Hikers allowed guns on Mt Rainier

Rescues, fires, weather, roads, trails, water, etc.
User avatar
edenooch
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:42 pm

Post by edenooch »

Oh man! could u imagine this in the san gabriel mountains trail system?

_________________________________________________________

Soon You Can Hike the Mt. Rainier Wonderland Trail Armed
By Laura Onstot in Environment
Thursday, Feb. 11 2010 @ 9:00AM

You know what would go perfect with this scene? A handgun.
​Imagine hiking along remote stretches of the 93-mile Wonderland Trail winding around the base of Mt. Rainier. Ah, bliss. Far away from the crowds at the lodge, it's just nature, you, your tent, trail mix, and your trusty assault rifle.

Thanks to a law that goes into effect on Feb. 22, you will soon be able to pack heat in the national parks, formerly Second Amendment (and accompanying noise and safety hazards)-free zones.

With less than two weeks until the law takes effect, a group of former park rangers is trying to stir up enough public outrage to get Congress to overturn the new rule or convince states to enact their own restrictions keeping deadly weapons out of Mt. Rainier, the North Cascades, the Olympics and the 55 other national parks throughout the United States.

"I just can't help but believe that most people in this country didn't expect that [openly carrying loaded guns] in national parks was going to be a reality in their lifetime," says Bill Wade, Chair of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees. Wade started his career as a ranger on Mt. Rainier and now lives in Arizona.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) attached an amendment allowing guns in the nation's parks to a credit-card regulations bill. That legislation, restricting credit-card interest rates and fees , was signed by Barack Obama last May.

9mmhandgun.jpg
It's not so good for bears, but you can bring one into the parks just in case.
​What do guns in national parks have to do with credit-card regulation? Absolutely nothing, but that's the way things work in Congress. I'll vote for your credit-card reform if you'll vote to allow my 9 mm into Paradise.

In a statement made at the time he introduced the amendment, Coburn argued that 16 murders in national parks over the course of one year showed that people needed to be able to defend themselves in the parks.

Coburn's amendment says a state's gun laws now apply to the national parks in that state. So any gun you're allowed to carry in Washington is allowed in our three parks. As we learned from Don Ward last week, that firearms are kosher in Starbucks too, so you can pick up a latte on your way to summit Rainier.

The national park retirees, as well as the Association of National Park Rangers and the Fraternal Order of Police U.S. Park Rangers Lodge authored a letter begging Congress to oppose Coburn's amendment, saying allowing guns in parks will increase poaching problems, scare wildlife when they are fired, and "compromise the safe atmosphere that is valued by Americans and expected by international tourists traveling to the United States."

And besides, says Wade, "all of the research is clear that guns are the least effective protection against things like bears and other wild animals." (He's backed up by the hunting magazine Sports Afield, which says that pepper spray is far more effective for stopping a charging bear.)

But Wade's arguments fell on deaf ears, and 67 senators voted to pass Coburn's amendment through with the credit-card bill. (Both Washington senators gave it a thumbs-down.)

Luckily for backcountry enthusiasts, the first rule of backpacking is keeping your pack as light as possible, and guns are quite heavy. Still, starting next Monday, you might want to be careful when setting up your tent late at night, lest the people in the neighboring site mistake you for a bear and start firing. :idea:
User avatar
AlanK
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:28 pm

Post by AlanK »

edenooch wrote:Oh man! could u imagine this in the san gabriel mountains trail system?
Don't tell me you've never run into someone packing while backpacking in the San Gabriels. :)
edenooch wrote:Luckily for backcountry enthusiasts, the first rule of backpacking is keeping your pack as light as possible, and guns are quite heavy. Still, starting next Monday, you might want to be careful when setting up your tent late at night, lest the people in the neighboring site mistake you for a bear and start firing. :idea:
It's far worse than that. The Second Amedment to the United States Constitution guarantees the right to arm bears.
User avatar
mve
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:53 pm

Post by mve »

It's your responsibility to protect and defend your family -- criminals obtain guns unlawfully and carry guns everywhere they want -- they couldn't care less about regulations/laws.

Only law abiding citizens follow regulations and that's whom this law will allow to carry.

When crooks know regular people can and are armed they'll have less incentive to take advantage of you even if you choose not to carry.

