May 20, 2009

"It is a shame. But you have to come to a realization around here that at this point in time, the N.R.A. gets the votes."

"Either you are going to bring down the whole Senate and never do anything or you or going to swallow hard and say, ‘I will just vote my conscience on those amendments and speak out until people get a hold of their senses.’ ”

Senator Boxer said. The bill permits us to carry concealed guns in National Parks.

335 comments:

1 – 200 of 335   Newer›   Newest»
al said...

The bill allows those who can legally carry concealed to also carry concealed in national parks in the same states that they can carry in.

Only a big deal to the clueless gun grabbers.

chickenlittle said...

When I think of Barbara Boxer I think "vexation without representation." The woman pretends to represent all Californians, and yet she doesn't represent a significant portion. All of that changed yesterday without many people even noticing.

Bob said...

"The bill permits us to carry concealed guns in National Parks."Good. I always worry about being tied to a tree and forced to squeal like a pig whenever I enter a backwoods national park.

John Lynch said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
John Lynch said...

I don't think Sen. Boxer is taking any real risk voting against this. It's other senators taking the risk, while she's perfectly safe.

I don't have any problem with people legally carrying guns in national parks, and I wonder why Sen. Boxer would oppose legal carry considering the horrible murders that have happened in Yosimite over the years.

Pogo said...

The common Minnesota sign "Guns Prohibited on these Premises" can be read as "Easy pickings here."

Hoosier Daddy said...

Senator Boxer said. The bill permits us to carry concealed guns in National Parks.

Never could quite understand the issue here. I've been in a few National Parks and I can tell you that there aren't pay phones or roving patrols of rangers in case you get in trouble. Boxer is just another typical liberal who thinks that people shouldn't be able to defend themselves.

paul a'barge said...

As if a law abiding American who has never committed any crime nor ever hurt anyone else walking through the trees at a national park able to protect themselves is crazy as a loon.
...
...
What will Barbara Boxer think of next?

Pogo said...

Since shooting back is forbidden, Boxer should at least have the Parks issue a sub-dermal GPS device so the cops can find your body.

Original Mike said...

Pogo: I was walking around the St. Paul skyway a couple of months ago and I saw those signs everywhere. Don't think I ever noticed them before. Has there been a big increase in them or am I just unobservant?

John said...

This ban was the height of liberal lunacy. First, many national parks are in bear country. I have a newsflash for tree hugging liberals; you are not the top of the food chain. Bears look at you as some funky slow moving hairless bear with some pretty good meat on you. Second, many national parks and forests are infested with illegal marijuana growers who don't care much for conceal and carry laws. It is just irresponsible to be really out in the woods without some kind of firearm.

NKVD said...

How about open carry? Is that legal?

Dale said...

Barbara Boxer continues to win out here in California because she ran against Republicans that were terrible candidates.

On the night of her first win for Senate in 1992 - which everyone admits she won because of an "October surprise" pulled on her opponent, even left wing Bernie Ward of KGO in San Francisco said " Barbara Boxer? Barbara Boxer? Are you people nuts?" That's how out of touch with reality she is.

She has absolutely NO legislation of value that she institued in the Senate - but I guess that doesn't matter - Obama didn't either. Oh NO!

Does that mean that she could be President?

She is an attractive woman.
But there's no "there" there.

MadisonMan said...

This seems a non-issue to me. I'd rather people concealed their carry than just walked through Yellowstone Lodge brandishing.

If there is a subsequent rash of shootings (unlikely) at Parks -- at people, wildlife, signage, whatever -- then I suggest repealing the law would happen, because that's how things happen: the many are penalized for the sins of the few.

Original Mike said...

This ban was the height of liberal lunacy. First, many national parks are in bear country..

I once did a long backcountry hike, starting in Jasper National Park (which prohibits guns) and ending in Mt. Robson Provincial Park (which allows bear hunting). I was warned by park staff at the beginning of the trip that bears were a problem in Jasper, but once I got into Robson the bears would give me a wide bearth.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Second, many national parks and forests are infested with illegal marijuana growers who don't care much for conceal and carry laws. It is just irresponsible to be really out in the woods without some kind of firearm.

Actually, this should be number one.

Jen said...

"First, many national parks are in bear country. I have a newsflash for tree hugging liberals; you are not the top of the food chain. Bears look at you as some funky slow moving hairless bear with some pretty good meat on you [...]"

John, have you ever actually been in the woods with a bear about?

I hike by myself all the time and never have worried about the non-human animals. It's the other people that concern me relative to my safely. And a gun is not going to help me much in that situation.

John Lynch said...

Diane Feinstein > Barbara Boxer

Titusiseatingfageyogurtthankyou said...

I love Boxer. She is fabulous. So is Feinstein, Harman and Pelosi.

Fabulous women, with money, living in fabulous cities, wearing fabulous clothes. Love that.

Virginia Foxx and Michele Bachman on the other hand....not fabulous.

About guns in parks I don't give a shit.

NightBastard said...

All of that changed yesterday without many people even noticing.The voters of California teabagged the taxhikers, but don't expect the Dems to get the message.

John Lynch said...

And apparently the President would sign it.

Obama would sign credit card bill even with gun amendment

Original Mike said...

I hike by myself all the time and never have worried about the non-human animals. It's the other people that concern me relative to my safely. And a gun is not going to help me much in that situation..

A hand gun is going to be more effective against a human than it is a bear.

Jeremy said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Jeremy said...

I don't care about guns in the NPs, but I do support the ban on hunting in NPs.

I hike by myself all the time and never have worried about the non-human animals. Last night I read an article in a recent Backbacker Magazine about the most lethal dangers to hikers. Atop the list were gravity, cold, heat, lightning and water. Middle of the list were bees, snakes, spiders, mosquitos. Bottom of the list was other people. That's not a complete list but you really have less to worry about than you might think.

-The Other Jeremy

Titusiseatingfageyogurtthankyou said...

I am generally packing when I walk around the city...packing a big package...okkkkkkkk

AJ Lynch said...

"Barbara Boxer is an attractive woman"

!!! You must have very poor eyesight and I suspect it is so bad, you have to use voice recogntion software to post comments on your computer. :)

Salamandyr said...

I applaud Senator Boxer for voting her principles. It's just a shame her principles are fascist.

Original Mike said...

Atop the list were gravity...They got that one right!

Paul said...

Of course our esteemed Senators here in California have C&C permits.....

Having had a solo mountain lion encounter as well as having observed some humans that appeared rather "suspect" in remote areas I find it prudent to always be armed in the back country.

However I'd REALLY like to be able carry concealed legally when I have to be in Oakland or San Francisco's less tony neighborhoods late at night...

John said...

"John, have you ever actually been in the woods with a bear about?

I hike by myself all the time and never have worried about the non-human animals. It's the other people that concern me relative to my safely. And a gun is not going to help me much in that situation."

Yes I have. I went bear hunting in Colorado as a kid several times with my uncles. I have also been Elk hunting in Wyoming and deer/elk hunting in Colorado. I have spent my fair shair of time in the back country out there. Bear camp sucks. You have to put all of your food in a tree well away from you camp. You also have to pee in bags and put them well away from your camp. Lastly, we kept a loaded shotgun within reach at all times. Bears do come into camp looking for food and the only way to stop them is to shoot them.

As far as a handgun's effectiveness against a bear goes, a small caliber handgun will not stop a large bear. A large caliber one will if you get it far away from you. But what any handgun will do, is make a hell of a racket and give the bear a reason to go the other way. If you can't do that, you just have to stand there and hope for the best.

bagoh20 said...

I hike by myself all the time and never have worried about the non-human animals. It's the other people that concern me relative to my safely. And a gun is not going to help me much in that situation..Why do people say these things which are clearly silly. Of course having a gun would help you. Without it you are simply totally at the mercy of the harry animal or the bald animal. With a gun, at worst you are on equal footing and most likely a survivor rather than a victim.

.
If a bear or a person decides to kill you what exactly will you be wishing you had brought?
.
Also wearing gloves when picking up hot items prevents burns or is that also of little help?

