sabre73]

140. True but...

Not everyone has a walk-in freezer to hide from the bad guys. Some people find them selfs with nowhere to run and nowhere to hide.

The cold hard truth is that you don't always have that kind of time. Sometimes you just have to react.

Furthermore. while not knowing your late boss, I would still venture to say that he would have rather died fighting back then dieing while begging for mercy.

It is a rare case where a criminal accidentally kills his victim. It is usually in the basic plan of attack first and foremost.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

141. The Truth

You write: 'Not everyone has a walk-in freezer to hide from the bad guys."

Why do you continue to say that. I was taken at gun point and locked in the freezer. What part of that suggests I was hiding.

I have repeatedly corrected you on your claim to know better than me what happened and can only characterize your claim I was "HIDING" as dishonest.

[sabre73]

143. Apology

I was not inferring that you were "hiding" out of fear nor do I recall you telling me that you were put there at gunpoint. (my bad)

I am stating that not everyone can get away from all bad people all of the time. And in those instances I would rather die fighting for what is right then begging a villain for mercy.

I do not think you a coward if that is how it came across.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

145. Accepted

I would add that I agree that not everyone can get away from all bad people all of the time.

[gorfle]

159. Just let me make my own choice, and all is well.

You write: 'All we claim is that a chance is better than no chance."

By not having a gun?

No, by having a gun. When faced with someone intent on killing you, being armed gives you a better chance at survival than not.

My personal experience is I survived without a gun and my boss who had a gun did not both during the same crime. So much for his chances.

No one is claiming that having a gun will always make one come out victorious in an armed confrontation. We are simply claiming that being armed against someone who intends to kill you gives you a better chance at surviving than not being armed against someone who intends to kill you.

You are not alive today because you were unarmed. You are alive today because you got lucky and the killer decided not to kill you. Had he decided the other way, you were helpless to do anything about it. Your life hung on the whim of the attacker that day.

You are free to make whatever choices you may about being armed for your own safety. All we ask is to be allowed to make the same choice for ourselves.

[L1A1Rocker]

163. My CHL makes ME safer.

[L1A1Rocker]

169. Tell ME FTGF

Why my carried firearm impearls anyong?

[L1A1Rocker]

176. Still waiting FTGF, do you have any sand left?

[Turbo Teg]

173. I've

not had any formal training on hostage situations.

Yes I do have experiance at responding under extreme pressure in a violent situation with my concealed carry gun.

No, not everyone who carrys a gun will prevail in the face of evil, but it sure gives them a better shot.

[L1A1Rocker]

101. Yep

It's a good step. Looks like Maryland may go to "shall issue" as well. Another issue that is not getting much play is the reciprocity that now exists in most states. It's really getting good these days.

[Spoonman]

39. Two things,

First, I posted this "breaking" story almost 12 hours ago, and how it is supported by numerous DEMOCRATS!!!!

http://www.kansascity.com/115/story/501796.html

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x159200

Second the LA Times article is HORSE SHIT.Firearms have been allowed in the national parks since 1983, they just had to be unloaded and stored.

The only change they want to make is allowing them to be loaded and MORE readily available!!! In other words concealed carry!
Seeing this change allowed people to have some access to their firearms, I wonder if that might have any influence in how your graph reads? I think so!

They way you and the LA Times present it it would be the other way around.
Maybe you should check things out a little more thoroughly before you proclaim fewer guns fewer crimes, cause that ain't what caused it!!!!!!!!!!!!!:rofl:

[fightthegoodfightnow]

43. Unloaded and Stored --------- Works for Me

You write: "............the LA Times article is HORSE SHIT. Firearms have been allowed in the national parks since 1983, they just had to be unloaded and stored.'

Oh goody........... I sooooooooooooo glad. Unloaded and stored. Now that is something I SUPPORT Has that changed? Right......... oh golly...... it has.

Didn't know there was a federal licensing for a concealed weapon that trumps the states but I'll take your word at it.

[Spoonman]

49. Please don't insult everyone on this board

by trying to deny the assertion you made when you started this thread.
It bit you in the ass, and now it's time to face the facts!

Back up what you proclaim, or admit you were wrong.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

52. The ............ONLY........... ......... Thing that has Changed is

Unloaded and Stored was required before and not now.

Unloaded and Stored --------- Works for Me.

What part of that do you not understand?

Wrong? Nah............ I'm only pointing out what you say even if you think it bit me rather than you in the ........ ass.

It's time to face the facts.

[Spoonman]

57. Sorry your wrong AGAIN and AGAIN

First off, you know what you were trying to claim. You were arguing it with slack and others.

Guns banned.
Violent crime goes down
Visitors go up.

You got schooled and now you are trying to change your story - and be careful about lying, christmas is only 10 months away!

Second

Unloaded and Stored was required before and not now.

It hasn't been passed yet, so in the immortal words of Bill Murray - "Lighten up Francis"

[fightthegoodfightnow]

59. What Part is Not True

Guns were banned.
Violent crime went down.
Visitors go up.


Still waiting.

[L1A1Rocker]

170. Come on, you really expect FTGF to NOT insult anyone?

[L1A1Rocker]

164. So do you

keep you smoke detector unloaded and stored also? (no battery and in the closet) Does about as much good as an unloaded firearm.


And YES, I consider both equally important emergency devices.

[Spoonman]

45. Try this on for size!!!

Codes of Federal Regulations, Title 36, Volume 1, Parts 1 to 199 .