Be thankful for Second Amendment -- I've lived in countries where it's illegal to even own a gun in your own home and when shit hit the fan and system collapsed what do you think crooks were doing? Home invasions -- hot iron to your ass, rapes, killings, and anything else they wanted -- dragging you and your family to the woods, tying to a tree and leaving there for few days. It got so bad in the end that the cops would only show up after the crooks left, just to pick up the dead bodies.
User avatar
bertfivesix
Posts: 206
Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2007 3:29 pm

Post by bertfivesix »

"journalism"
User avatar
RichardK
Posts: 727
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:33 pm

Post by RichardK »

Could someone please tell me exactly how many people have died in national parks who could have saved themselves by carrying a weapon? Anybody know of an example or two?
User avatar
AlanK
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:28 pm

Post by AlanK »

mve wrote:Be thankful for Second Amendment
Just curious -- has anyone on this Board ever said anything bad about the Second Amendment? I'd think that Taco would shoot 'em! :lol:
User avatar
Socalhiker69
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:21 pm

Post by Socalhiker69 »

mve wrote: When crooks know regular people can and are armed they'll have less incentive to take advantage of you even if you choose not to carry.
you can't be serious, or?
User avatar
mve
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:53 pm

Post by mve »

RichardK wrote:Could someone please tell me exactly how many people have died in national parks who could have saved themselves by carrying a weapon? Anybody know of an example or two?
I don't care about statistics -- leave that to politicians -- they have nothing better to do.

When you are faced with a mean MF who has the means and intent to do you or your family harm -- the last thing on your mind will be the mathematical equations and probabilities that led you into this position. You will however, be wishing for a firm handle of a gun chambered with a +P hollow-point that is ready to take the bad guy out with one well placed shot.
User avatar
AlanK
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:28 pm

Post by AlanK »

mve wrote:When you are faced with a mean MF who has the means and intent to do you or your family harm -- the last thing on your mind will be the mathematical equations and probabilities that led you into this position.
The last thing on your mind may very well be "shit, I wish that mean MF had played fair and allowed me to produce my weapon."
User avatar
mve
Posts: 414
Joined: Fri Dec 11, 2009 12:53 pm

Post by mve »

Practice makes perfect -- "What one man can do another can do":
User avatar
Taco
Snownado survivor
Posts: 6036
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:35 pm

Post by Taco »

I should close this thread. This is fucking stupid. I shouldn't even reply to this bullshit. That said, I may run this forum, but it's not my forum, it belongs to you guys.

I guess I should tell every poster in here to detail their full experience with firearms and weapons, and more importantly by far, their personal experience with armed conflict, fighting, etc. But, I won't, because in the end, it doesn't matter. Life goes on. I don't care if someone hates guns or loves them, I'll still be me, with my own way of doing things. You'll still be you, with your own way of doing things.

No hard feelings.

Carry on.
User avatar
Ze Hiker
Posts: 1432
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:14 pm

Post by Ze Hiker »

meh, no one ever actually brings good stats to articles / discussion about guns. i almost don't care.

people argue that there's nary a chance of needing to use it, which makes sense but also points to the fact that the gun is just going to get left in the bottom of the backpack, so no harm.

people who really want to pack guns are already doing so. so start with the status quo and think who now will additionally start carrying. are they harmful?

this article is obviously pretty biased and doesn't provide any real proof for their points. I am interested in the assumption that people will be bringing their guns and start shooting wildlife (or shooting randomly and scaring them?). Are they saying more people will hunt? Pretty sure this doesn't change hunting laws. Or they just think people with guns just like to randomly shoot in the air???
User avatar
Ze Hiker
Posts: 1432
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2008 7:14 pm

Post by Ze Hiker »

TacoDelRio wrote: I guess I should tell every poster in here to detail their full experience with firearms and weapons, and more importantly by far, their personal experience with armed conflict, fighting, etc.
Carry on.
What, only people who are trained with guns / used them should have an opinion? :P

Are you an elitist?
User avatar
AlanK
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:28 pm

Post by AlanK »

TacoDelRio wrote:I should close this thread. This is fucking stupid. I shouldn't even reply to this bullshit. That said, I may run this forum, but it's not my forum, it belongs to you guys.

I guess I should tell every poster in here to detail their full experience with firearms and weapons, and more importantly by far, their personal experience with armed conflict, fighting, etc. But, I won't, because in the end, it doesn't matter. Life goes on. I don't care if someone hates guns or loves them, I'll still be me, with my own way of doing things. You'll still be you, with your own way of doing things.

No hard feelings.

Carry on.
Good statement. I won't go on about guns. Hell, I only made a couple of trivial comments anyway. But I will take this opportunity to comment that I like the approach to free speech on this forum. I can't recall a thread being closed. The few posters who have managed to get banned had to push pretty hard to earn that status. You run a good ship, Taco!
User avatar
edenooch
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:42 pm

Post by edenooch »

whatever im no gun fanatic. but im no casual markman either.
I jsut bring info that has to do with hikers i could careless your stances on the article

u beter notmess with me
User avatar
Rumpled
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:57 pm

Post by Rumpled »

Any number of violent episodes might have been stopped if the victims had means to defend themself.
I typically carry where I can.
User avatar
Socalhiker69
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:21 pm

Post by Socalhiker69 »

Rumpled wrote:Any number of violent episodes might have been stopped if the victims had means to defend themself.
I typically carry where I can.

