Skip to main content

View Diary: Healthy Minds, Healthy Bodies: 10 Lessons from Guns-in-NPs Fiasco (33 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Tips and falmes... (7+ / 0-)

    and to answer the FAQs, I changed my Kossack name because (a) I just didn't like indigoblueskies that much and (b) some desire to come partially out of the anonymous closet and sign my name to my work.

    fka indigoblueskies

    by RLMiller on Tue May 26, 2009 at 05:16:05 PM PDT

    •  Environmental impact? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      KVoimakas

      It's still going to be illegal to actually fire a gun in the national parks.

      So we can expect only a few dozen new shooting incidents per year.  If you want to evaluate the environmental impact of 25-50 bullets in an area of about 80 million acres,  you're going to have to wait about 500 years,  for Federation engineers to invent the tricorder.

      Since PA state law already prohibits everyone but CCW holders and LEOs from carrying in Philadelphia,  there's not going to be any dramatic uptick in the number of guns at the Liberty Bell.  But I do hope that someday you'll appreciate the irony of singling out two monuments to armed citizens throwing off tyranny,  and armed citizens foiling hijackers when the government failed to do so,  to top your "Dumb Places to Carry Guns" list...

      Otoh,  you'll never be able to outdo the people who decided that the way to honor the heroism of the Flight 93 passengers was to enact regulations making it impossible for anyone else to repeat their actions.  Someday,  we should gather up all the confiscated nail clippers and melt them down to make a giant statue of a politician with his head up his ass.

      •  To sum up a lot of details: (0+ / 0-)

        first, the March 2009 ruling saw right through the Bush administration regulation BS: people who want to carry guns in parks do so because they will shoot them (whether in self-defense or for another reason).  Second, lead bullets poison endangered animals, and their impact is magnified in large predator animals who eat many small animals; they've already nearly wiped out the California condor, so we don't have to wait 500 years to see what we can already see.  

        I used Pennsylvania as an example simply because I wanted to emphasize that the new law will not affect just Yellowstone and the large Western parks.  I could have just as easily used Florida, which IIRC is the original shall-issue-permit state; or Virginia, see lesson #9 in diary.  

        fka indigoblueskies

        by RLMiller on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:10:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  asdf (0+ / 0-)

          first, the March 2009 ruling saw right through the Bush administration regulation BS: people who want to carry guns in parks do so because they will shoot them (whether in self-defense or for another reason).

          I need to nitpick this. I want to carry for self defense reasons but not because I WILL shoot, but because I COULD shoot it if I need to. Just because I have a gun doesn't mean I will be shooting, it just means I CAN.

          Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.00, -3.79

          by KVoimakas on Wed May 27, 2009 at 07:17:19 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Exactly! (0+ / 0-)

            the opinion (44 page pdf) quoted many public comments saying the same thing (some not quite as articulately as you did).

            fka indigoblueskies

            by RLMiller on Wed May 27, 2009 at 08:44:37 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  i m r teh articulate? (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RLMiller

              can haz english?

              But seriously, lead is bad. I wouldn't mind using clean ammo (they make solid copper bullets. almost 100% retention) in certain areas, like national parks, though I can see that being an issue for people who would like to defend themselves and can't afford the extremely expensive ammo.

              The bottom line for me is this: it's still illegal to poach/hunt, drink/carry, be negligent and cause harm. Punish those who break the law harshly and educate people on gun safety and we shouldn't see an issue with guns in national parks. I don't think we're going to see a huge increase in violent crimes (or negligent discharges) in national parks, but I'll wait and see.

              Abolish gun control, marriage, and helmet laws. -7.00, -3.79

              by KVoimakas on Wed May 27, 2009 at 08:51:14 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Now you're just being silly. (0+ / 0-)

          Millions of permit holders and LEOs carry every single day,  yet over 99.9% of them will never fire a single shot anywhere other than the range.

          Your scenario requires large numbers of otherwise-law-abiding citizens to step out of their tents one morning,  and say to themselves:  This place is so beautiful that I don't really deserve to be here.  I think I'll do penance for my unearned good fortune by shooting up a few trees and getting myself tossed in the federal hoosegow.

          There's simply no historical evidence to support the often-made prediction that "Change xxxxx to the law will produce a dramatic increase in shootings".

          The condors were killed by hunters.  Tens of thousands of them,  leaving lead-contaminated carcasses where the condors fed on them,  and even,  occasionally,  shooting the condors themselves.  You offer no reason to believe that there will be the dramatic surge in illegal hunting needed to have a tangible impact on carrion eaters.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site