Proposal targets gun ban for parks

[oneshooter]

AUGUSTA, Maine — Lawmakers heard testimony Wednesday on a proposal to reimpose restrictions on guns within Acadia National Park and along the Appalachian Trail in Maine in response to Congress’ controversial decision to lift long-standing limits on firearms.
Last year, Congress passed a law authorizing visitors to carry guns — both concealed and carried openly — in national parks. Congress passed the law after a federal judge overturned similar regulations enacted in the final days of the Bush administration.

But the new law, which takes effect later this month, does allow states to establish specific rules governing where and how firearms can be carried in the national park system. That law generally prohibits firearms within park boundaries but allows visitors to carry unloaded guns through the park as long as the firearms have been dismantled or rendered inaccessible.
This really keeps the status quo for rules that have been in effect since 1982,” said House Speaker Hannah Pingree, D-North Haven. Pingree, whose district includes parts of Acadia, said now is not the time to change a law that could affect the tourism industry.
“It is important to the tourism industry, and it is important to families for people to feel safe, and I think to set a standard any different than what is currently in place in our state parks and national parks would be a bad precedent,” she said.


http://www.bangordailynews.com/detail/136137.html

What it does is to gut and override the Federal law.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[paulsby]

1. very revealing language

"it is important to families for people to feel safe"


FEEEEEEEL safe

[thunder rising]

2. How can you not feel safe surrounded by thin cloth and drunks cleaning weapons at the next camp site

[oneshooter]

3. So you believe that all gun owners are drunks? n/t

[thunder rising]

7. I'm not a drunk ... and I own a few. (get a clue)

[Name removed]

4. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[thunder rising]

8. You've never been camping/hunting with my BIL. Hey bud, hold my beer and watch this!

[PavePusher]

21. If you know he is doing dangerous and illegal things...

Why do you not report him? Hmmmmm....

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. Why do you go camping with someone who handles firearms carelessly?

[SteveM]

66. Well, my goodness. If I'm not hunting, I don't clean guns in parks...

Do you? BTW, how many cases have you seen where someone has gotten drunk in a Maine park and started to clean guns?

[MichaelHarris]

101. this really needs to stop

I read the new rules Skinner and the mods put out, how about we enforce them now?

[krispos42]

104. 4 minutes from alert to removal

:hi:

[taurus145]

42. I have one or two drinks a month

I own and use firearms. I camp. I used to hike before knee problems set in.

Get a clue. Very few gun owners I know mix alcohol and firearms. None have more than a beer or two when guns are about. I allow NO alcohol until after the guns are cleared and cased when we shoot or hunt at my farm.

You should rethink that ridiculous stereotypical statement.

[TheWraith]

46. Better question...

Would you feel comfortable letting your teenage or college age daughter and her friends go out camping for the weekend, miles from anywhere without protection, knowing some of those guys drinking might decide to follow them out into the woods to get frisky?

There are legitimate reasons for self-defense weapons in a park.

[rd_kent]

54. It seems you have a very stereotypical view of gun owners. You should do some research

and enlighten yourself. You may find that what you THOUGHT was true, actually isnt.

[Walk away]

5. Parks without guns..but they NEED guns all the time and everywhere!

Normal people don't want to vacation with gun toters. I would never take a child into the woods with a bunch of people with guns wandering around. The National Parks are now gun zones and are unsafe for families. I am glad that my family has access to private land to camp and hike on.

I am sure that the gun lobby is happy to now own the parks. They need to have their guns to feel safe even if it makes everyone else feel disgusted and unsafe. After all they have their rights that super-cede everyone else's. I can't see them giving up their weapons just to make parks a better place to visit for most Americans.

[eqfan592]

6. Ever been to Florida?

Or any of the other shall or may issue states? Then you were almost certainly vacationing with "gun toters" in the area. Get over your self. Your ignorance is disturbing, especially coming from somebody who likely claims to be a progressive.

[thunder rising]

10. I'd just a soon keep the parks for families. Leave the guns locked in the trunk.

[Tim01]

12. Currently violent criminals are in the parks with guns. With your family. nt

[thunder rising]

14. Bull shit! If you know they are there, then I'll bet the cops know. Ya'think? (clueless)

[Tim01]

18. I think you actually don't know what you are talking about.

Have you really thought this through?

[Euromutt]

19. Not bullshit at all

Here in Washington state, we've had periodic patterns of gangs hitting the trailheads, systematically breaking into the parked cars and swiping the contents. Car alarms don't help, since the trailheads are pretty remote, and the goons in question have been known to get fairly violent with anyone who shows up and tries to intervene. In at least one instance, they've posted lookouts on the trail who had guns.

The fact that's it's known that this thing happens doesn't mean it's known when or where it's going to happen. The local sheriff's offices don't have manpower to patrol the trailheads with any frequency, let alone post a deputy there all day. And even if they could, how useful would he be without backup (which would take a considerable amount of time to arrive)?

National Parks tend to be fairly sizable places, at least in this state; the fact you know someone is in the park doesn't mean you know where he is in the park. Did I mention the distinct lack of cell phone coverage in these areas, by the way?

[rrneck]

20. I'm sure they do know.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_ranger
According to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers suffer the most number of felonious assaults, and the highest number of homicides of all federal law enforcement officers.<2>.

If criminals will take on the cops in the parks mommy, daddy and the kids don't have much of a chance without a gun.

[TPaine7]

34. Shame on you, introducing facts and logic into a feeeeeeling based debate!!!

I am sure that the good folks who oppose guns in the parks will not dignify this uncouth tactic.

[PavePusher]

30. They do know.

What do you think they can do about it?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

38. Please educate yourself before you make yourself look even more foolish.

[GreenStormCloud]

61. No, the cops don't specifically know.

If Joe V. Felon (V is for Violent) decides to go to a park, he doesn't check in with the cops first. In fact, the cops don't know where he is.

I am constantly amazed at the naivete of those who think that violent human predators will obey a "no guns" law.

[SteveM]

67. Sorry, but crims/thugs like to habituate parks because there are so few police...

game wardens, park staff, etc. I am warned (when I hunt state parks) by the game wardens to not leave stuff around (stands, trail bikes) as thieves are none to peruse the area for that stuff. Some thugs do that even when they know armed hunters are around.

[AtheistCrusader]

72. Actually, forest rangers have recently had to re-arm after decades of doing their jobs without

sidearms.