Kirk Parker said...

NKVD,

The rule basically will be, whatever is legal in the state the park is located in. So yes, in most places open carry will be legal.

Note this is not some untested new scheme, but rather exactly the system that applies today on National Forests and BLM lands (and has for quite some time.)


MM,

For heaven's sake, carrying a handgun in a holster is not brandishing.

Kirk Parker said...

Jen,

"And a gun is not going to help me much in that situation."

Exactly. Everyone knows that guns are useless for self-defense.

Sofa King said...

John, have you ever actually been in the woods with a bear about?

There is a bear in the woods.

For some people the bear is easy to see.

Others don't see it at all.

Some people say the bear is tame. Others say it's vicious and dangerous.

Since no one can really be sure who's right, isn't it smart to be as strong as the bear? If there is a bear?

John said...

Jen,

Where do you hike? If you are on the east coast, you only have to worry about black bears. They are rarely aggressive. If you are out west where there are brown and grizzleys, you should be more concerned than you are. Also, if you get up north, Moose are the Charlie Mansons of the forrest. They are big, stupid and dangerous.

downtownlad said...

Oh yes - If you want to kill a bear in a park, it has to be a "concealed weapon". Because if you had a weapon out in the open - the bear would catch on. Huh?

Are people really this stupid?

John said...

"Oh yes - If you want to kill a bear in a park, it has to be a "concealed weapon". Because if you had a weapon out in the open - the bear would catch on. Huh?"

The concealed part is gratutious. Right now, you can't carry a weapon at all in national parks. You are correct, they really don't need the concealed part. They just need to lift the gun ban.

Sofa King said...

I think DTL was calling out MadisonMan, actually.

Original Mike said...

You also have to pee in bags and put them well away from your camp..

Really? I've hung my food thousands of times over the years. Never peed in a bag, though (well, at least not in the backcountry).

Original Mike said...

Oh yes - If you want to kill a bear in a park, it has to be a "concealed weapon". Because if you had a weapon out in the open - the bear would catch on. Huh?.

"Elk don't know how many legs a horse has!" Bear Claw

TMink said...

Jen wrote: "And a gun is not going to help me much in that situation."

It will once you learn to use it.

Seriously, most of the time gun owners do not have to shoot, they just have to show their weapon.

Case in point, my cousin lives near New Orleans. He was in the city and his car was surrounded by some 20 somethings demanding money for driving through their neighborhood.

He reached in his glove compartment, pulled out his Glock 9 mm, and sat it down. Then he watched several 20 somethings run away.

It did not even cost him a round.

Bears would cost you a round. Or several.

Trey

John said...

"Really? I've hung my food thousands of times over the years. Never peed in a bag, though (well, at least not in the backcountry)."

I always wondered about that one myself. But I wasn't in a position to argue. I am willing to admit my uncles may have been a bit nuts. But the point is that bears are really dangerous and will come into your camp and fuck with you.

TMink said...

DTL asked "Are people really this stupid?"

Only one of us.

And he resides in your mirror.

Trey

Bruce Hayden said...

"If a bear or a person decides to kill you what exactly will you be wishing you had brought?"

Jen?

Original Mike said...

But I wasn't in a position to argue. I am willing to admit my uncles may have been a bit nuts..

Of course you were in a position to argue (remember that loaded shotgun?). ;-)

downtownlad said...

Well I guarantee my IQ is at least 30 points higher than yours twink - so that makes you a fucking retard. No surprise.

Pogo said...

"bears are really dangerous and will come into your camp and fuck with you."

And without dinner or a good-night kiss, either.

Titus hates bears.

Original Mike said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
former law student said...

Much of San Francisco is in the Golden Gate National Recreation Area. I wonder if Boxer is worried that the federal law could be held to pre-empt state and local laws, so that people could pack in the Presidio.

By the way, Feinstein allegedly gave up her carry permit, given to her in the wake of the Moscone-Milk assassinations.

Original Mike said...

Well I guarantee my IQ is at least 30 points higher than yours twink.

Joe Biden? Is that you?

Dark Eden said...

"John, have you ever actually been in the woods with a bear about?

I hike by myself all the time and never have worried about the non-human animals. It's the other people that concern me relative to my safely. And a gun is not going to help me much in that situation."

For some reason this reminds me of that movie where the guy goes and communes with the bears and then they eat him.

k*thy said...

"That's not a complete list but you really have less to worry about than you might think."

I saw that article, too, and wondered how a gun is going to help.

Big Mike said...

@Jen, you exhibit a phenomenon I've seen numerous times -- a woman who is afraid to defend herself against men.

Okay, fair enough. But why on earth do you think that a decision you've made for yourself(perhaps subconsciously) ought necessarily to apply to me or, for that matter, to my wife?

Note for burglars, rapists, home invaders, and other thugs. Yes, my wife is trained to shoot to kill. You will not be able to walk up to her with a smirk on her face and take the gun out of her hand.

She is not Jen.

Big Mike said...

She is not k*thy either.

Bruce Hayden said...

Well, out of the National Parks, you aren't likely to see brown bears down here in the lower 48. I think they are at least in Yellowstone and Glacier. But black bears can kill too, and have. I do remember some women a couple decades getting mauled, or even killed. And, most noticeable to the bears are women having their periods (which may be why those uncles suggested putting the urine up the tree too).

I have hiked where there are bears, black and brown, and lived with black bears and mountain lines coming through the yard. The Grizzlies were in Denali and Glacier. In the later, we were hiking along a trail, ran into a ranger, and found out that a bear had taken an employee of one of the lodges the day before on that same trail, right around dusk. In Denali, we hiked with bear bells and "bear mace". But then, a ranger there told us that from personal experience, bear mace works about half the time, and the rest of the time, they just lick it off their face. Luckily, the only bears we saw there were a sow with her cubs from the bus you take to get into the center of the park.

I have also had indirect interactions with (black) bears in both Shenandoah and Rocky Mountain National Parks. We used to camp in the summer at the later to get out of the D.C. heat, and, guaranteed, if you left food out at the campgrounds, it was gone the next day. Someone forgot a Tupperware container of chocolate chip cookies one night, and the next morning, we found the container licked clean. The bear apparently didn't have much problem opening the container, as we found his claw marks puncturing the lid.

rdkraus said...

Don't know what the statistics are, but when you run across a bear in the woods, they are mighty scary.

We went for a short hike at the Grand Tetons (just waiting for our cabin to be available). We were within a mile of many people/cabins/etc. We encountered two bears (at separate times) within about 25 feet. One stood up to a height of ??? maybe 6, 7, 8 feet.

That got my pulse up. They are way scarier in the woods, than when there are bars between you.

For those who know, would a nine milimeter handgun take one of those guys down?

Big Mike said...

BTW, for those of you who hike about in Grizzly country. I was told that you need a gun with good stopping power (like a .45 or a Magnum load) and not just a dinky 9mm. Also that you need to aim for the shoulder of a charging bear, not the head. Is that true?

I was also told, during a business visit to Anchorage I made about 9 or 10 years ago, that a .357 Magnum is nicknamed "bear insurance." Were they pulling a "Cheechako's" leg?

Big Mike said...

For the record, rdkraus and I did not collaborate in framing our question.

There are stuffed polar and brown bears when you enter the Anchorage airport arrival area, both mounted erect on their back feet. Both are well over 8' tall.

We are only at the top of the food chain when we are armed, and hunt in packs.

Original Mike said...

The bear apparently didn't have much problem opening the container.

Bears don't have much of a problem opening a Toyota

Bruce Hayden said...

I am just surprised that Boxer is surprised at this. There are likely a lot more Senators from swing and red states that heavily support gun rights, as opposed to the NE and west coasts that don't. I was just surprised that newly elected environmental wacko Sen. Udahl from Colorado got onboard. That's what happens apparently when you move from representing the People's Republic of Boulder, to representing a state that has mandatory issue concealed carry, bears, and mountain lions.

John said...

"For those who know, would a nine milimeter handgun take one of those guys down?"

