Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board New Gun Law for National Parks

Alan,
Questions, questions, questions.

Why do the states with the highest rates of gun ownership have the highest firearm death rates?

And why do the states with the most cars have the highest vehicle accident death rates? .................. steve

The link AlanK cited is just a left wing anti 2nd Amendment group who lies and distorts "data". According to AlanK and his anti-constitution buddies Washington DC and Chicago are safer than Billings and Fargo.

Try again

Oh yeah, during the gun ban in national parks there was gun violence in the parks. How can that happen ?
How can gun violence occur at schools since there are both state and federal "gun free zones" ??

If California gun laws set precedent in our national parks with the new law, why couldn't a person carry a gun on the outside of their packs under the existing "open carry" law?

As George said, what a total waste of worthless weight to carry! But, as we all know, there are some people that will think it is worth it.

No thanks. I will not argue with a person who pronounces "facts" without sources and then resorts to innuendo against the sources of actual facts he does not like. And it is a fact that the states with the highest gun ownership rates have the highest rates of firearm death. (By the way, the data were from the CDC, not some left wing group.) It is also a fact that I said nothing about Chicago being safer than Fargo. You seem to feel no shame about making things up as you go along. So, end of discussion.

Steve -- do you not see the fallacy in what you wrote there? The states with the most cars tend to have the highest total number of accidents, not the highest accident rates.

A gun is "worthless weight" to carry ? Hmm, I guess the national parks have been declared "rape free zones", "assualt free zones" , "bear attack free zones" , "mountain lion attack free zones" ?? The police and park rangers dont seem to think they are "worthless weight" to carry.
Its your right to NOT carry but its also my RIGHT to carry. I wont take away your right, please dont take away my constitutional right to protect myself and my family.
Who knows, I might even end up protecting YOU and your family one day.

I guess the third post by Fishmonger was right on!

Hmmmm. Last time I looked, the CDC was not exactly a paragon of centrist solidarity. Living in Atlanta, home of the CDC, I can personally attest that the majority of its staff, and particularly the administration, would feel right at home in Berkeley or Madison. In my opinion the CDC is not agenda-free, so I always take any decree or statistic from that agency with a grain of salt.

Back on topic: I don't think the law will really change much at all in the parks. Campers and hikers in NPs who packed before - illegally - will continue to pack - legally now. Those of us who didn't will continue doing the same. I own several handguns, but in the thousands of miles I've hiked over the years I've never packed, even where it was legal to do so. I rarely hike in the wilderness without a respectable knife holstered on my hip, but I just never felt the need to carry when hiking.

Conversely, I never - NEVER - head into Atlanta without my Glock 19 tucked in the console . . .

New York Times Article-Friday, Feb 26,2010: "Gun Advocates to Make a Point at the Presidio This Weekend"

http://tinyurl.com/yda3z8o

San Francisco's Presidio is one of the most popular destinations in the National Park system.

Maybe Mt Whitney could compete with this popularity if we open the Starbucks at the hut! (Does anybody have that famous picture to post?)

Are there organizations that produce statistics that you don't take with a grain of salt? To me, that would be a hell of an admission.

To play devil's advocate: This might be one of those organizations: http://tinyurl.com/yerdh32 (You need to scroll back to top after accessed)

So let's see, the law abiding citizen goes around proclaiming to be armed by wearing an unloaded gun, the non-law-abiding citizen goes around wearing a gun too but it's loaded unbeknownst to the law abiding citizen. Push comes to shove and the quasi-armed law abiding citizen with his newly found sense of security doesn't back down or walk away, tempers flare, leather is slapped, but the law abiding citizen must slap leather a second time to collect his ammo clip, mid second leather slap the non-law-abiding citizen pops a cap in him.
All for the right to open carry for no other reason to open carry.

I thought we went through all this crap in the 19th century.

Let's see - in football, total rushing stats to identify the best tailback maybe? Nah, that's dependent on carries. Yards-per-carry then? Wait, a couple of long ones can distort that pretty dramatically. Touchdowns scored possibly? Then again, some teams use the big bull on short yardage runs and keep the gazelle off the field.

Nope Alan, you're right - I don't believe there's a statistic out there I completely trust at first blush. I've spent a lot of my career over the past 30 years manipulating and refining stats to support the conclusion I'm trying to sell to my boss, as does anyone with an agenda. Accurate numbers don't necessarily lie, but they can be sliced and diced so many ways that it's always wise to ask, "Why am I being presented with these numbers, and what am I not being allowed to see?"

My real issue in this case, though, is the Centers for Disease Control taking it upon themselves to be an authority on firearm violence. The agency was originally tasked with investigating and - where possible - controlling infectuous diseases. Pontificating on firearms violence is no more in their purview than auto crashes or shark attacks. THAT is what really makes me suspect the numbers - or more precisely, how they're arranged.

We're on the same page, which is what I figured.

What I have trouble with is (other) people who attack the source as a way of avoiding substantive discussion. And, of course, people who feel no need to cite sources themselves.

