Nah. He's off-line right now.:lol:
Printable View
Nah. He's off-line right now.:lol:
Ban Buttons..... Not you. Me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mischief
I know that owning a gun does not mean your a drunken redneck. I am not a lefty-liberal, or anti-gun. I own a lot of firearms and usually vote Liberatarian.
But, I have been around a lot of tourist near alot of Grizzlies. And, I have been around alot of armed tourist near Grizzlies. And, I can promise you that the vast majority of visitors to National Parks with Grizzly bears, are waaay to quick to feel threatened by bears.
I personally have had several hunting clients over the years almost shoot Grizzlies, because the bear was with 100 yards of them. These were all men on hunting trips- no kids or wives near by to be protecting...they felt threatened and felt they had the right to kill the bear.
This is far different than the normal scenarios people in cities with concealed weapon permits encounter.
You're right. In the cities, the problem is with the "rats"....... :sneaky2:Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason_Montana
But according to the experts at the brady campaign, families will have to stare down AK-47s on nature hikes! :ohmy:Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
You know, pass a law that gives state licenced CCW carriers the right to carry in parks, all of a sudden you'll have AKs being pointed at families.
And while I support this bill for the most part I just hope they make it clear to people that it doesn't give them probable cause to shoot animals, unless they really are about to get eaten, and we all know how rare that actually is.
I don't believe this will impact wolves and grizzlies. There would still be hefty fines in place, but self defense would be available for humans under attack, which is a good thing.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason_Montana
So if a bear is killing your child/wife or other loved one, put down the gun!
wussy pistolero? I won't even comment on this statement.
If you were truly pro gun rights, then you would support our 2nd amenment rights period.
I believe he is. In fact he says he is in his post. He also says, that based on his experience that he has seen some irresponsible - or at least some potential irresponsible use of firearms when it comes to encounters with wildlife. I don't share those same concerns, but I haven't guided groups into the wilderness as Jason has either. I know what my capabilities and experiences are. You will find no bigger supporter of the 2nd Amendment than me. That being said, when I am at gun shows (I go to a lot of them) the thought often runs through my head when I see some individuals buying guns that no good is going to happen here. Those thoughts are based soley on appearances and my own personal preconcieved (or prejudices) that I own. I am still glad the 2nd Amendment is in place, but the thoughts run through my head - just as I'm sure they do with Jason.Quote:
Originally Posted by kx250kev
I've carried for 45+yrs and us Rednecks were handling guns when these "experts" were wearing 3 cornered pants. I have never pulled my carry 45 on anyone in the states, therefore I haven't shot anyone. Gotta admit some folks think a 25 will stop a charging elephant and a gun is a magic wand to wave. I pay insurance but I don't plan on running anyone down, carry a firearm but don't want to use it. If you think anyone is gonna charge a grizzly with a 22, well it won't take long to weed out those too stupid to reproduce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by crashdive123
Crash, you're one of the greatest voices on this board, and I respect your words/posts greatly. I too worry about some individuals with guns, but this forum topic was really directed at CCW permit holders. They are much more responsible than a non-CCW permit holder IMHO, and most visitors to these parks are not permit holders. As for me, I can't help but get very worried and take things very personal when I read anti CCW comments. Ultimately I would not approve of anyone shooting bears or wolves at 100 yards anymore than shooting a human at those distances. It better be a life saving DGU situation when that trigger is pulled. Anything else should result in severe penalties.
Kx250kev - I agree with you. I guess my only point earlier was that I didn't think Jason was expressing an anti CCW position. Maybe I'm wrong, but that's how I interpreted his comments.
@kx250kev - If non-permit holders are your concern then think about this. Non-permit holders have always carried. What makes this law any different for them? If they walk around without a CCW, making them illegal, what makes you think they haven't been walking through the parks all this time?
I'm with Coot. A defensive carry weapon is not a flag. It isn't for waving around. If I let it rear it's head then it will have something to say. But only then.
Kev- I am not anti CCW, I am pro gun- go back and read some of my posts from the past year and you'll see that. In fact, I believe in the original "Peacekeeper" philosophy of Samuel Colt- if everyone was carrying a pistol than we'd be a more peaceful society.
But, there are a few places guns don't need to be- one is schools. The reason- kids are a precious resource and need to be protected. Put metal detectors at the doors, and let no guns in. Protect the resource.
Glacier/Yellowstone/Grand Teton National Parks are the last parks in the lower 48 that have the natural predator/prey relationships in tact. All the animals that were here, prior to European contact are here- but they are on rocking ground. These parks are essentially islands surrounded by lands that are inhospitable to large predators when they roam out of the boundaries. These parks are a stronghold for these symbols of wilderness, and in my eyes are a precious resource that need to be protected and preserved for future generations.
I say, put a metal detector at the gates, and let no guns in. Like schools- protect the resource. This is not restricting anyones freedom. You have the freedom to NOT GO INTO THE PARK.
To me, its all about priorities. Wilderness is my number one priority. Guns aren't endangered....and in my eyes, neither are gun rights. There are far more guns in this country than when my ancestors arrived here. But, truly wild places were Grizzlies get to roam are becoming pretty darn scarce.