I hope I will never run into you guys
User avatar
Rumpled
Posts: 271
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 10:57 pm

Post by Rumpled »

Socalhiker69 wrote:
mve wrote: When crooks know regular people can and are armed they'll have less incentive to take advantage of you even if you choose not to carry.
you can't be serious, or?
Actually, yes. It's a simple odds game. In areas where more people have CCW's; crime goes down. Crooks know that their odds are getting worse. They'll go to a gun free zone.
User avatar
Socalhiker69
Posts: 21
Joined: Wed Nov 19, 2008 12:21 pm

Post by Socalhiker69 »

Rumpled wrote:
Socalhiker69 wrote:
mve wrote: When crooks know regular people can and are armed they'll have less incentive to take advantage of you even if you choose not to carry.
you can't be serious, or?
Actually, yes. It's a simple odds game. In areas where more people have CCW's; crime goes down. Crooks know that their odds are getting worse. They'll go to a gun free zone.
All all that is based on what evidence? There are dozens of studies on that topic showing exact the opposite.
User avatar
HikeUp
Posts: 3932
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:21 pm

Post by HikeUp »

Both sides...start citing evidence (with links, etc. if possible) or else I'm gonna ban something....um...like...NO BEER FOR YOU!!!
User avatar
Zach
Posts: 522
Joined: Sun Jan 04, 2009 4:25 pm

Post by Zach »

Image
User avatar
AlanK
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:28 pm

Post by AlanK »

HikeUp wrote:Both sides...start citing evidence (with links, etc. if possible) or else I'm gonna ban something....um...like...NO BEER FOR YOU!!!
Don't ban my beer, Brian!

I have not taken a side on this and am ambivalent. I understand that we have a Second Amendment and that it is not going to disappear. And I don't begrudge any of you your guns (if you have 'em).

There are statistics used by all sides of gun arguments. Some groups, like the National Academy of Sciences, have looked at the bulk of the evidence, as opposed to one study.

This Wikipedia article is not bad and has references to the actual sources. Quoting a relevant section:
Economist John Lott has argued that right-to-carry laws create a perception that more potential crime victims might be carrying firearms, and thus serve as a deterrent against crime.[111] Lott's study has been criticized for not adequately controlling for other factors, including other state laws also enacted, such as Florida's laws requiring background checks and waiting period for handgun buyers.[112] When Lott's data was re-analyzed by some researchers, the only statistically significant effect of concealed-carry laws found was an increase in assaults,[112] with similar findings by Jens Ludwig.[113] Since concealed-carry permits are only given to adults, Philip J. Cook suggests that analysis should focus on the relationship with adult and not juvenile gun incident rates.[51] He finds a small, positive effect of concealed-carry laws on adult homicide rates, but states the effect is not statistically significant.[51] The National Academy of Science has found no evidence that shows right-to-carry laws have an impact, either way, on rates of violent crime.[7] NAS suggests that new analytical approaches and datasets at the county or local level are needed to evaluate adequately the impact of right-to-carry laws.[114]
The point is that Lott's study is weak evidence. The actual evidence does not support the idea that concealed carry laws help or the idea that they hurt.

Repeating: "The National Academy of Science has found no evidence that shows right-to-carry laws have an impact, either way, on rates of violent crime." Let's not waste space here on arguing for either side based on actual facts. And let's not argue without them. In other words, let's move on! :D

Ah, shoot. We know that ain't gonna happen. :(

P.S. I hadn't seen Zach's post before I wrote this one, but I can live with being called "retarded." :lol:
User avatar
HikeUp
Posts: 3932
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:21 pm

Post by HikeUp »

AlanK wrote:Ah, shoot.
LOL.
User avatar
AlanK
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:28 pm

Post by AlanK »

HikeUp wrote:
AlanK wrote:Ah, shoot.
LOL.
I shoot to kill.
User avatar
edenooch
Posts: 504
Joined: Fri Jul 03, 2009 7:42 pm

Post by edenooch »

Zach wrote:Image
Image

Hey BRO!
We lak guns!
User avatar
RichardK
Posts: 727
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2007 12:33 pm

Post by RichardK »

A general discussion about gun control and the meaning of the Second Amendment would accomplish nothing in this forum. There are other places to do that. But, the first post concerned the change in the law allowing weapons in National Parks. Does anyone really believe that you need to pack heat in the Yosemite Valley? And I am still waiting for a single example of where someone in a National Park actually would have benefitted from going armed.
User avatar
obie
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:36 pm

Post by obie »

This is interesting. I wondered how many people carried out 'there'.
I've thought about it since I do many of my rides solo, in areas that are new to me.