Well, good news, I am an LE ranger. I stand by both statements. Wouldn't you rather carry chocolate?? Even a chocolate gun if it makes you feel better. In the course of my job, I have to carry weapons -- both in the frontcountry and backcountry. I have hundreds of hours of training with weapons and especially when to shoot and when not to. All LE officers carry non-lethal weapons as well and are trained to quickly figure out which they need. This is not something that almost all people carrying guns have and is what I'm most worried about. In my experience, people carrying guns have only the gun -- no baton or OC spray or Taser, so that's what they use.

As I said, I don't know of a single person hiking in the Sierra backcountry who's ever been in a situation needing a weapon to avoid harm. Never. There's a lot of safety stuff that people totally ignore that have a much higher potential to reduce risk. Why not get equally excited over carrying a good map or even a Satellite phone? I truly never understand this spittle & foaming over guns. Why not other issues?

Next, people can quote the 2nd Amendment all they want. What is overlooked, though, is that the Constitution & Amendments are what the courts say they are. So far, reasonable regulations of weapons has been found OK by courts. This was certainly the case with the 100 year ban on loaded weapons in National Parks. It worked pretty well and there were few incidents of vandalized signs, gun injuries to campers or "plinked" wildlife by yahoos.

Finally, re: CDC. They studied the problem because of the huge numbers of gunshot wounds coming into ERs & hospitals. The highest cause of mortality among young inner city males is gunshot wounds. As such, it was a public health concern. The idea of publishing in a peer review journal is that there's an orderly process in bringing the evidence forward and it is looked at -- prior to publication -- by others for criticism and advice. As such, what you get is less likely to be biased or have incorrect facts. That's why I'd trust that sort of paper.

g.

Setting aside questions of what the CDC charter should be, they are certainly capable of gathering statistics of the type I pointed to. What's interesting is that they actually show pretty good evidence of being even-handed. For example, here is another CDC study. I know you'll take it with a grain of salt. But, deep down, you might like it.

Not that I'm a fan of the open carry nuts, I don't need to be, but personally, anyone who's going to "pop a cap" or use a "clip" is going to be a slower draw than I am, even if I am unloaded and my mag is in the other side. Guaranteed. There is a pride of safety and proficiency among legally armed individuals (concealed carry) that is unmatched among thugs. A knife fight with a well trained individual, on the other hand, scares the crap out of me. That's what they learn and practice in prison and back alleys.

Just for the sake of nobody here looking foolish when debating or speaking, but...
they are magazines, not clips
they are firearms, not guns, gats, pieces, etc.
you are not "packing heat", you are carrying.

These terms are terms the thugs, gangsters, and those ignorant to firearms proficiency use. They do not represent those who carry or use firearms in a respectful, safe manner. Despite what the newspapers say.

cancelled

Interesting article Alan - and a bit surprising that the CDC actually ran with the numbers and didn't massage them to fit their agenda. Maybe some scientific pride crept in - I'd like to see more of it, especially in light of that second sentence referring to the CDC's "unabashed opposition" to the 2nd Amendment. No big surprise there, which is why I'm typically skeptical of their conclusions and recommendations in this area.

That's the problem with data overload - there is so much data out there nowadays that a reasonable person has difficulty drawing a conclusion amidst the numerical "truth" we're bombarded with from every corner. The dyed-in-the-wool liberals have their agenda, as do the dyed-in-the-wool conservatives. Zealots on both sides will robustly tell any story or distort data to convince me that their position is the only possible one. I use the term "me" to describe the real audience in any debate and the only one that truly counts - the majority of America, and the ones who decide almost every election of consequence. Call us moderates, centrists, whatever; we're the one's who aren't locked idealogically into a position and will actually listen to a well-reasoned, non-inflammatory argument. We're just not drinking anyone's Kool Aid with blinders on.

When it comes to firearms and the 2nd Amendment, I'd just like to see the true statistics that relate to my reason for owning a firearm. I didn't buy my first semi-auto Colt 30 years ago to keep some Crip from smokin' some Blood, nor did I buy it to hunt with or use in a domestic dispute or drug deal gone bad. I bought it to prevent the bad guy from having complete control over my destiny - specifically, stranger-to-stranger assault/robbery/murder. To this day, I've not seen reliable data that drills down this deep into the firearms debate and compares heavily-regulated states to less-regulated states to arrive at an honest conclusion. Apples to apples, baby - the rest is smoke and mirrors, and statistics do lie.

Logic tells me that violent criminals are far less likely to try to victimize me if they know I'm armed and can/will come back at them with as much firepower as they have (or more), and almost certainly a higher degree of expertise and accuracy in handling the weapon. However, most studies I see tell me the opposite, but are saturated with what I consider superfluous data. On this topic, I don't care about gun suicides, accidents or anecdotal instances where the perp turned the victim's own gun on him/her - $hit happens, and I am not the lowest common denominator. I don't want my liberties dictated by the folks Darwin had in mind with the whole natural selection thing, but who are numerous and evident today as a product of a civilization that increasingly celebrates and rewards irresponsibility.

Sorry - didn't mean to rant on such a large scale. Bottom line, the new law won't affect me since I'll probably not be inclined to carry in a NP any more than I was before. You'll see the Bulldog on Whitney this summer, but nobody needs to search his pack - he's unarmed. Also, I told my wife when I first saw this topic pop up that it would be a high-hitter. That's the cool thing about us hikers and backpackers - we come from diverse idealogical backgrounds and lively debate on certain topics is guaranteed!