Pro tip: they aren't arming themselves because of people like me.

[PavePusher]

16. I carry a firearm around my family at all times (when I am visiting them).

They are quite safe around me.

Why should my behavior change in a Park?

[thunder rising]

23. Because it's not about YOU ... it's about the safety of others.

[PavePusher]

24. Correct. I carry tools to help enable protection for myself, my family...

My friends, neighbors and passersby.

Are you not interested in helping to provide for the public safety?

[MichaelHarris]

41. Please stop protecting me

I've never needed your services and I doubt I ever will.

[PavePusher]

43. Relax.

Washington is way to far from Arizona for you to be worth the trip.

[MichaelHarris]

44. Me relax?

I'm the one that doesn't feel the need to arm myself when I go to Dairy Queen or to the park. Relaxation may be something you should consider.

[rd_kent]

56. That is an emotional response.

[SteveM]

68. My, rd, that was a detached observation. nt

[rd_kent]

71. Thanks. All part of my new civility plan.

[armueller2001]

73. Would you prefer that

off-duty police disarm as well?

[Tim01]

25. People with permits are safer than cops, and more law abiding than cops.

Another point we have prove with numbers here over and over and over again.

Why not just cut to the chase and admit that no amount of facts will cause you to stop being afraid of people who carry guns. People carrying guns scares you, rational or not. Period.

[Name removed]

28. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

51. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[rd_kent]

57. You are allowing your emotions to guide you.

[GreenStormCloud]

65. Not terrified, just not living in denial.

Violent crime is a reality. Pretending that it isn't there will not make it go away. So I am prepared to fight back if it ever happens.

[rd_kent]

55. Yours is an emotional response.

[GreenStormCloud]

63. How do MY guns endanger others?

People with concealed carry permits are statistically the safes group of all gun owners. You are 27 times more likely to be struck by lightning that to be illegally killed by a CCWer in any particular year.

[Tejas]

78. So, what is your problem with people being safe?

Google 'national park mauled or mauling' and get back to me with more of your infinite wisdom.

[AtheistCrusader]

27. Good way to get it stolen, but hey, if you have some brilliant idea on how to keep the meth labs out

of the parks, I'm all ears.

Till then, I carry. I'm not even particularly worried about predators. Bears don't bother me. I've never even had to draw my gun due to aggressive wildlife.

It's the other people that worry me.

[oneshooter]

31. Not to mention the MJ farms. Lots of them have man traps around them. n/t

[MichaelHarris]

40. you

gonna shoot a man trap? How many shots does it take to kill a man trap anyway?

[NewMoonTherian]

47. I think what he was getting at...

was that the marijuana farms and mantraps(I don't frequent national parks and I haven't seen any figures, so I can't speak to the prevalence of MJ farms there) pose a greater threat to innocents than lawful gun owners do. It's only news coverage and emotionally-founded politics that cause the outrage over guns. Judging from the success of concealed carry everywhere else it's allowed, I would venture to agree. After a year or so passes(enough time to gather some respectable statistics), if public safety doesn't suffer as a result of carry in parks, would you be willing to rethink your position, at least on the specific issue of carry in parks?

[MichaelHarris]

48. Naww

I'll never agree with you that firearms are needed in National Parks. I'm 52 and have been to almost every National Park in this country more than once and have never needed to defend myself nor have I ever seen anyone have to defend themselves. Those who promote the story that protection is needed are just doing so at the beck and call of the NRA, they just sell fear to expand their desire to arm the nation.

I'm sure someone will hop in here with NRA based stats on the crime rate in our national parks and why we need to shoot people. I used to be that guy sitting around practicing quick draw and running scenarios in my head, I polished my Mini-14, My HK-91, and all of my handguns. I never got to "use" them, no criminal ever crossed my well-armed path. I came to the intelligent conclusion that this gun craze was just that, crazy.

Not to offend anyone, I'll try and follow the new guidelines, but I grew out of the fear and didn't need the toys. Some of you will too. Those who don't will continue to feed a right-wing election machine, the NRA, based on irrational fear. They will never learn. We have a President who hasn't made any attempts to disarm America yet the NRA still promotes his defeat. The Gungion Democrats say that's OK, they still ask, "Where can I send the NRA money?"

They are not going to loose the Second Amendment; what they have lost is the ability to see through the hyped up fear the NRA and gun shops promote, they feed the machine. You yourself have fallen. Your comment, "public safety in parks", shows something. You question your own public safety in our National Parks, you've fallen for the trick. Except for tripping and cutting an elbow you've always been safe. I flyfish in some of the most remote regions in Yellowstone, never had to defend myself from man or beast. Same with Glacier. Double that for Yosemite and Kings Canyon.

So to sum up, yes I still own guns. Mostly .22s, a .17 and a number of black powder firearms. I still walk the cities at night with a camera and the national parks with a flyrod, anything different would just be stupid.

[TPaine7]

49. Of course, the experiences of MichaelHarris are representative of the population

or at least that portion of the population that matters. The people who have been murdered and raped in national parks don't count.

The logic of "It hasn't happened to me, therefore it isn't part of significant reality" is not something any reasonable person would apply elsewhere.

1) I have never had my house or car catch on fire. This does not prove that I am falling prey to hyped up fear and that I need to grow out of my "irrational" decision to have multiple fire extinguishers.

2) I have never been in an accident where a seat-belt saved me from serious injury or death. This does not prove that I am falling prey to hyped up fear and that I need to grow out of my "irrational" decision to always wear seat-belts.

3) I have never been in a natural disaster where the water system failed. This does not prove that I am falling prey to hyped up fear and that I need to grow out of my "irrational" decision to have water stored in containers.

The odds of my needing these things is, based on my personal experience over decades, slim. Yet I, and any thinking person, would regard a "wise" person who had "grown" out of the "fear" of automobile accidents, fires and lack of potable water with the same deep respect with which we regard your hard-earned life knowledge.

I'm sure someone will hop in here with NRA based stats...

How about the studiously avoided, non-NRA stats rrneck cited in post 21?

According to U.S. Department of Justice statistics, National Park Service Law Enforcement Rangers suffer the most number of felonious assaults, and the highest number of homicides of all federal law enforcement officers.

If federal law enforcement agents are nowhere in more danger than in national parks, isn't that an indication that statistically speaking national parks aren't particularly safe? (And I hope even you will concede that the U.S. Department of Justice is not a branch of the NRA.)