Unless you got really lucky and hit a vital organ, it would just piss him off. But if you hit him several times, it would kill him. Also I would think if you saw him far enough away and fired a warning shot, the noise would probably run him off. I have been told most bear attacks happen when people surprise them or confront them at a camp over food.

TMink said...

some moron wrote: "Well I guarantee my IQ is at least 30 points higher than yours twink"

You are such a gay basher. It must be awful to hate yourself so much. Despite your constant frothing about my being a twink, I am a big fat 49 year old. If you must have sexual fantasies about me, at least accurately identify me as a bear.

And your IQ cannot be 30 points higher than mine. I have given hundreds of IQ tests, it is part of my job. There are not 30 points for you to score above my well established IQ.

And then too, intelligence is not everything. A smidgen of emotional maturity and equipoise is also beneficial. You will have to trust me on that one since you it is so difficult to recognize something you do not have.

What next DTL, your father can beat up my father?

Trey

Hoosier Daddy said...

Jen said I hike by myself all the time and never have worried about the non-human animals. It's the other people that concern me relative to my safely. And a gun is not going to help me much in that situation..

Why not? If you're walking along some trail and a rapist pops out of the tree brandishing a knife maybe you can explain why a gun would not be of use to you?

That's kind of like saying carrying a spare tire isn't any use if I get a flat tire.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I'm not so much worried about bears in the woods as I am the two legged animals that infest the National Forests around where I live.

Marijuana growers are thicker than fleas on the above mentioned bears and they are way meaner and sneakier than the bears. You don't even have to be hiking to run into these scum. Just driving down the wrong dirt road will do it.

In addition to the human animals in the woods we have wandering through our property and over our decks: foxes (one tried to attack my cat last night), mountain lions, raccoons, deer, bobcats. Not that I'm going to go out and shoot at all of these animals in my yard (yelling seems to work pretty good for most of them to make them run off), but it is nice to be prepared. If I go out in the yard at night, I'm armed.

We are also prepared inside the home for the human animals.

I've been stalked by a mountain lion while deer hunting and been confronted by a bear while doing the same. A shot into the air did the trick both times. (Thankfully, because I found out that I'm not nearly as cool calm and collected in the face of nature..tooth and nail as I would like to think I was)

Its nice that city girls like Jen, who think that walking around on a neat trail near civilization is a wilderness experience and I admire her for not wanting to carry any protection. However, that is her CHOICE and people like her should have no right to limit my Second Amendment rights. Just the same as they should have no right to tell me what I can and can't do inside my home, what kind of lighting I want to use in my fixtures, what kind of car I have to drive, what kind of clothing I must wear and what kind of food I should or shouldn't eat. Stay out of my house and leave my rights alone.

thank you very much.

Kirk Parker said...

rdkraus,

You can kill almost anything with even a small projectile, provided you hit it in the right place. But why give the bear a sporting chance? It already outweighs you by up to a quarter-ton.

The best answer for bear defense is, "as large a caliber as you can effectively use", and nobody considers 9mm or even .45 to be adequate against brown/grizzlies.

E.g. .357 mag is a bare minimum, .44mag much better, and the various larger revolver cartridges are better yet. Among semi-auto cartridges, only 10mm gets much respect.

Bullet choice is also important: the sort of hollow-point that is best for defense against humans, and plenty effective for cougars, is not going to do a good job stopping a large bear. And stop is the operative word here--just as in self-defense against humans (and completely unlike the case with hunting) you have no interest in killing your assailant per se, but just in getting him/it to stop the attack.

It will be absolutely no comfort to your mauled, cooling corpse if the bear dies from blood loss 20 minutes later.

Kirk Parker said...

dbq,

"I admire her for not wanting to carry any protection. "

Do you really mean that? I certainly think she's absolutely entitled to whatever preparation she wants to make for her own self-defense, including none at all. But I don't see what's "admirable" about choosing the zero option.

Hoosier Daddy said...

For those who know, would a nine milimeter handgun take one of those guys down?.

Not on a good day. In fact the bear would probably be on top of you before you were halfway through the clip.

9mm are nice for show but have zero stopping power. That's why I like my .38 and .45. I don't have a 16 round clip but then again I don't need one either ;-)

Original Mike said...

It will be absolutely no comfort to your mauled, cooling corpse if the bear dies from blood loss 20 minutes later..

"It's a good gun. It kilt the bar that done kilt me.

Anyway, I am dead"

Signed, Hatchet Jack

Hoosier Daddy said...

"For those who know, would a nine milimeter handgun take one of those guys down?"

Unless you got really lucky and hit a vital organ, it would just piss him off. But if you hit him several times, it would kill him.
.

I'm not so sure about that John. A 9mm simply doesn't have the punch and I wouldn't even guarantee that it would get past the hide and muscle to even get to a vital organ. Consider a charging bear is on all fours, he's not exactly presenting vital organs but rather a damn thick skull.

But you're correct that the noise might scare him off.

ricpic said...

Senator Boxer has a conscience?

Dust Bunny Queen said...

Do you really mean that?

No. I was being sarcastic, but I guess I should have used /sarcasm.

Anyone who puts themselves purposely in a dangerous situation and refuses to take precautions, whether it be tight rope walking, going out at night alone and getting drunk in biker bars or walking alone in the woods deserves what they get.

They also have no right to deny the rest of us to use precautions and protection just because they are idiots.

John said...

"I'm not so sure about that John. A 9mm simply doesn't have the punch and I wouldn't even guarantee that it would get past the hide and muscle to even get to a vital organ. Consider a charging bear is on all fours, he's not exactly presenting vital organs but rather a damn thick skull."


I don't know for sure either. But I will say that a 9mm is a really high velocity round. They have a tendancy to just buzz right through things without doing very much damage. I think at close range it would get through the hide, although maybe not the skull. Once it got through the hide, it could kill the thing if you were lucky. But I wouldn't want to bet my life on killing a bear with a 9mm all the same.

Freder Frederson said...

You know for all you paranoid rugged outdoorsman (who seem to be afraid to be outdoors as you do to be in the city), you might want to check the actual statistics before you spout off about how dangerous it is out there in the woods and us city folk don't know what the hell we are talking about. 27 deaths by bears in North America since 2000, only seven of them in the lower 48 states. Mountain lion attacks are even less frequent, with only two fatal attacks since 2000.

You people are pathetic pansies if you can't go outside, or even feel safe in your own home, without a gun. It must be a strange world you live in where there is deadly danger around every corner.

Michael McNeil said...

Well, out of the National Parks, you aren't likely to see brown bears down here in the lower 48. I think they are at least in Yellowstone and Glacier.

It's quite easy to encounter Grizzlies if you do any amount of backcountry hiking in Glacier National Park in Montana (which, last I looked, is part of the lower 48 states) — I've certainly done so, and I'll always keep a gun with me while hiking in the future in that park.

I've never seen a grizzly in Yellowstone, but they're there too.

For folks who don't know, grizzlies will track, kill, and eat human beings. Never play dead facing a grizzly — they will eat you! You must either escape (and though grizzlies can't climb trees, they will knock down a small to moderate-sized tree to get at you), or you must fight! Fight hard enough to dissuade them.

Same for a mountain lion, though they're much less likely to attack in the first place. Never run from a lion!

Original Mike said...

Well, I've never carried a gun in my outdoor travels (for one thing, they're way too heavy for the backpack or portage), but I sure don't disparge people who do. I'm aware there may come a time when I wish I had more than a pointy stick.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Actually Freder the reason for carrying concealed is for protection from asshole humans. Yes yes, I know, its a rare thing to be attacked and murdered in a National Park but it does happen. Earthquakes in Indiana are rare too but I still carry the coverage on my homeowners.

Oh and being called a pathetic pansy by you of all people really gave me a belly laugh. Kind of like being called a retard by someone in the Special Olympics.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I think at close range it would get through the hide, although maybe not the skull..

I'm not sure my aim is going to be that steady on a bear at close range ;-)

Then again if I could carry Freder with me and just toss him at the bear I'd forego the weapon.

John said...

"Then again if I could carry Freder with me and just toss him at the bear I'd forego the weapon."