True point...I know lots of people that carry firearms in the parks all the time. But, since those folks know they are breaking the law, they keep them buried under the seat, or deep in a backpack- basically in a useless place if they're needed. So, if you can't reach it...why even carry it. Its just extra weight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
But, if they become allowed in the parks, and are more accessible, then we will start to see dead bears. It happens every year in National Forests, it will undoubtedly start happening in the parks
I can see I need to better explain myself...I understand your comments about my words, because you don't know me, or know what is going through my head.Quote:
Originally Posted by kx250kev
First...will start with my "wussy pistolero" comment.
There are alot of people out there that have hand cannon courage- put a gun in there hand and they think they are invincible. I meet folks like this all the time, they say things like, "its the kind of place you only go if your packin" or, "I'd never go there without my pistol"- I hear people often make comments like this when discussing going into Bear country, or ghetto's.
To me, those are wussy pistoleros. Basically, fools who think guns are there best tools for survival. I am a true survivalist, and I believe only in self-reliance. A gun is not my best survival tool- my brain is. Unless, your a cop, or a soldier and have no choice but to go into places were a gun is a necessity your an idiot. Wussy pistoleros are people who get themselves into situations that they believe the only way out is with gunfire.
Second, in National Parks, I don't think guns should be used in self-defense against animals. I view them as animal sanctuaries, and Very, very rarely to bears attack without reason or provacation. Read
"Bear Attacks...their causes and avoidances" by Stephen Herrero
"Mark of the Grizzly...bear attacks & the lessons learned" by Scott McMillion
"Hiking with Grizzlies..proven strategies for hiking in bear country" Tim Rubbert
and you'll come to the understanding that almost all bear attacks could be prevented if people would use their brains and follow some basic rules for traveling in bear country. So, in all actuallity, virtually all attacks on humans are due to humans not acting appropriatly in bear country. So, shooting a bear that charged you after you dumbly stumbled onto her and her cubs feeding on a dead elk- is not really self defense. If you'd be using your brain and following proper protocol the whole situation could have been avoided.
Lastly, I am not a blind follower. I am a free thinker! your comment
"If you were truly pro gun rights, then you would support our 2nd amenment rights period" is in my opinion short-sighted and naieve. I am not talking about taking away our guns, I am talking about protecting bears.
Not to belabor the point. You are entitled to your opinion and I respect you for standing up for what you believe in. I would like to see the numbers of bears killed by non-CCW folks as opposed to CCW folks. I would venture a guess it is the former that is doing the shooting.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason
Folks who carry a legal, defensive weapon, on the other hand, rarely even talk about it in public, much less bring it out. Why? Because they know if they do something stupid they run the risk of loosing their CCW privilege (I consider it a right but I'll use the word privilege for the sake of the conversation). Those folks that don't bother acquiring a CCW or can't acquire one because they have a felony conviction or domestic violence arrest or some other infraction are going to carry no matter what. Those are the very folks I'm concerned about. As much as you. I don't want them on the property either but they are there, have always been there and will always be there. I just want the right to protect myself from THEM not the animals. I'm not concerned about animals attacking me. If I want to protect myself from the animals, I'll buy bear spray.
+1 rick, I support this bill because I think people should have thier right to defend themselves agaisnt muggers and rapists extended to parks, and especially to defend against the kind of people who would find it OK to kill an endangered species over a picnic basket. I have been visiting national parks since I was old enough to talk, and while I've seen lot's of black bear, up close even on trails and such, they are always just minding thier own business and I've never felt threatened. If you practice common sense and leave them alone and with keeping your food at a reasonable distance away from where you sleep, you should never have a problem with bear, and especially not the lethal kind, since most bear attacks can be stopped without killing the creature.
Non-permit holders are not a concern of mine. Personally, I think the 2nd amenment is our "permit", but I was just relating to Crash's comment on some peoples safety habits with guns. Heck, I even worry about the people next to me when I'm at the range. Safety is always on my mind. The nice thing about CCW permit holders is all the great training that they receive.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason_Montana
Jason, we agree that wilderness, wildlife and children are a precious resource. As far as gun free zones, they just don't work in my opinion unless every every conceivable exit/entry is patrolled and secure. (airports are about the only good example of a gun free zone) but it just wouldn't work for schools and parks.
Not to start a food fight (I am more closely aligned to Vermont's carry laws), but I have been issued a concealed carry permit in three states at various times. I'm sure that it varies from state to state, but there was not training (real training) required. Washington and Georgia - just send in the application along with the finger print card. Florida - take a three or four hour class that covers the law, not safe handling. I would hope that everybody that carries, or owns a weapon would be trained in the proper and safe handling of weapons. Unfortunately, that is not always the case.Quote:
Originally Posted by kx250kev
Jason, I understand you value nature highly. I too value nature/wildlife, and don't want people shooting bears that may make a bluff charge, or any animals in the parks for that matter, but we'll have to "agree to disagree" when it comes to what we each value most in this scenerio. For me it would be human life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason_Montana