You think it's just plain stupid to be prepared for a potential danger that you haven't faced in 52 years. I think it's just plain stupid to base safety decisions regarding emergency equipment and supplies on a few decades of a single individual's life. After all, I've never gotten to "use" my seat-belt, fire extinguisher, or water.

When logic works differently on one special subject than it does on anything else, there is reality distortion taking place.

[beevul]

120. Ya forgot the best one, TPaine7...

This one:

"Those who don't will continue to feed a right-wing election machine, the NRA, based on irrational fear."

No. Those that legislate, attempt to legislate, or lobby others to legislate from a "gunsbad, mmmkay?" position, are the ones that feed the nras coffers, and empower the right wing to attack Democrats over the issue. Even when they be the republicans at the brady campaign.


I can think of nothing that has benefitted the right leaning segment of America more than the anti-gun mindset and the attempts to force others to live by it.

Anti gun ideology gave texas bush, which enabled him to become president. Thats a fact.

Anti-gun ideology, in large part, was responsible for Democrats losing congress in the mid 90's.



I should HOPE that the consequences of those events don't need any explaining, hereabouts.

[TPaine7]

123. It's such a target rich environment, it's hard for one person to cover them all.

I started out intending to be exhaustive in post 110, but gave up.

You make an excellent point, though. If the eeeeeeeeeeevil NRA--and *whispering* the majority of Americans--get what they want, it will be a huge boon to the Democratic Party. (At least it will if the Democratic Party is smart enough to accept America's will and the constitutional reality.)

[rd_kent]

60. " I'll never agree with you that firearms are needed in National Parks". Who said they are needed?

The argument is that there is no rational reason NOT to allow them. You seem to be a bit confused about what pro-RKBA folks are saying here. No one is saying guns are NEEDED in National Parks.

[TPaine7]

75. In my opinion, they are needed.

Guns in the hands of sane, responsible adults are needed in National Parks no less than they are needed in other public places.

The are needed to protect the innocent. They are needed to make predators less sure of their prey. They are needed to enable little old ladies to protect big strong men. They are needed by the decent person who stumbles across a thug cultivating a drug crop in the wilderness--a thug who suddenly has a witness problem.

As a general rule--there are special exceptions such as inaugurations--their presence in public places is necessary to the security of a free state.

If we are to have a free state as opposed to a police state--a country in which police don't conduct random searches based on hunches, and torture confessions and snoop into everyone's private lives in order to fight crime--then the only way to have security is that decent citizens themselves serve as an armed bulwark against crime.

In my opinion, that is part of what the founders were saying in the Second Amendment.

[MichaelHarris]

80. How

many people have you actually saved?

[Tejas]

87. I've saved 3

that are documented, how about you?

[MichaelHarris]

89. Post the news

stories

[Tejas]

117. oh, and I'm a journalist

too.

[TPaine7]

99. ????????????

What's your point? How does anything I said depend on the answer to this question?

I don't match your stereotype. My logic doesn't rely on my being the hero. Here are some examples of the type of scenario I post, the type of scenario my logic depends upon:

1) I'm on a bus and a gangbanger gets on and starts terrorizing folks with his knife. I try to protect a little old lady and wind up against the bus wall with his knife to my throat and his bad breath in my nose. I would be very grateful if the genteel lady sitting opposite me let a carefully aimed bullet fly.

2) I am on the ground getting stomped by a group of thugs because I was wearing the wrong color when my car broke down in the wrong part of town. I would be very glad if a kind stranger whose car didn't break down at least threatened to let bullets fly (with the will to back it up if necessary), then got me to a hospital when the thugs dispersed.

3) I am lined up against the wall in a bank and the robber has just shot the two hostages next to me. He's smirking as he points his gun at my head. I would very much appreciate a police sniper rendering his brain non-functional before he can pull the trigger.

Source: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x283817#284094

Is that the juvenile, he-man macho fantasy life you think some of us will eventually grow out of?

And then there's the post you responded to, post 75:

{Guns} are needed to enable little old ladies to protect big strong men.

My arguments don't change if I am rescued by a woman. (And no, I'm not implying that I'm a "big strong man"--that post wasn't about me either.)

How many people have I actually saved? With all due respect, it's none of your concern. As far as you know, based on what I've posted on this board, I don't even own a gun or have a CCW permit; all you know for sure is that I care about the RIGHT to keep and bear arms. And furthermore, the number of people I've saved is thoroughly irrelevant.

But I'll humor you. Let's say, for the sake of discussion, that I do have a gun and a CCW permit and I've carried my gun daily for many decades and have never saved anyone. That would make my gun comparable to my seat-belt. I have worn a seat-belt daily for decades and it's never saved anyone, either.

[NewMoonTherian]

74. You make a good point...

but I think you misunderstood part of my post. I specifically used the phrase "if public safety doesn't suffer". I'm not suggesting there is a significant danger of attack in a park(it would probably be a poor choice for criminals anyway). I'm simply addressing your concern that carry in parks will put innocents in danger. Being that I've never actually been to a national park, I don't have a dog in the fight. My motives are to eliminate gun-free zones where they don't serve to enhance public safety(I'm willing to say that some places should be gun-free zones, until I'm presented with evidence to the contrary). I don't believe the public is served by a handgun ban in national parks, so I'm against it. Another place I feel they're unnecessary are sports arenas. Government buildings are an appropriate place to prohibit guns, because there is armed, trained security there(on the other hand, no citizen should be compelled by law to enter a gun-free zone, so that's a difficult situation).

A place I'd really like to see gun-free zones eliminated is city parks. Rapists and muggers sometimes target women who run alone on isolated jogging trails, and many of these areas prohibit these women from carrying firearms. I feel certain the public safety is harmed by these gun-free zones.

[MichaelHarris]

79. And that is an intelligent observation

that I agree with, carry allowed in public parks by people who have undergone the proper credentialing. There are criminal predators who frequent public parks. I'll not respond to the others who commented on our discussion, they chose a less intelligent approach. All it take is to see the crime rate in city parks to national parks to see the difference. They chose to site a few anecdotal stories, you went with something smarter. You and I both know that inner city parks can be dangerous, we also know that gang-bangers, rapists, and drug dealers don't frequent the trail up to Mt Rainier.