What is that old joke about how I don't have to be faster than the bear, just faster than you?

The post 9-11 liberal canard just used by Federson is about as pathetic as it gets. The post 9-11 liberal looks at anyone who takes precautions to be able to defend himself, as opposed to relying on the government as a wimp. Yes, Federson. You go right out into the world with no preparation or ability to defend yourself. Be a man. Good luck with that. I hope it works our for you.

Kirk Parker said...

"It must be a strange world you live in where there is deadly danger around every corner."

There's deadly danger all around you where you live, too, Freder. It's just that most of us aren't confused about the difference between likelihood and cost.

Big Mike said...

@Freder, I have a gun in my home for the same reason I have a fire extinguisher next to the kitchen. I expect to go my whole life without needing either one. But if I do need either one, I expect to need it pretty bad.

It doesn't matter what the statistics say -- just ask one of the seven who died from bear attacks since 2000. Oh! That's right. You can't, can you?

Hoosier Daddy said...

You people are pathetic pansies if you can't go outside, or even feel safe in your own home, without a gun. .

Actually let me respond to this idiotic statement with some logic. I own a few guns and will carry them outside the house depending on the situation. I don't carry it to the grocery store, to church, to my kid's school plays or to the community pool. Why? Because I evaluate the threat to be low to nil at those places. Now there is the chance I could be wrong but that's my risk analysis.

I will carry it if I know I'll be working late downtown and half to walk a few blocks to the parking garage. I will carry it when going on long road trips. I will carry it when I know my travel will carry me through areas urban or wilderness that aren't under the protective bubble that you seem to live under.

In other words, I carry when circumstances dictate. You on the other hand think everyone who carries is a Wyatt Earp wannabe who sees a bad guy everywhere. In other words your arrogant presumption only reinforces what everyone here knows and that's your a moronic asshole.

Have a nice day

Hoosier Daddy said...

I meant to say: will carry it if I know I'll be working late downtown and have to walk a few blocks....

I'm not that anal about my typos but that was a bit too much.

John said...

Hoosier,

You have to understand Federson has never known anyone who owns a weapon. People like him don't ever associate with anyone who doesn't look act and think exactly like him. So, he really has no idea what people who do exotic things like own guns, go to church or eat at Olive Gardens actually are like. So he just makes up fantasies about them that reaffirm his personal prejudices.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

I have a gun in my home for the same reason I have a fire extinguisher next to the kitchen. I expect to go my whole life without needing either one. But if I do need either one, I expect to need it pretty bad.

Exactly. I just renewed my AAA membership. I haven't ever had to use the coverage, except as a discount on hotel rooms :-)... but I still feel more comfortable taking a long road trip carrying my AAA card. I guess that makes me a paranoid pansy car driver?

John said...

"Exactly. I just renewed my AAA membership. I haven't ever had to use the coverage, except as a discount on hotel rooms :-)... but I still feel more comfortable taking a long road trip carrying my AAA card. I guess that makes me a paranoid pansy car driver?"

What, you mean you can't tear down an engine right there on the side of the road and instead call a tow truck? I bet Federson could. Wimp.

Jen said...

What a bunch of bear poop.

You don't know anything about where I live (I am apparently a city girl), where I go hiking (trails only in urban areas. . .I never knew that about myself!), my ability to defend myself (apparently, I throw precaution to the wind and "exhibit a phenomenon I've seen numerous times -- a woman who is afraid to defend herself against men," have never been in wilderness as vast and treacherous as DBQ's, etc. etc. etc.

You all should really be ashamed of yourselves for so freely expounding, AND WITH SUCH AUTHORITY, that which you know nothing about.

Such garbage.

Freeman Hunt said...

I do know someone who was once charged by a Grizzly while out in the woods. Thanks to a gun, that Grizzly is now a rug.

I think this is great legislation for women. In my single days I would never have considered going on a long hike alone or with only female friends. Being able to carry an equalizer opens up more options. Guns empower women.

John said...

Jen,

I never made any assumptions about where you live. I just said that if you are hiking in the West in bear country or up North in moose country, you are in more danger than you think you are.

Hoosier Daddy said...

What a bunch of bear poop..

Once upon a time a bear was taking a shit in the woods when a fluffy bunny happened to hop by. "Hi little bunny." said the bear. "Can I ask you a question?" 'Sure!' said the fluffy bunny. So the bear asked: "Do you have a problem with shit sticking to your fur?" The fluffy bunny hopped up and down. "Oh no Mr. Bear! I don't have that problem at all!"

So the bear wiped his ass with the bunny.

If you don't want to end up covered in bear shit, carry a .44 Magnum. Thus endeth the lesson.

Freeman Hunt said...

People have been citing stats on here about bears in the lower 48. Why would you leave out Alaska? Don't Alaskans matter? Shouldn't they be able to defend themselves? The guy I mentioned who killed the Grizzly lived in Alaska at the time.

Jen said...

No John you didn't.
Several others did.

Hoosier Daddy: I'm not a fluffy bunny.

Hoosier Daddy said...

I know you're not Jen. Your bear poop comment just reminded me of the joke.

Don't read more into it than the joke it was meant to be.

John said...

"The guy I mentioned who killed the Grizzly lived in Alaska at the time."

Yeah. I think every lower 48 environmentalist ought to have to spend a year in the Alaskan bush. We in cities tend to love nature because we see it in parks and other places where it is in chains. If we ever saw nature free like it is in Alaska, we would have a different perspective on things.

Jeremy said...

For those who hunt: A fun game

http://www.samsung.com/au/samsungu900/game/

Jeremy said...

Bob said..."Good. I always worry about being tied to a tree and forced to squeal like a pig whenever I enter a backwoods national park."

I suggest you stop going into the park with your wife.

Jeremy said...

John - "We in cities tend to love nature because we see it in parks and other places where it is in chains."

And of course, those who date.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - "It doesn't matter what the statistics say -- just ask one of the seven who died from bear attacks since 2000. Oh! That's right. You can't, can you?"

WOW!!

Seven since 2000?

Maybe we should kill all of the bears...just to be safe.

Jen said...

Hoosier Daddy:

What I meant is that, I'm not incapable of defending myself even though I choose not to carry a gun when I hike, backpack, stroll through urban areas, etc. etc.

The assumption here is that carrying a gun is the only method by which to defend ones self, especially if you are a woman.

Because I choose not to, I have zero protection.

Finally, there is also an assumption that because I choose not to carry a gun that I don't know how to use one or have ever been around them. This is completely inaccurate.

But there you go. To quote DBQ, "Knee jerk much?"

Big Mike said...

@Jen, earlier in this thread you wrote "I hike by myself all the time and never have worried about the non-human animals. It's the other people that concern me relative to my safely. And a gun is not going to help me much in that situation."

I do not know what you mean by those last two sentences if they do not mean that you would hesitate to defend yourself with a gun against an human attacker. Perhaps you can clarify your position as to why you think a gun won't help if your safety is jeopardized by non non-human?

Of course I recognize in retrospect that you might not be a woman, despite your identity, but the phenomenon I reference is pervasive.

Please don't dish it out if you can't deal with a reality-based response.

Jen said...

Jeremy:

And the sharks too. Don't forget we've got to clear the oceans of those man-eating fuckers.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Once upon a time a bear was taking a shit in the woods when Jeremy came walking by....

I like that version better.

Synova said...

"Mountain lion attacks are even less frequent, with only two fatal attacks since 2000."

And they were both in New Mexico?

Or perhaps I'm not marking a difference between an attack and a fatal attack, but I know there have been at least two (and I *know* one was fatal... the other might have been the lion chewing on the biker's head until his friends scared him off... so no biggie I guess.)

There have also been people missing that haven't been found and who's to say what happened to them up on the mountain?

Still... I thought protection from wild animals was one of the "good" uses of guns, like the founding fathers might have had in mind with people out on the frontier and having to protect themselves an all.