I rode the 2N07 fire road from GRR up to Sunset Peak last month. The bullet-riddled pipe gate at the start didn't faze me a bit. What did bother me was the sight of two plinkers and their cans sitting in the middle of the road just around the first bend. Talk about dumb shits...broad daylight, 100 yds. off a paved road/parking area and shooting down towards upcoming hikers/bikers. I let it go...just rode by them and gave a "WTF" look.

I wish carry-laws would be respected and used wisely. Unfortunatly, in this real-world, there are dingbats/fools who inevitably will make a mess of this for everyone.
User avatar
Taco
Snownado survivor
Posts: 6036
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:35 pm

Post by Taco »

wrote:
TacoDelRio wrote: I guess I should tell every poster in here to detail their full experience with firearms and weapons, and more importantly by far, their personal experience with armed conflict, fighting, etc.
Carry on.
What, only people who are trained with guns / used them should have an opinion? :P

Are you an elitist?
Yes.
Socalhiker69 wrote:All all that is based on what evidence? There are dozens of studies on that topic showing exact the opposite.
G, even if I didn't already know you, I could tell immediately by how and what you wrote that you are a post-WWII German Civilian who has moved here to the USA. :lol: I am not kidding.

It is a simple fact, unhindered by retarded social studies, that someone is safer if they're armed than if they're unarmed in nearly any situation. By this, I obviously don't mean someone gets/buys a handgun and goes about their daily business. Training is needed.

When I walk to the store unarmed (firearms, at least), I feel rather defenseless. I live in an OK neighborhood surrounded by shitty neighborhoods, and I walk through those shitty neighborhoods to do what I must, getting groceries etc. If I was armed, I would feel comfortable.

I live in La Puente. La Puente sucks. "Social encounters" here are a reality, not something someone watches on TV where some dude gets shot by homies in some far away hood in East LA.



AlanK, don't feel you have to hold back or anything. I wasn't calling anyone out by saying what I said. I believe everyone should speak their mind, and not hold back. That's what this forum is for. I spoke my mind.



On the subject of carrying in whatever park, beats me. I live here, and I pack whenever possible in SoCal. Why? We have lots of people in SoCal. Go up East Fork in the summer to go hiking and you might have a dude raise a chainsaw at your car while you're driving like some fucking tough guy did with me a year or two ago. There are pot farmers. Taggers (who, IMHO, should have one put in their head and left on site. Dumbshits of the first order). I know guys covered in tats wearing Dickie's shorts and wifebeaters ain't scouting for crags. They're almost definitely armed, you're not. Feel comfortable yet?

Then again... could just stay home. Why?
User avatar
AlanK
Posts: 1069
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 9:28 pm

Post by AlanK »

TacoDelRio wrote:AlanK, don't feel you have to hold back or anything. I wasn't calling anyone out by saying what I said. I believe everyone should speak their mind, and not hold back. That's what this forum is for. I spoke my mind.
I have never felt a need to hold back here. I like this forum. And yes, I know you (and I don't mean just Taco here) will speak your mind. :D

I have been lucky in that I have always lived in places where I could walk around at any hour of the day without feeling like I needed protection. I understand that one bad guy in the wrong place could prove me wrong. On the other hand, it's worked for me so far -- 58 years as of Thursday.

If I lived in a very different place, I might change my behavior. In any case, I will not tell you whether or not you should, say, carry a gun. That's your business.

When someone argues that crime is reduced when people carry guns, they are necessarily arguing statistics. To pretend that one can just know the answer to an obviously statistical question without statistics makes no sense. It is my understanding that the most thorough examinations of the data (from all over the world) show that more guns do not clearly lead to either more or less crime.

Part of the problem is the people who carry guns who are more likely to shoot themselves than any potential assailant. Another is guys who believe that guns inoculate you against assault. They don't. However, I have no problem with the claim that a person who knows what he's doing is safer with a gun than without. Since I have no way of judging the preparedness of people who post here, I refrain from commenting on their individual situations. On the other hand, some of the talk comes off as cheap. Taco makes a good point on that front!
User avatar
Taco
Snownado survivor
Posts: 6036
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:35 pm

Post by Taco »

AlanK wrote:Part of the problem is the people who carry guns who are more likely to shoot themselves than any potential assailant. Another is guys who believe that guns inoculate you against assault. They don't. However, I have no problem with the claim that a person who knows what he's doing is safer with a gun than without. Since I have no way of judging the preparedness of people who post here, I refrain from commenting on their individual situations. On the other hand, some of the talk comes off as cheap. Taco makes a good point on that front!
That's where the training comes in. From my own observations, 90% of people don't have the discipline to train.
Post Reply