There are those who will "defend at all cost" even if the defense is stupid. Think about this: Backpack, check, food, check, water, check, Glock, check. I would rather carry more food or water, that's something that really can save your life on the trail. I'll continue to stand by my claim that concealed weapons are not needed in the national parks. Some of the up-comments were so asinine that I actually laughed. One discussed all of the Park Officials who had been shot in his defense of concealed carry. Who does he think is shooting Rangers, Yogi? No, it's nuts with guns in the parks. When law enforcement responds to a shooting how does it tell the difference between the bad shooter and the good shooter who thinks he is helping? Do concealed carry people also carry a uniform?

In Moscow Idaho a kid responded to an assault on the Sheriff's station and jail. The bad shooter had an AK and shot the kid, he could have just as easily been shot by a police officer. Carry permit people dream about that scenario, they want so bad to "rescue" someone with their weapon. The need the justification. As I mentioned earlier I was that guy until I realized just how stupid it is.

Consider this, You are hiking down the trail with your family, a gang approaches, guns drawn. What chance do you have drawing your concealed weapon? What chance do you have drawing any weapon? Criminals with weapons will almost always come to the game with a weapon drawn. Will your bravado kill you and your family? Will your own weapon be used to kill you and your family?

For fun, since you seen to be a very reasonable person sit back before answering and read the responses to my previous post to you and the responses to this one. You'll see nothing but anger and hatred. The deadly grip they have on their weapons prohibits them from understanding some basic truths. Firearms are very seldom the best option.

[Tejas]

88. Well...

Consider this, You are hiking down the trail with your family, a gang approaches, guns drawn. What chance do you have drawing your concealed weapon? What chance do you have drawing any weapon? Criminals with weapons will almost always come to the game with a weapon drawn. Will your bravado kill you and your family? Will your own weapon be used to kill you and your family?

...guess armed Park Rangers shouldn't venture down the trail either. Sure wouldn't want them getting shot while trying to draw their weapon!

[MichaelHarris]

90. hahahahaha

you just validated my post, holstered weapons are sometimes ineffective. I knew you would see it my way.

[Tejas]

118. "sometimes ineffective" - moot

Nothing to see there folks, standard MichaelHarris procedure.

So what's it gonna be? Are you going to continue to hate on folks carrying in National Parks because they might get themselves killed by an armed gang that pops out've the bushes (or such other drivel as you might conjure up on a whim)?

With armed gangs popping out've the bushes, maybe we should just close the parks down huh?...for the children...

[AtheistCrusader]

96. If a gang approached with weapons drawn, how would being unarmed improve your situation?

I'm not seeing the logic here really. Are you hoping they will show pity?

Nobody I've ever met went into a situation like that wishing they had LESS gun. Most of them wish they had brought MORE gun.

Of course, in the National Forests, I open carry a rifle, but there's little difference between the National Parks that are forests, and the National Forests. In either, you can stumble upon meth labs, pot grow ops, and all sorts of things.

[GreenStormCloud]

106. You have some unwarranted assumptions.

that I agree with, carry allowed in public parks by people who have undergone the proper credentialing.
Most states require an FBI background investigation of an applicant before a CCW is issued. So most of us have been well vetted by the government.

When law enforcement responds to a shooting how does it tell the difference between the bad shooter and the good shooter who thinks he is helping? That hasn't been a problem anywhere else. Why should parks be any different? It is actually pretty easy. The cops don't get there until after the shooting is over, and the CCWer has reholstered their gun. The cops arrive and he politely identifies himself to the cops as the shooter. He will have his ID in hand and hands away from his body as he does this, and will cooperate with the police. They teach what to do in CCW classes.

The bad shooter had an AK and shot the kid
Sometimes the bad guys win. None of us claim otherwise.

You are hiking down the trail with your family, a gang approaches, guns drawn. What chance do you have drawing your concealed weapon?
My chances with a gun will be better than my chances without one. You falsely assume that the gang will let us go unharmed if we are unarmed. I am not ready to throw myself on the tender mercies of armed violent felons.

Will your bravado kill you and your family?
Will the gang let you go because you are unarmed? Can you guarantee that the gang will be peaceful?

Will your own weapon be used to kill you and your family?
One see this quite a bit. Those who are against using guns for self-defense often claim that the bad guys will be able to take the guns away from the defenders. That happens extremely rarely. It is very difficult to take a gun away from someone if they are shooting you with it.


Firearms are very seldom the best option.
None of us claim that they are the best option. We are pretty specific in stating that guns are a last resort. But they are an option that I choose to have available to me.

Carry permit people dream about that scenario, they want so bad to "rescue" someone with their weapon.
I can only speak for myself, I don't have that fantasy. I haven't saved anybody else with my gun. My wife has saved herself, once. I do know others who have had defensive gun uses.
Ever since I started driving over 45 years ago, I have always had a car fire extinguisher in my car, and a first aid kit. I have twice used the fire extinguisher. Once I saw a small grass fire that was about to reach some brush with some houses nearby. I was able to put the fire out before it reached the brush. However, I will readily admit that the county fire department would likely have arrived in time to put out the brush fire. Another time I was behind a car on the interstate when it caught on fire. The car pulled over to the side and I parked a safe distance behind it and ran up with my fire extinguisher. I was able to keep the flames suppressed while the driver got her infant out of the car seat in the back seat. Then my extinguisher ran out, the fire reignited, and the car burned, but the woman and her baby were safe. I count that as a definite save. Of course, it was with a fire extinguisher, not with a gun. But my point is that one never knows, so one prepares for emergencies. I have also been the first person at an accident a few times, rendered aid - again because I was prepared.

Carrying a gun is simply being prepared.

[NewMoonTherian]

109. There are some intemperate responses there.

Though they also have what I think are some valid arguments.

I carry my gun on a daily basis and don't find it particularly heavy or bulky(and it's comparatively a large gun!). When I go into the wilderness for non-hunting purposes, I leave the long guns behind, and my pistol really doesn't get in the way of anything else I'd want to bring. Your two examples - the real one and the hypothetical - do illustrate your point and I agree with it: guns are almost never the best solution. In fact, they're the absolute final option, for when you've failed to avoid the danger and when retreat would get you or your loved ones killed. Still, if you find yourself in that situation, having a gun is worth any minor practical trade-off it takes to bring it along.

Now, just as I called on you to reconsider your position regarding national parks if legal carry is shown not to put people at risk, I would expect the measure to be repealed if it proves otherwise. I think anyone here who's willing to look at things pragmatically would agree.