And even if there are *only* three or four deaths by bears (and however many maulings) and the mountain lion that attacks you will probably, statistically, only chew on you for a while, and the coyotes only go after smaller prey like pets and children... the fact that you're the rare unlucky one that gets to be eaten isn't going to be much of a comfort.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier - "Boxer is just another typical liberal who thinks that people shouldn't be able to defend themselves."

And God knows, when the family visits a national park, you have to make sure you're fully capable of defending yourself.

Original Mike said...

There have also been people missing that haven't been found and who's to say what happened to them up on the mountain?.

Most likely, gravity happened to them.

Jeremy said...

From the National Parks Traveler Site:

In 2006 our national parks attracted over 277 million visitors, so it appears it may be relatively safe to enter even if you're not "packing."

There were 11 deaths throughout the entire system of parks.

1. Two were women pushed off cliffs.

2. One suicide. (A man began shooting at hang gliders. He did not hit any of the hang gliders, but then he shot a stranger. Then he turned the gun on himself.)

3. One was the result of being drunk. (who knows what that means?)

4. One was a stabbing. (Booze induced)

5. One was a woman who was shot.

6. One was killed by a handgun while studying for exams.

7. Another was shot outside the park, thyen dumped in the park.

8. A woman with blunt force trauma to the head was found floating in 5 feet of water in a reservoir.

9. One was a murder, the result of a gunshot wound to the head.

10. Another involved Park Police finding a partial human skull, with an apparent gunshot wound, that didn't necessarily occur in the park system.

Most folks, I think, would agree that the suicide, two pushing victims, and the DUI victim couldn't have been prevented if guns were allowed to be carried in the parks.

That lowers to six the number of violent deaths investigated in the parks, one of which involved a stabbing in a drunken brawl, an outcome that could have turned out just the same -- or worse-- if either individual was carrying a gun.

Keep this in mind:

During 2006 there also were 320 assaults without weapons.

1,950 weapons offenses.

843 public intoxication cases.

5,752 liquor law violations.

Now, how many of these idiots may have created a situation that could have turned deadly were concealed carry allowed in the park system?

Soooo, let's do the math:

Start with 843 publicly intoxicated morons...

Add in a shitload of guns and ammo...

And what do you think we'd get?

*Bears, scared out of their wits...watching from the trees.

Big Mike said...

@Jen, okay, you answered my question while I was posting it. (Are you clairvoyant?)

But before you get too smug, may I be permitted to ask a couple questions? Are you are trained in martial arts, or some form of self-defence? If so, does your sensei/instructor require the women in his class to defend themselves against large, strong men? Or could you perhaps be getting a false sense of confidence because you can beat up the other women in your class?

Finally, to get back to the question I asked at the end of my response to your post, and which you still haven't answered, why on earth do you think that a decision you've made for yourself ... ought necessarily to apply to me or, for that matter, to my wife?

Jeremy said...

Before somebody jumps me...typo: "you're" should have been "your."

My deepest apologies.

Hoosier Daddy said...

What I meant is that, I'm not incapable of defending myself even though I choose not to carry a gun when I hike, backpack, stroll through urban areas, etc. etc..

Earlier you claimed you're more likely to be threatened by people than animals but a gun would not help you. If you have a non-firearm method of self defense that's just as effective then good for you.

The assumption here is that carrying a gun is the only method by which to defend ones self, especially if you are a woman..

I think the only one making such an assumption is you. A gun as Freeman stated, is a wonderful equalizer.

But there you go. To quote DBQ, "Knee jerk much?".

I'm not sure where how this applies to anything I said.

Hoosier Daddy said...

And God knows, when the family visits a national park, you have to make sure you're fully capable of defending yourself..

Yes? Shouldn't I have that right regardless of where I am?

Synova said...

"The assumption here is that carrying a gun is the only method by which to defend ones self, especially if you are a woman.

Because I choose not to, I have zero protection.
"

I'd like to know the other methods. Because you didn't mention any at all. Because other people are only talking about guns, you assume that they are presenting a gun as the only method of self-defense. Why is it wrong for other people to make a similar assumption when you've mentioned NO methods of self-defense at all.

I take martial arts, so don't you start assuming the way you accuse everyone else of assuming that I don't have a clue about *other* ways to defend myself.

Then again... I take martial arts. (A particularly application driven variety emphasizing realistic and debilitating attacks... it's not the most hard-core, but not at all for show.)

So I know what the limits are and how utterly impossible it would be for me to stand and face an attacker using my martial arts.

In a populated area I could probably hurt someone badly enough that I could get away to a safe haven. In the wilderness that's more difficult. I will certainly be smaller and slower than any attacker, even if I get him a good one in the groin or break his knee. (Breaking his knee might work but only if *he* is alone... if he's not?)

Even *with* training and even *with* a weapon... the best self-defense is not to be alone and not to be vulnerable.

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy, good idea about getting rid of all the grizzlies.

On second thought, no, the elk population would explode and they'd eat up the expensive landscaping planted by the limousine liberals who move to the exurbs.

But it's nice to see you're thinking outside the liberal bubble.

Jen said...

Hoosier Daddy:

I was really directing that knee jerk comment to Big Mike.

Read above.

Jeremy said...

Synova - "Still... I thought protection from wild animals was one of the "good" uses of guns, like the founding fathers might have had in mind with people out on the frontier and having to protect themselves an all."

*And we all spend quite a bit of our time "on the frontier."
(Does a sofa in the living room count?)

Provide ALL of the links to instances where somebody with a gun defended themselves from a bear or mountain lion attack.

For that matter provide links to ALL such attacks.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike said..."@Jeremy, good idea about getting rid of all the grizzlies. On second thought, no, the elk population would explode and they'd eat up the expensive landscaping planted by the limousine liberals who move to the exurbs."

That's one of the things I've never understood about Republicans/conservatives/wingnuts...

Why don't you ever have any landscaping around your trailers?

Synova said...

"And God knows, when the family visits a national park, you have to make sure you're fully capable of defending yourself."

Truly amazing reasoning...

I've got my family along so I should be *less* interested in defending myself, and them?

Jeremy said...

Hoosier Daddy said..."Yes? Shouldn't I have that right regardless of where I am?"

Hell YES. And I think at least one hand grenade should be included in each and every back pack.

But doesn't carrying an AK-47 slow down the hike? And aren't they kind of heavy for the little ones and the wife?

Jeremy said...

Synova said..."Truly amazing reasoning...I've got my family along so I should be *less* interested in defending myself, and them?"

Are you actually trying to say that when you and the family visits a state park...you're concerned with being attacked...and feel the need to carry a loaded weapon?

C'mon...really?

Jeremy said...

This just came across the internet:

"Outraged Bear catches Pope shitting in the woods and puts six hollow points into his ass. More to come."

Original Mike said...

Most folks, I think, would agree that the ... two pushing victims ... couldn't have been prevented if guns were allowed to be carried in the parks..

Right, 'cause you can't shoot gravity (oh, wait...)

Jeremy said...

Jen said..."Jeremy: And the sharks too. Don't forget we've got to clear the oceans of those man-eating fuckers."

And the woman eating ones are even worse, but for some reason the women never complain.

Big Mike said...

@Synova, after being dissatisfied with judo (more a sport, really, than a martial art) and karate, I discovered aikido. Philosophically I liked it because it's purely defensive in nature, and practically I liked it because one learns to deal with multiple simultaneous attacks (as opposed to Chuck Norris movies, where 19 guys jump him but 18 hang around the walls of the room while he knocks one attacker unconsious, then another guy attacks Chuck while 17 of his buddies hang around watching, etc.).

But if someone breaks into my home then I will deal with them using a firearm.

Jeremy said...

Just for the hell of it...

How many here have actually visited a state park with the family in tow, carrying a loaded weapon?

Ann Althouse said...

Jeremy said: "In 2006 our national parks attracted over 277 million visitors, so it appears it may be relatively safe to enter even if you're not "packing." There were 11 deaths throughout the entire system of parks."

Spoken like a man. Women are afraid of rape, and we restrict our freedom to roam about because of this fear. Even if you added the incidence of rape to your statistics, it would not answer what I'm saying. Women do not go places, especially out into the wild, because of this fear. I think that as a matter of equality, we are entitled to the sense of independence we could get from having a gun if that's what it takes. This is about subjective feelings, not how real the threat is.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - "But if someone breaks into my home then I will deal with them using a firearm."