Chapter 1-National Park Service, Dept. of the Interior. Part 2-Resource Protection, Public Use and Recreation:

Section 2.4 Weapons, Traps, and Nets:
(3) Traps, nets and unloaded weapons may be possessed within a temporary lodging or mechanical mode of conveyance when such implements are rendered temporarily inoperable or are packed, cased or stored in a manner that will prevent their ready use.


Banned for the last 100 years bullshit!!! Look at the revision date!! Next time do more research!!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

47. Ok.................... When You Make Up Your Mind

......... you let us know.

Unloaded and Stored --------- Works for Me

[Spoonman]

51. WAKE up your own mind,

Because it appears to be asleep and can't remember what it proclaimed when you started this thread!!!!!


Weapons are carried into National Parks LEGALLY every day!!! and have been since 1983. You claimed that this would increase crime, and even used a graph in an article to base your premise on.

It turned out to be HORSE SHIT, and now you are finding it difficult to deal with.

So now I guess your changing your stance, let's see if I can guess what it is.

Those same people who have those firearms in national Parks today, will somehow flip out and start committing crime if the can carry them concealed tomorrow.

Thats what your trying to proclaim NOW. (After you've been proven wrong on your first assertion).

[fightthegoodfightnow]

56. Good Grief

You write: 'You claimed that this would increase crime'

Actually............. no I did not.

[Spoonman]

58. Excuse me,

Guns banned.
Violent crime goes down
Visitors go up.

You implied it would happen if we suddenly allowed firearms within the parks.

The truth is firearms in the parks helped reduce crime, THANK YOU for providing the graph to confirm it!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

60. What?

You write: You implied it would happen if we suddenly allowed firearms within the parks.

WHAT WOULD HAPPEN?

Fact is, guns were banned and crime was reduced.

The truth is not having firearms reduced crime. Thank you for acknowledging that.

[Spoonman]

63. SOMEBODY PLEASE HELP

You have slipped off into some far dark place were the light of logic and facts cannot penetrate.

Denying the truth does not make it untrue.

IT HAS BEEN LEGAL TO POSSESS A FIREARM IN A NATIONAL PARK SINCE 1983. THERE IS NO BAN!

When you can reply INTELLIGENTLY please do so, UNTIL THEN GOODBYE.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

66. Oh GOOOOOOOOOODY

You are going to ignore me.

You write: "IT HAS BEEN LEGAL TO POSSESS A FIREARM IN A NATIONAL PARK SINCE 1983. THERE IS NO BAN!"

Of course there is not according to you.

But if you support allowing an "Unloaded and Stored" fire arm then that --------- THAT Works for Me.

Glad we agree on the status quo.

We are in agreement there is no need to change the law.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

74. Truth Is

.............. allowing unloaded and stored firearms had better results than loaded and un-stored fire arms.

[Spoonman]

161. The real truth is,

we haven't tried that yet, thats what this new legislation is.

They want to change the law to loaded and un-stored fire arms FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER!!!!!

So one last time I'll explain it to you.

When the National Parks and the National Parks Service were first established around 1917, it was TOTALLY ILLEGAL to carry a firearm OF ANY KIND into a National Park.
You had to SURRENDER ALL FIREARMS AT THE GATE!!! There was a TOTAL ban on firearms.

GET IT!

In 1983 they changed the law, eliminating the total ban, and now you can carry your firearms with you into the park. No declaring them, no permit, nothing!

You presented an article with data and were mistaken in believing that the TOTAL ban still in force. You proclaimed that crime had gone down because no guns were not allowed in parks.

The facts were then presented to you, and the data you presented in your article demonstrates that allowing firearms into the parks DECREASED crime.

Attempting to claim that you were saying anything else is nothing short of a bald faced LIE, any fool can read your posts starting from the beginning, and see howe you changed your tune as soon as you were called out.

[L1A1Rocker]

171. MY mind has been made up for a long time now.

While Unloaded and Stored--------Works for you.


Why would you denie me cocked and locked?

[L1A1Rocker]

177. That FTGF is scared to debate.

[johnbraun]

65. Democrats need to get behind this.

There is no reason to deny middle-class families the ability to protect themselves in national parks. Because we Dems support the poor and middle class, it is natural for us to support this measure. The rich will always be able to afford bodyguards, and women have been killed by vagrants in the park near me. IMHO the park carry ban is a classist, sexist measure that needs to go away now.

Of course, CCW holders have in all way proven themselves to be much more law-abiding than the average citizen.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

70. Good Grief

National parks are repent with crime like urban neighborhoods?

Give me a break!

[L1A1Rocker]

172. Are you trying to denie what the most rampent cash crop is in the national forests?

I'll let you know. It's MaryJoWana.

[L1A1Rocker]

178. The great FTGF scared to take up the gauntlet thrown at his feet?

[L1A1Rocker]

99. I agree

[L1A1Rocker]

98. Great news!!!

Finally the Feds recognize that allowing good guys to legally carry firearms does not pose any danger to the law abiding.



YEAH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[benEzra]

162. 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.

[newfie11]

166. We have packed into Glacier

with our horses and mules. Believe me I am very happy to be allowed a rifle. It unnerving to be many many miles from roads and have worry about a grizzly attack.
No one in his/her right mind would go without a rifle.

[sabre73]

174. I just spent 8 days in Glacier for my winter survival training!

Found an occupied grizzly den. What a wake up call! Are you in MT? I'm over here in Malta.