[TPaine7]

110. A sad commentary on the effects of the reality distortion field.

People under the dread sway of the gun control reality distortion field exhibit many disturbing symptoms. Seldom have I seen such an impressive--and depressing--number of them in one individual's posts on a single thread.

People under the distortion field don't know (or care) whether their arguments agree with reality, common sense, or whether they are even internally consistent.

Take your posts, for example.

Blatant Hypocrisy:

In post 48 we learn that people who disagree with you are acting "at the beck and call of the NRA", we sit around "practicing quick draw and running scenarios", we suffer from a craze that is just crazy. You once suffered from these afflictions, but you "grew out of the fear and didn't need the toys. Some of you will too." We're just immature, that's why we don't see things your way.

There's more. As pawns of the NRA, our disagreement with you is "based on irrational fear". The "Gungion Democrats"... (not some subset of them) "ask, 'Where can I send the NRA money?'"

Given that we are deluded pawns with violent fantasies suffering from a crazy craze, immature dupes who need to grow out of our irrational fears, give up our toys and stop supporting the political enemies of the Democratic party, your bottom line conclusion is no surprise. Doing what we support people having the right to do--carrying in National Parks--is just plain stupid.

You no doubt see your comments as mild mannered and kindly advice from a gentleman willing to share his wisdom. Those who answered you with less than appropriate reverence, however, are guilty of anger and hatred:

For fun, since you seen to be a very reasonable person sit back before answering and read the responses to my previous post to you and the responses to this one. You'll see nothing but anger and hatred. The deadly grip they have on their weapons prohibits them from understanding some basic truths. Firearms are very seldom the best option.

There was a great deal more than anger and hatred in my post. There was enough clear reasoning to reduce your arguments to elementary particles. And you know it. So you took the "high ground."

More Blatant Hypocrisy:

There are those who will "defend at all cost" even if the defense is stupid.

Yes, Michael, there are. A case in point:

I'll never agree with you that firearms are needed in National Parks.

How's that for "defend{ing} at all cost? "I'll never agree"--there is no data, no logic, no new knowledge I can attain that will change my mind.

But there's more.

There are those who will "defend at all cost" even if the defense is stupid.

I'll never agree with you that firearms are needed in National Parks. I'm 52 and have been to almost every National Park in this country more than once and have never needed to defend myself nor have I ever seen anyone have to defend themselves. Those who promote the story that protection is needed are just doing so at the beck and call of the NRA, they just sell fear to expand their desire to arm the nation.

That defensive is stupid. Very stupid.

There are people older than you who have never been saved by seat-belts. Or fire extinguishers. Or first aid kits. Or helmets. Or...

You have decided on your position for all eternity, regardless of any new data or arguments you may be exposed to. You have done so on the basis of 52 years of life on this earth. And yet you are the one complaining that "There are those who will 'defend at all cost' even if the defense is stupid."

OK.

Yet More Blatant Hypocrisy:

"They chose to site a few anecdotal stories," you complain, in a post with an anecdotal story:

In Moscow Idaho a kid responded to an assault on the Sheriff's station and jail. The bad shooter had an AK and shot the kid, he could have just as easily been shot by a police officer.

I guess some anecdotal stories are OK, like the one about the Moscow Idaho kid and about MichaelHarris' personal experiences in National Parks, right?

Disagreement With Yourself

Who does he think is shooting Rangers, Yogi? No, it's nuts with guns in the parks.

OK, there are nuts with guns in the park, people who are willing to shoot park Rangers.

And yet...

Except for tripping and cutting an elbow you've always been safe.

...and...

we also know that gang-bangers, rapists, and drug dealers don't frequent the trail up to Mt Rainier.

You know no such thing. I've been on trails up to Mt. Rainier too. I've been in the back country in Yosemite. I've been in Yellowstone. I've been in Chicago. I've been in New York City. In none of those places have I seen gang assaults. But those are just anecdotes--you know, the things you complain about being used in arguments. They don't prove that there is no gang activity on Rainier trails or in the Yosemite back country or in Chicago or in New York City.

There are bad guys in National Parks assaulting, shooting, and killing rangers at a higher rate than any other federal law enforcement agents are attacked anywhere else in America. You acknowledge that there are bad guys shooting rangers, but somehow that doesn't seem to touch the eternally established facts that "you've always been safe" in the parks and that there are no gang-bangers, rapist, or drug dealers frequenting the trail up to Mt Rainier.

Disagreement With Reality

When law enforcement responds to a shooting how does it tell the difference between the bad shooter and the good shooter who thinks he is helping? Do concealed carry people also carry a uniform?

And yet...

that I agree with, carry allowed in public parks by people who have undergone the proper credentialing. There are criminal predators who frequent public parks.

So in the national parks, people need to be concerned about police shooting the wrong person, while in the city parks that's not a big concern? Really? I suppose in the scenario you talked about, "flyfish{ing} in some of the most remote regions in Yellowstone," the concern for being out of uniform is especially severe, right?

Silly me, I thought the issue was survival, and that the odds of a ranger coming along and shooting the wrong person because of your lack of uniform was infinitesimal.

And how is it that the properly credentialed person who can be trusted out of uniform in city parks--with their relatively high population density, both of law enforcement and of ordinary citizens--cannot be trusted in the remote regions of Yellowstone?

Irrelevant Nonsense

Consider this, You are hiking down the trail with your family, a gang approaches, guns drawn. What chance do you have drawing your concealed weapon?

Let's say zero. So what?

Consider this, You are driving down the highway with your family and someone in a large truck forces your car over a cliff. What chance do you have of being saved by your seat-belt and airbags?

Or,

Consider this, You and your family are asleep one night and someone tosses Molotov cocktails through multiple windows of your basement and both stories of your house. What good will your hand-held fire extinguishers do?

There's more, but I'm bored now.

The saddest thing about the gun control reality distortion field is that it eventually robs people of their honesty. I am sure that you are intelligent enough to understand the points I've made here. I am also sure that at least most of them are valid. (I am well aware of my fallibility, and if you point out any mistakes I will gladly acknowledge them.)

The critical question is are you man enough, are you wise enough, are you grounded enough to admit when your arguments don't make sense or even agree with each other?

You can object to my tone and stand on foolish pride. You can ignore the whole thing. Or you can choose to improve yourself and your arguments.