That of course is dependent upon you catching them before they catch you.

Do you sleep standing up in the hallway...just in case?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Hell YES. And I think at least one hand grenade should be included in each and every back pack..

And once again, without fail, you demonstrate your complete asshattery.

Big Mike said...

But Jen, sweetheart, are you planning to answer my question? Here it is again, bolded as well as italicized. Why on earth do you think that a decision you've made for yourself ought necessarily to apply to me or, for that matter, to my wife?

Synova said...

"Provide ALL of the links to instances where somebody with a gun defended themselves from a bear or mountain lion attack.

For that matter provide links to ALL such attacks.
"

Sure thing, Jeremy... if someone compiled that sort of data I would.

There is no data base of information about people who frightened off an animal (or human) with a gun in a national park (or anywhere else). It wouldn't even be reported. If it's not even reported it can't be compiled on a list of attacks.

How about you find a list of non-fatal attacks by animals in parks or anywhere else that also shows how the event was resolved. You can't, because there isn't any such list anywhere.

Freder's helpful facts about Mountain Lion attacks in the US since 2000... two of them... illustrates the problem. It is blatantly wrong because *just in my neighborhood* there has been one fatality and at least one other attack that might have been fatal or might not have been... not since 2000, but since 2007. In the last two or three years only. Here. Where I live. But the data only covers fatalities... not maulings... not attacks that were thwarted by some method or other.

The mountain biker, who likely lived, wasn't even alone but was attacked while with a group of several other people who managed to run the lion off after it had chewed on their friend. That they yelled and threw rocks doesn't prove that a gun-shot would have been ineffective.

People who are missing are not on the lists of fatalities because they are missing and no one knows why. There were posters up for about a year, last year or so, of a handsome pair of young men who were missing, presumably last seen around the national park here.

I never heard that they'd been found.

Hoosier Daddy said...

Big Mike - "But if someone breaks into my home then I will deal with them using a firearm."

That of course is dependent upon you catching them before they catch you.
.

As a matter of fact I did just that at the tender age of 17 one night home alone when I used my 12 guage to persuade the guy climbing through my parent's bedroom window that coming inside would be detrimental to his well being.

Synova said...

"How many here have actually visited a state park with the family in tow, carrying a loaded weapon?"

You're asking people to admit to having done something illegal?

Or are you having vapours about the idea of a "loaded" weapon in the vicinity of children?

Jen said...

When I SCUBA dive I always carry a 4.5 mm SPP-1 underwater pistol just in case of shark attack.

Women eating and otherwise.

Jeremy said...

Ann - "Women are afraid of rape, and we restrict our freedom to roam about because of this fear."

I'm far from a chauvinist, and I have friends who have been raped so I understand the horrible trauma.

And I certainly understand your point, especially considering crime stats that estimate 1/4 of all American women will at some time in their lives be raped, but in reality, justifying carrying loaded weapons into state parks, based on the probability of a woman being raped, pales in comparison to it happening in our own neighborhoods.

Unless of course, you're in favor of Americans being able to pack at all times.

I was talking parks...

Jeremy said...

Synova said..."Or are you having vapours about the idea of a "loaded" weapon in the vicinity of children?"

God NO.

I think one of the real highlights of life is to be in close proximity of children while packing, holding or brandishing loaded weapons.

Who doesn't?

Synova said...

"As a matter of fact I did just that at the tender age of 17 one night home alone when I used my 12 guage to persuade the guy climbing through my parent's bedroom window that coming inside would be detrimental to his well being."

When you reported it to the police did they make a report to compile on a list of linkable data on twarted home-entries by armed children?

No?

Well then... the only important question is... if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?

If you repel a criminal with a fire-arm and it's not linkable, were you ever *really* in danger?

Jeremy said...

Hoosier - I think most law enforcement people recommend just that for home protection...a 12 guage.

Hard to miss and not many go off by mistake.

#Were you sleeping in the hallway?

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy, good question. I'm a very light sleeper ever since my days as a Vietnam Era draftee (which is strange, because I was lucky and remained state-side all 24 months of my service). I have once awakened while a burglar was breaking in and the light coming on convinced him to try the house next door instead.

So under normal circumstances I expect to be able to get to my gun, flick the safety off, and take up a safe position to bring my weapon to bear on either the front or back door, as needed. We also have a couple "panic buttons" to summon the police. My family and I should be safe.

Jeremy said...

Synova - "Well then... the only important question is... if a tree falls in a forest, does it make a sound?"

If it falls on a bear I bet you'll hear something.

Ann Althouse said...

Jeremy, you keep saying "parks" like it's a city park. Have you ever been to a national park? These are huge places, with lots of lonely spots. Despite a lifelong love of walking in the woods, I have never dared to walk even as much as a half mile into an unfamiliar wild place.

Michael McNeil said...

If you repel a criminal with a fire-arm and it's not linkable, were you ever *really* in danger?

More proof — were any more needed — that Jeremy is a complete imbecile.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike - Ever see the movie "Light Sleeper?"

It's very good and stars Willem Defoe of "Platoon."

Synova said...

Well, golly, I think that answered by "vapours" question.

Sorry it gives you the hives, Jeremy, but there really is nothing more fun than going shooting and children have been taught to safely operate fire-arms since they involved powder and flint.

When my oldest daughter was 12 she got to go shooting on the mesa. It's a fact that the best natural shots are 12 year old girls.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

You all should really be ashamed of yourselves for so freely expounding, AND WITH SUCH AUTHORITY, that which you know nothing about.

Backatcha cupcake. ;-P

Since Jen and Jeremy seem to share the same sock drawer.....can Jeremy be far behind?
___________________________

HA HA HA.....I went to lunch right after Jen posted the above and didn't post my above post until I got back just now. And sure enough here comes the other sock.

What a pair. Jen/Jeremy LOL ! Either they are the same person, or Jen runs crying to Jeremy. Waaaahh they are being mean to me.

Jen said...

Synovia:

Two years ago, in my neighborhood, an 8 year old boy shot and killed his 5 year old brother when the loaded pistol he had under his pillow went off and killed his brother in the twin bed directly across from him.

I have the vapors about having guns around small children, absolutely.

Jeremy said...

Michael McNeil said...If you repel a criminal with a fire-arm and it's not linkable, were you ever *really* in danger?

"More proof — were any more needed — that Jeremy is a complete imbecile."

Gee, Mike...could you clarify what the fuck you're talking about?

Original Mike said...

Despite a lifelong love of walking in the woods, I have never dared to walk even as much as a half mile into an unfamiliar wild place..

I'm guessing you mean alone.

Jeremy said...

Dust Bunny - "What a pair. Jen/Jeremy LOL ! Either they are the same person, or Jen runs crying to Jeremy. Waaaahh they are being mean to me."

What you really mean is this: We have two "outsiders" here that apparently do not agree with the local pack...and that is not good.

As to your "Waaaaah" comment...you-have-got-to-be-kidding.

This is the wingnut WHINING CAPITAL of the internet.

Jen said...

DBQ:

Keep it down please, the adults are talking.

traditionalguy said...

The wearing of the firearm is the deterrent. The idea that police will always be there to protect you is a weak minded fantasy. Americans should give up right to carry the day the President gives up his Secret Service protection.

Hoosier Daddy said...

When you reported it to the police did they make a report to compile on a list of linkable data on twarted home-entries by armed children?.

Actually when I called to report it I was asked if the intruder was still there and I said no. They came around about 20 minutes later, looked around the yard and then asked me to describe the guy. I assume they made a report.

Hoosier - I think most law enforcement people recommend just that for home protection...a 12 guage..

And so do I. Outside of home protection I recommend a .38

#Were you sleeping in the hallway?.

Watching TV in the living room. Most people sleep in beds or couches. Even futons. Weird folks sleep in hallways which I guess is why that would be familiar to you.

Jeremy said...

Synova said..."Sorry it gives you the hives, Jeremy, but there really is nothing more fun than going shooting and children have been taught to safely operate fire-arms since they involved powder and flint."

I never said anything about anything giving me "hives." And my comment has nothing to do with your revisionist response.

Unless of course, you think that everybody carrying loaded weapons have "been taught to safely operate fire-arms."

Is that what you're implying?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Two years ago, in my neighborhood, an 8 year old boy shot and killed his 5 year old brother when the loaded pistol he had under his pillow went off and killed his brother in the twin bed directly across from him..

Why did an 8 year old have a loaded pistol under his pillow?

Hoosier Daddy said...

Unless of course, you think that everybody carrying loaded weapons have "been taught to safely operate fire-arms.".

Well we tend to think everyone who sits behind the wheel of a car knows how to safely operate it but we know that's not true don't we?

Jeremy said...

Hoosier - "Weird folks sleep in hallways which I guess is why that would be familiar to you."

WAIT A MINUTE...are you saying sleeping in the hallway is weird?

But that's where our bed is.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

What you really mean is this: We have two "outsiders" here that apparently do not agree with the local pack...and that is not good.

LOL !! What I really mean is what I said. Whenever Jen gets into deep doo doo, suddenly here comes Jeremy. And occasionally you screw up and your Jeremy posts have the signature of Jen's style.

So either you are the same person which I doubt because the Jeremy part of the team isn't good enough to change writing styles or more likely you are doing a tag team. Is Jen your employee? Are you her Daddy? Do you pay her to troll and then come and alert you when she gets into trouble?

In addition when the Jeremy half shows up it seems that Jen gets remarkable less intelligent and less able to hold her part of the argument.

Part of the fun in being on these threads is having intelligent discussions, disagreements and trying to persuade the other side to your point of view. Your general response of "Suck my dick"...really is NOT a persuasive argument.

You guys are really amusing.

Big Mike said...

@Synova, I'm familiar with the case of the mountain biker -- I am assuming you're talking about the Mack Reynolds - Ann Hjelle lion in 2004. Not everybody is convinced that the lion killed Reynolds, but it certainly did begin to eat him. Despite having plenty to eat with Reynolds' body, if Hjelle hadn't been with a partner courageous enough to fight the cat I think most reasonable people would conclude that it would have eaten her, too.

Bob said...

Ann Althouse said...

Jeremy, you keep saying "parks" like it's a city park. Have you ever been to a national park? These are huge places, with lots of lonely spots. Despite a lifelong love of walking in the woods, I have never dared to walk even as much as a half mile into an unfamiliar wild place.
I hope that your forthcoming marriage will gift you a husband who loves the wilderness, and is willing to go there with you, and is willing (and able, once the law passes) to defend you against any threats you might find there. Better yet, empower yourself and get a CCW license of your own, and learn to live without that fear.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier - "Well we tend to think everyone who sits behind the wheel of a car knows how to safely operate it but we know that's not true don't we?"

We also know there are about 50,000 automobile deaths a year, with about half via booze + driving.

Hoosier Daddy said...

And sure enough here comes the other sock..

You'd think one or the other would at least make an attempt to disguise the identical writing style.

Jeremy: This is the wingnut WHINING CAPITAL of the internet.

Jen: You all should really be ashamed of yourselves for so freely expounding, AND WITH SUCH AUTHORITY, that which you know nothing about.

Big Mike said...

Sorry, Jeremy, I never saw the movie. I am, however, aware that movies are fiction.

Jeremy said...

Ann Althouse said..."Jeremy, you keep saying "parks" like it's a city park. Have you ever been to a national park? These are huge places, with lots of lonely spots."

I lived in South Lake Tahoe for years, and spent many months in Oregon and Washington state, so I know all about secluded areas in forests and mountains.

Anybody who goes into a forest, even if it's a "park" and ventures off the beaten path, especially alone...is looking for trouble.

And I certainly understand your point relating to women being accounted in secluded areas of parks. I just don't know if carrying a loaded weapon, opposed to using good sense, is the right path...although I think everybody has at one time or another wished they had a gun in hand when confronted.

Charles Bronson comes to mind.

Hoosier Daddy said...

We also know there are about 50,000 automobile deaths a year, with about half via booze + driving..

We should ban booze then. Oh wait, we did and we know how that turned out.

Jen said...

Ann:

I grew up in rural WI. I backpack into Canada (by myself), portage canoes (by myself), and now day hike mostly in the mountains out west.

By myself.

I think that not only women are afraid of going into the woods but that it is more of a cultural issue. People, in general, are afraid of going into the woods because they've never been there, or have spent very little time there. It is an unknown and therefore frightening.

My dad spent a great deal of time teaching me about the wilderness when I was a kid. Consequently, I'm not afraid, and I'm determined, in spite of what is being said above, to remain that way.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike said..."Sorry, Jeremy, I never saw the movie. I am, however, aware that movies are fiction."

I didn't mean anything by it, I was merely mentioning it because of your Vietnam era comment.

It really have nothing to do with sleeping in hallways.

Jen said...

There see. . .we aren't the same person. Jeremy and I just disagreed.

I think you should go off the beaten path, and that by doing so you aren't going looking for trouble.

Jeremy thinks you are.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier Daddy said..."We should ban booze then. Oh wait, we did and we know how that turned out."

How do you make that leap?

I never insinuated anything of the kind. I just mentioned the stat because you said:

"Well we tend to think everyone who sits behind the wheel of a car knows how to safely operate it but we know that's not true don't we?"

That would imply driving can be quite dangerous if the driver doesn't know what they're doing.

Right?

Jeremy said...

Jen said..."There see. . .we aren't the same person. Jeremy and I just disagreed."

Damn.

Okay, out of the car!

Big Mike said...

@Jen, when my kids were little I field-stripped my handgun and removed the magazine to a separate place they couldn't reach. It would have taken me 47 seconds to reassemble, reload, and chamber, probably longer considering I'd be coming awake. Now they're grown up.

For what it's worth I never thought you and Jeremy were the same person (so perhaps I am fooled?) but certainly from the same bubble.

Original Mike said...

Anybody who goes into a forest, even if it's a "park" and ventures off the beaten path, especially alone...is looking for trouble..

Oh, good grief.

Synova said...

The trigger pull on a pistol is approximately three up to over four pounds.

I couldn't possibly say why a child had a gun under his pillow and I would not ever keep a gun under my pillow, no matter how often this is done on television. Even so, I'm trying to figure out how several pounds of pressure could be brought to bear on the trigger by a pillow, and I'm having difficulty.

Jeremy said...

Hoosier - You actually think Jen and Jeremy are the same person?

C'mon...

Kevin said...

The Bush Administration rule required among other things that:
The gun owner have a concealed carry license.
The gun owner carry a handgun concealed.
The state in which the park was located had to allow carry in state parks. (Not 100% sure about this).

The Brady Campaign sued and successfully blocked this in the federal courts.

Coburn's amendment goes much further:

The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if--
(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and
(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

Thus Arizonans without a license can now carry any firearm openly in their national parks and Texans can now carry rifles and shotguns openly (and handguns in their cars without a license) in their national parks since those activities are in compliance with the law outside the Park.

This must burn up the Brady Campaign - they won a battle and lost a much bigger war.

Note that this may not apply to federal buildings such as Visitor Centers. There is a separate statute in place for "federal facilities". It is not clear to me how this new law will affect the existing statute.

Dust Bunny Queen said...

For what it's worth I never thought you and Jeremy were the same person (so perhaps I am fooled?)

No I don't think they are the same person either. But I certainly think they are a pair.

Jeremy said...

Original Mike thinks I'm crazy for saying: "Anybody who goes into a forest, even if it's a "park" and ventures off the beaten path, especially alone...is looking for trouble."

Can I assume you don't mean a regular ol' city type person should go literally anywhere they want in a forest? Regardless of their physical abilities? The time of day? The terrain? The weather?

Over the course of just a few years in Tahoe there were tourists getting their asses lost in the forests on a regular basis, just as in California, where so many get trapped on cliffs they charge for the rescue.