The sad thing is that you might actually have some sound points. But projecting your old issues on to others is not the way to make them. We are not all polishing our weapons, fantasizing about our heroism, and seeking validation like you were.

If you could get past your eternal certainty and moral projection and care enough to make coherent, consistent arguments, there is a chance you could teach us all something. I, at least, would appreciate it.

[farmout rightarm]

112. Okay this is a little strange. You went to some trouble to explain to us that since you never had

any threats in your many years of wilderness trekking, implying that therefore it probably won't ever happen to anyone else, and then in another nearby post you say

"Consider this, You are hiking down the trail with your family, a gang approaches, guns drawn. What chance do you have drawing your concealed weapon? What chance do you have drawing any weapon? Criminals with weapons will almost always come to the game with a weapon drawn. Will your bravado kill you and your family? Will your own weapon be used to kill you and your family?"

Hmmm

[Tejas]

119. "You are hiking down the trail with your family, a gang approaches, guns drawn."

I still can't get over this, you come up with some of the most hilarious $#!T.

[Major Hogwash]

82. Not only that, but there is the infamous story of Claude Dallas that comes to mind

whenever people say that they need guns in national parks.

Claude Dallas murdered 2 Fish and Game wardens in cold blood back in the 1980s and they tried to make him out to be a folk hero.
Much the same way they are trying to make Sarah Palin a folk hero.

[Katya Mullethov]

107. Killed two possum cops and got 8 years off for good behavior

22 years for a double murder and is living in Nevada , what a sad refrain . If he had been a juvenile , he wouldn't have had to bother escaping as they would have set him free before he got restless .

[AtheistCrusader]

98. Congratulations.

I am happy for you that you have never needed a firearm to protect yourself, or another person. That's great. If I die a comfortable old man in the same situation, I will die perfectly happy.

But I will maintain my countermeasures, just like I maintain a thick, heavy first aid kit, and my CPR certification, and everything else I deem a worthwhile precaution for protecting human life.

[farmout rightarm]

111. I'm 67 and never had a fire in my house. I guess I've been an idiot for buying insurance.

:shrug:

[AtheistCrusader]

97. A pistol might help keep you alive while waiting for EMS/police.

Especially if the owner of that trap comes along to investigate/finish you off.

[Tejas]

77. clue for yue - park personnel sometimes make parks dangerous

http://trib.com/news/state-and-regional/article_df6c8172-2586-5048-a680-a7ae483259ac.html

Meanwhile, the Park Service has taken some heat for leaving a carcass out in the open near people, in an area just yards away from cabins at Jackson Lake Lodge.

VanDenbos, a 54-year-old Lander resident was walking near the Jackson Lake Lodge July 13 when he surprised a mother grizzly and three cubs feeding on a freshly killed elk calf. The mother charged him, and tearing flesh in the back and buttocks.

------------------------------------------------------


Of course, you can no doubt run faster than Mr. VanDenbos...

[MichaelHarris]

91. Yeah

that stuff happens every day, hahahahhahahahaha. You are so entertaining, you should go on the NRA comedy club circuit.

[Tejas]

116. Thanks for trolling, a 5th grader would at least

recognize that if Rangers need arms then the public just might also.



that stuff happens every day, hahahahhahahahaha. You are so entertaining, you should go on the NRA comedy club circuit.

[TPaine7]

121. The public doesn't need arms, because felons are bound by a code of honor.

In fact, the Felon's Beneficent Association(SM) and the League of Gentlemanly Thugs(TM) vie with each other to see who can do the most significant charity work in the community.

Both have strict rules against attacking civilians in National Parks--rangers and other law enforcement officials are fair game. Hurt a civilian and you're out of the club. Freelancers and ex-members don't get invited to the tea parties and barbecues.

And the gossip is brutal.

[Walk away]

50. I am sure I have been unfortunate enough to be around gun toters before.

It's creepy but unavoidable. However, I don't consider it an "up" side to a vacation. At your suggestion I will avoid States like Florida whenever possible.

Only in the Gun Lobby are people in favor of strong gun control considered un-progressive. I feel like I'm in the boonies.

[rd_kent]

59. Again, you provide nothing but emotional ignorance. How about a rational, fact based argument?

[SteveM]

69. Speaking of the "boonies," Sam Houston National Forrest allows...

camping, fishing, horse-back riding, trail biking, bird-watching... and hog-hunting with firearms 365 days of the year.

It's not a national park, but it has many of the accoutrements of one.

[TPaine7]

76. Your dog avatar is cute n/t

[Euromutt]

105. Okay, *you* don't like guns; we get it already!

We also get that you disapprove of the notion of private citizens being able to use lethal force to defend themselves against violent crimes.

But could we please dispense with the fiction that your particular squeamishness is representative of the entire, or even a majority of the general population? Or that somebody other than yourself appointed you the arbiter of what is "normal" or "progressive"?

You're entitled to your opinion. You're not entitled to pretend it is (not "should be," is) the rest of the country's.

[PavePusher]

108. Your choice of States to visit is going to be very limited.

Maryland, New Jersey, Illinois, New York, possibly California.

The rest of the states are fairly well stocked with public gun carriers, and California is starting to come around. And Illi (well Chi-town actually) is about to be lashed by the Supreme Court.

[NewMoonTherian]

130. Well that was kind of uncalled for.

From your wording, it seems you've never personally known a CCW holder. If you're sure you've been around a person lawfully carrying a gun, but you weren't aware of it at the time, how can you call the situation unfortunate? It's certainly a personal preference, but I'm having trouble seeing things from your point of view.

[PavePusher]

13. Were you under the misapprehension that crime of all types does not occur in Parks?

Google is your friend, look it up.

The people carrying legally are not the problem, there will be no "blood in the streets", and my Civil Rights have not superceded any of yours. (Unless, of course, you care to prove how they have...? Good luck with that.)

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[TPaine7]

29. Normal people

are able to think clearly and realize that their personal feelings, beliefs and wants do not outrank other people's civil rights.

They realize that this is emphatically true of civil rights enshrined in the Constitution. They realize that the "gun lobby" doesn't own any National Parks, the people do. Those would be the same people who ratified the Second and Fourteenth Amendments to protect the individual right to keep arms and to bear arms in public spaces.

Sane people realize that rights supersede feelings every time the two collide in the public sphere. Pro Bush bumper stickers, confederate flags, and far right propaganda don't make me feel comfortable or good. But the people who display and publish such things have the right to free expression. Rights trump feelings. When people criticize me, it (sometimes) makes me feel bad. But I have no right to feel good. No one has a right to feel good.

Imagine a world where people had the right to feel good. Dumping your boyfriend or girlfriend would violate rights. So would panning a performance, making a critical political ad, or failing to renew a contract. A person wearing a nicer dress, driving a nicer car, or even frowning at you would be violating your rights. No one could do or say anything that made you feel bad. No one could fail to do or fail to say anything that you required to feel good.

Basing rights in feelings is beyond infantile.

[Euromutt]

39. Can you prove you speak for "normal people" and/or "everyone else"?

Because I get the distinct impression you're actually only speaking for yourself, and claiming popular support to legitimize demanding that your own personal desires should trump other people's freedoms.

The new rule for the National Parks simply says that the applicable law is that of the state the park is in. Ergo, you can't carry a firearm in a National Park in Illinois, because you can't carry anywhere in Illinois; you can only carry concealed with a permit in a National Park in Texas or Florida, which don't permit open carry, etc. The "gun lobby" doesn't "own" the National Parks any more than it owns every public space in the relevant state.

Your profile says you live in New Jersey; both open and concealed carry requires a permit in New Jersey, and since New Jersey is a firearm-unfriendly "may issue" state, carry permits are decidedly rare. That does not change in a National Park in the Garden State.

[Callisto32]

45. False Dichotomy Fail

You insinuate "You are either normal, or you carry a gun, but not both." This is a false dichotomy and thus a fallacy.

[Walk away]

53. Why would I want to prove I am normal to someone who has to carry a gun...

in a family vacation area? That's a riot!

[rd_kent]

58. Do you actually have a rational argument against guns in parks or are you just being

emotional about it?


For all of your posts in this thread, I have yet to see a rational, fact based argument against the legal carry of guns in parks.

[SteveM]

70. We talk about lawful carrying in parks, and you bring up a riot!...

If you see a crime-wave emanating from a national/state park -- which isn't started by crim/thug who carry's a gun no matter what -- then post some links.

[Tim01]

9. In our park 2 women had their throats slit. The gun ban didn't help them. nt

[thunder rising]

11. And the ever expected exception makes the rule ... how clever.

[Tim01]

17. Look, here is the deal.

Per capita gun free parks are more dangerous and more violent, with more violent criminals, than cities. That is because people are more isolated, and law enforcement is farther away than in the city. Bad guys have more easy targets and more time to do what they want. And the people are not armed.
Having the people armed does not necessarily make the criminals more cautious, but it turns more victims into people who would have been a victim if they had not had a gun.

The numbers on this have been shown here over and over and over.

If you want to say that you "feel" this way or that way, fine. But the numbers show that guns in parks, or anywhere else, mostly only effect the person who has the gun. That is the way it is.

"feel" however you like.

[Name removed]

22. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Tim01]

26. Insults now, huh? Are you following some kind of handbook or something? nt

[PavePusher]

32. Darn.

I was going to give this entity one more chance before alerting on her/him/it.

Would have been my first. (sniff)...

[thunder rising]

33. Let's just hope the legislature keeps the Reagan rules in place ... lock'em up.

[PavePusher]

35. Are you volunteering to help provide security at Parks?

Somehow, I don't get the feeling that you are, but you are fine with restricting the ability of others to provide their own security. Your logic is fail.

[oneshooter]

36. Would they have any liability if someone is killed?

After all they changed the rules. No self defence allowed, depend on the state to protect you.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[rd_kent]

52. Key words - "it is important to families for people to feel safe". FEEL safe!

Nevermind that ACTUAL safety has not been changed......


Its all about the FEELING!



:puke:

[SteveM]

62. Sounds like D.C., all over again. nt

[SteveM]

64. Yep, I can see this in court, if it were to pass...

Judge: "And the intent of this legislation, viz-a-viz the federal legislation is what?"

Pingree: "This really keeps the status quo for rules that have been in effect since 1982,”

Judge: "I see. Why did you bring this to the court, Ms. Pingree?"

[Major Hogwash]

81. See, that's just it, this is a perfectly good proposal for the people of Maine.

But the author of the OP lives in Texas.

[Tejas]

83. regarding Maine, IDAHOAN snarks: "OP lives in Texas"

Your point is that though you reside in Idaho, you are more qualified in regards to firearms rights in Maine than someone from another state?


:rofl:

[X_Digger]

85. And the clue-by-four award goes to..

Tejas!!

For exemplary service in pointing out the hypocrisy of others and swinging the clue-by-four in a perfect arc with a solid THWACK!

Congratulations, don't spend it all in one place :)

[Major Hogwash]

113. Yeah, but see that's not the problem. The problem is they want states' rights with one issue, but

They want some other issues handled by the federal government with one blanket law for the entire country.

Take gun laws for example, they change from state to state.
Some states restrict guns more than the federal government, which is their right to do.

Whereas now some people want to roll back the decision of Roe v Wade and prevent abortions in some states, screaming at the top of their lungs about states' rights.
Yet, that is settled law, supposedly.

Same thing when it comes to gay rights.
They want to use states' rights to deal with that issue, not just one law applied across the entire country.

"Gawd, guns, and gays" was the meme Karl Rove used as wedge issues to help get George Bush into the White House in 2000.
His entire campaign focused on using those 3 dividing issues, rather than finding any similiarites on issues for anyone to agree upon.

The Teabaggers Party is a result of all of those years of divisiveness in this country under Bush.
People who simply can't deal with the fact that McCain got his ass whipped in the 2008 election.

We already know that the Republican party is not the party of morals, using gawd as a divisive issue, the way they did.
Yet, they are still going to try and block gays from obtaining their full rights as citizens in this country.
And they are going to push for more lenient laws on guns as the last card in their deck of warped ideas.

When the DADT is oveturned - and it will be - then we need to overturn DOMA, as well.
Because it was stupid from its inception. As an idea, it sucked. As a law, it sucks even more.

So, what's left, without gawd and gays to be used as wedge issues?
Gun laws.

Won't work.
Except in some states in the South.
Where they have been voting against their own best interests for over 30 years.

Yes, I am from Idaho.
But, I can always move to another state.