Maybe you're just the kind of person who can go anywhere.

Jeremy said...

Dust Bunny Queen said..."No I don't think they are the same person either. But I certainly think they are a pair."

Can I assume we shouldn't ask what kind of pair?

Synova said...

"I just don't know if carrying a loaded weapon, opposed to using good sense, is the right path..."

Why is this automatically an either/or thing in your mind? Egad.

Why not have a number of different tools on hand to apply to different situations and also use good sense?

Or would someone going on a hike-in camping trip have to decide to pack-in their food and water *or* live off the land and bring water treatment tabs... but not both?

Why not both?

Freder Frederson said...

I have never dared to walk even as much as a half mile into an unfamiliar wild place.Because of fear of being raped? Have you considered seeking professional help to overcome this irrational fear?

And btw all. I have lived in New Orleans, Atlanta, DC and Chicago. I have been on several two week wilderness canoe trips in the Boundary Waters and Quetico Provincial Park. I have backpacked in the Back Country of Yosemite, the Desolation Wilderness, The Smoky Mountains, Rocky Mountain National Park and other areas.

Don't fill me with all your b.s. about how scary either the city or the wilderness is if you don't have a gun. It is not scary at all. Your dependence on firearms is actually kind of sad. That you assume I must live some kind of sheltered life is nothing less than pathetic.

Jeremy said...

Bob - To Ann: "Better yet, empower yourself and get a CCW license of your own, and learn to live without that fear."

I don't care if you're packing a machine gun...you get lost in the forest, especially at night (when they turn ALL the lights out...and it gets REALLY cold)...and it won't do you a bit of good.

Jen said...

http://www.stabroeknews.com/2009/news/regional/04/15/tot-kills-brother-with-aunt%E2%80%99s-gun/

This isn't my story, I don't think that was published. It was fairly easy to find several.

What an arrogant thing to say, as if I enjoy making up stories about children killing each other.

Original Mike said...

Maybe you're just the kind of person who can go anywhere..

In the woods? Pretty much. And I do. Alone. A lot. For extended periods of time. It's my biggest joy.

My biggest fear is gravity (actually, twisting/breaking my leg).

Synova said...

Freder... don't be insulting.

What Althouse describes is the normal daily reality of most women. We don't go alone to places that men do not think twice about. When we work late we're cautioned not to walk to our cars unescorted. Universities set up escort programs to walk female (and not male) students from the library to their dorms. When we break down on the road we're often afraid of any man who stops to help us.

Jeremy said...

Freder Frederson said..."Don't fill me with all your b.s. about how scary either the city or the wilderness is if you don't have a gun. It is not scary at all. Your dependence on firearms is actually kind of sad. That you assume I must live some kind of sheltered life is nothing less than pathetic."

I wholeheartedly agree.

Can you imagine anyone in damn near any other area of the world with massive forests and huge cities...reading this drivel?

A group of Americans who say they're afraid to go into a state park...unless they're packing a loaded weapon...just in case.

Jen said...

http://www.wfsb.com/news/17322430/detail.html

Nice lecture on trigger pull.

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy, I can picture a whole lot of people reading this thread and thinking that you, Freder, and probably Jen are their natural prey.

Synova said...

"What an arrogant thing to say, as if I enjoy making up stories about children killing each other."

I didn't mean to imply you'd made it up. I meant to imply that there were probably other details that made the situation something other than normal. A gun in poor repair, perhaps... or the child actually pulled the trigger... or something. Though a child having a gun under his pillow is abnormal enough.

Jeremy said...

Synova said..."Freder... don't be insulting. What Althouse describes is the normal daily reality of most women."

What the hell are you talking about?

You think the "normal daily reality of most women" entails the constant possibility of being attacked?

Ridiculous...and I thought we were talking about state parks.

elHombre said...

So this is it, huh. The Repubs support the credit card fiasco in exchange for allowing concealed weapon licensees to go heeled into the national parks.

Well bully for the Repubs. I guess we needed somebody to hold the bears hostage come the revolution. Sheesh!

Synova said...

Freder and Jeremy... I can imagine a lot of women reading this drivel, who are now enlightened and realize that they are not in danger after all.

The next time they get off work after dark and their male co-workers offer to walk them to their car... they'll tell that bastard where to shove his patronizing attitude.

Count on it.

Original Mike said...

I have been on several two week wilderness canoe trips in the Boundary Waters and Quetico Provincial Park. I have backpacked in the Back Country of Yosemite, the Desolation Wilderness, The Smoky Mountains, Rocky Mountain National Park and other areas..

What a joy it must be to have you as a traveling companion.

Jeremy said...

Big Mike said..."Jeremy, I can picture a whole lot of people reading this thread and thinking that you, Freder, and probably Jen are their natural prey."

Based on my experience with many here, there's absolutely no telling what they're thinking.

It's kind like a giant right wing snowball rolling down a hill, gathering speed and size as more and more wingnuts join the fray.

I feel proud to be associated with the few who apparently think for themselves.

Big Mike said...

Kids and guns have always been a dangerous combination. Even Mark Twain had something to say: advice to youth.

Jeremy said...

Synova said..."Freder and Jeremy... I can imagine a lot of women reading this drivel, who are now enlightened and realize that they are not in danger after all."

You REALLY need to get out more.

Michael McNeil said...

So this is it, huh. The Repubs support the credit card fiasco in exchange for allowing concealed weapon licensees to go heeled into the national parks.

Well bully for the Repubs. I guess we needed somebody to hold the bears hostage come the revolution. Sheesh!


How exactly were the Republicans supposed to stop it in today's Democratic-dominated Congress? Some Republicans indeed may have hoped that the Democrats would kill it once the gun in parks amendment was attached to the bill, but the Dems chose not to. Given that, the R's lack the votes to put it down.

Jeremy said...

Original Mike said..."What a joy it must be to have you as a traveling companion."

Yeah, and you don't have to worry about him accidentally popping a cap in your ass.

Jeremy said...

Michael McNeil said..."How exactly were the Republicans supposed to stop it in today's Democratic-dominated Congress?"

Well, in the Senate 60 votes are needed.

Right?

Synova said...

"You think the "normal daily reality of most women" entails the constant possibility of being attacked?"

Yes. It. Does.

Have you been living under a rock?

Women don't go where men go or do what men do, they don't take the jobs men take. It's not always apparent because it involves common sense adjustments to behavior so the extra caution seems natural and ordinary.

It doesn't take a significant or immediate risk to prompt "safe" behavior.

In *your* words... it's using "good sense."

Big Mike said...

@Jeremy, you recite a couple liberal talking points, interlayer it with some snark, and you call that thinking? Child, you're delusional.

Synova said...

Jeremy must have been busy during all the "take back the night" candle-lit vigils held over the years.

Jeremy said...

Synova said...Regarding the constant possiblity of being attackes...

"Yes. It. Does. Have you been living under a rock?"

Well, I've lived in at least five metropolitan cities, traveled all over the world, and I've never heard any woman even suggest they feel "the constant possibility of being attacked."

Like I said before You REALLY need to get out more.

Big Mike said...

@Jen, I almost forgot to ask. Where did you buy an SPP-1? I thought that was Russian military issue only?

Or did you just give yourself away?

John said...

"Michael McNeil said..."How exactly were the Republicans supposed to stop it in today's Democratic-dominated Congress?"

Well, in the Senate 60 votes are needed.

Right?"

So it is the Republicans' fault for not stopping the Democrats from doing stupid things as opposed the Democrats' fault for doing the stupid thing in the first place? Well that is one way to look at it I guess.

John said...

"Well, I've lived in at least five metropolitan cities, traveled all over the world, and I've never heard any woman even suggest they feel "the constant possibility of being attacked."


I don' think any woman feels the constant danger of being attacked. But any woman who is aware and walking in public certainly understands that the possibility exists.

Regardless, it is not for you or I to decide. If a woman feels she needs a gun to protect herself that is her right. It is none of your business you fascist little fuck. Why do you have such a problem with people making their own choices?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 335   Newer› Newest»