Howevr, that will never erase the memories we have here of Senator Larry Craig's ridiculous press conference in which he announced "I'm not gay. I've never been gay."
That wasn't what Craig pled guilty to.
It's not against the law to be gay.

That's not the law that Senator Craig pled guilty to.
And yet now, that is his moral legacy.

[X_Digger]

114. {insert non-sequitur here}

Some states restrict guns more than the federal government, which is their right to do.

Maybe not for long- If McDonald comes own on the side of incorporation against the states, with strict scrutiny, there will be a fairly high bar set. Obviously all those laws currently on the books don't suddenly become invalid, but a series of challenges that set a precedent for each 'kind' of law will slowly bring them all to the same level.

Your civil rights shouldn't depend on what state you live in- that's as true for gay marriage and access to reproductive services as it is for voting or the right to bear arms. That's Jim Crow thinking, and the same tired arguments were used to justify institutional racism via segregation or poll taxes and literacy tests.

McDonald (incorporation with strict scrutiny) will be a game changer. I'm not sure most folks really understand how much it will impact gun regulation.

[Major Hogwash]

131. The same is true for smoking medical marijuana.

They won't sell temporary hunting permits to anyone who is allowed to smoke medical marijuana in another state, no matter how infrequently they use it.
They don't consider it medicine here, or beneficial in any way whatsoever.

They won't recognize gay marriages from people married in another state.
And they are thinking of making English the official language of the state.

They already added a constitutional amendment to our state constititution 3 years ago preventing gay marriages, even though they had laws on the books making them illegal.
So, the constitutionality of those laws and amendments to state constitutions must be challenged in court, but with the Supreme Court we have now there ain't going be any hope and change.

And Roberts and Alito will be there for the next 30 years.

[oneshooter]

84. If I read this right,

What you are saying is that the State of Texas recognizes and protects all of the Rights the US Constitution guarantees all citizens, whereas the State of Maine only allows certain Rights to be exercised at certain places by certain people. Then you and I are in agreement!

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[MichaelHarris]

92. Did you kill

any mantraps this weekend?

[X_Digger]

93. Find any white extremists? (that are african american) n/t

[MichaelHarris]

94. not sure what

you're talking about, got a link? Hahahahahahaha I can't be mean anymore but I sure can laugh at ya. I can answer you question though, here's one http://loyaltoliberty.blogspot.com/

[X_Digger]

95. You know, your locked thread..

(Apparently linking to it is not kosher..) *shrug*

[MichaelHarris]

100. actually that

and it's considered a sub-thread. You really do hate DU rules don't you.

[X_Digger]

102. Who me? My posts aren't scattered with 'Deleted message's..

I wouldn't hesitate to say that I have fewer deleted posts than you. What does that say about your aversion to DU's rules?

Pot, I'd like to introduce you to an acquaintance of mine- Kettle.

[MichaelHarris]

103. figured with all of our feuding

you should see these two, I just finished building them:

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

115. Excellent looking pistols!

Could you tell us more about them?
I am unfamiliar with those style of arms.

They certainly look like a fun filled summer-afternoon to me!

[MichaelHarris]

122. they are both

Cap and ball .44 cal. One is a copy of the 1851 Navy Colt Sheriff in case hardened steel (the short barreled one) and the other is an 1851 Colt Army in brass. Some say brass frames stretch but if you use normal loads, 15-17 grains of black powder then it's OK. The case hardened frames are stronger but cost a little more.

The south used brass in their frames because it was cheaper and faster. All of the kits are now made it Italy, you can get a kit or a finished gun for around 80 dollars more. These old cap and ball pistols load and shoot just like the originals. If you ever see that Jeff Bridges movie about Wild Bill Hickock you'll see he used two pearl handled Colt 1851s. It was the same type of gun he used his entire life.

[Euromutt]

124. Isn't the one on the left a Remington?

Specifically, a New Model 1858 Remington Army. Well, okay, an Italian replica kit of a Confederate knockoff of a New Model 1858, but you know what I mean.

Still, awfully pretty, especially for a "weapon of war." I bet building one is half the fun; I must try that sometime.

[MichaelHarris]

126. I guess it could be

I always get the Army 1851 and the Navy 51 mixed up. I know one has has that large space between the cylinder and the frame. When I bought it I was pretty sure it said 1851, I got it from Dixie Gun works so I'll check it. I want to order a Walker also.

it is very fun to build because the metal work is a bit rough. I'm sort of anal when it comes to finishing metal surfaces so for me it's very rewarding.

[oneshooter]

125. The 51 Colt Navy Sheriff was never built in 44 caliber

ALL the "Navy" models were in 36cal, the "Army" models were in 44cal. A 44cal Navy is a copy of a revolver that never existed.
The brass framed Remington is the same, only built as a replica of a gun that never existed.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[MichaelHarris]

127. They do sell the kit

in .36, both of the better Italian companies offer both a .36 and a .44 Mine are from this company: http://www.pietta.us/products/Muzzleloadinguns/index.html


This is from the website : The gun is also available in the versions 1851 NAVY YANK SHERIFF1S, .36/.44 cal., nicknamed “Snub Nose” due to the shortened barrel (it was the most favorite gun of Wild Bill Hickok, the legendary sheriff of Abilene, Kansas) and 1851 NAVY YANK CIVILIAN .36/.44 cal.

[oneshooter]

128. The Italians are pretty good gun makers

but lousy historians!! Bill Hickok carried a matched pair of 1851 Navy Colt 7 1/2" bbl revolvers. They were 36cal and fired a 83gr .375lead round ball with 20gr of pistol grade powder. His favored method of carry was with the pistols stuck in a sash, butts forward in a double hand cross draw. Every morning he would discharge the loads, clean, and reload with fresh powder and ball.

I'm just saying that the 51Navy was not originally built in 44cal, nor were shorter than 7 1/2" barrels offered.

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[MichaelHarris]

129. it's even wierder than that

The website says it's a 5 1/2 barrel but mine is 5 inches. Actually it's 4 7/8s exactly.

[GreenStormCloud]

86. Is the reputation of Central Park at night in NYC still bad?

Guns are very tightly controlled in NYC. Beginning in the 1950s Central Park in NYC developed a national reputation as being very unsafe at night due to crime. It appears that gun control didn't do anything to stop crime in that park.

A quick google turns up enough reports of crime there that I conclude that Central Park is still unsafe at night and is becomeing less safe during the day.