Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board New Gun Law for National Parks

Well, you are entitled to your opinion and I support your right to free speech and i'll defend your right to free speech. I dont think it was very nice of you or very mature to insult me and my family but as an adult I can deal with.
Since this thread is now getting personal and off topic I am going to refrain from posting in it anymore.

I wasn't insulting your family. I was feeling sorry for them. You come across as an inconsiderate ass and I suspect you an embarrassment to those around you. Let's see if you can actually refrain from responding.

You're doing great. I was sure there would be another knee jerk outburst from you by now.

Hmmm, As an American, I also have the right to burp, fart and make disgusting noises in public. But common sense tells me I shouldn't do it. I have nothing against the legal use of firearms, but common sense says it "may" not be a good idea to carry one on a public street. I also believe that common sense would tell me there is no reason for me to carry a weapon in a National Park. The Grizz's were all killed off in Cali about 100 years ago, so I don't have to worry about them. Mountain Lions aren't exactly stalking many hikers and it's extremely rare for one of them to attack. Coyote's are too scared. You're more likely to fall and hit your head then to have a threat from some outside danger.
Probably much more reasonable to put a helmet on when you're hiking then to carry a gun.

And.....you can sure tell it's Winter and everyone's a bit anxious to get out of the house and go hiking. Isn't this about the time that Doug pulls the plug?

He's out there pouting right now. Don't expect a response from him.

You said it Icy! But it's all your fault, y'know - you started this thread . . .

Like I said earlier, when I first saw this topic I would've bet the house on 100 responses. Certain flashpoint topics are guaranteed to generate debate that almost always coalesces into frustration and then personal attacks - guns, abortion, the environment, the death penalty, immigration, and on and on. Strongly-held beliefs at opposition don't need much nudging to turn them into a raging battle. Very unfortunate, but that doesn't mean that the rest of us can't have a civil discussion on a topic. I hope Doug doesn't shut down this thread as suggested earlier - it's a subject that has a great deal of bearing on the central and eastern California area and the majority of the audience for this board. Clearly, with 5 NPs so close together, the issue is not going to go away. Rather, I would urge the (few) combatants to calm down and take a deep breath. Think twice, post once. Discuss or debate rationally and keep the emotional outbursts to a minimum. My mom always told me I had two ears and one mouth for a good reason, and that I should use them proportionately. Excellent advice.

The others watching this free-for-all are probably going to be less-inclined to offer their opinion if a scathing personal attack seems the likely result. Remember why we're all here on this board - a love of the wilderness and the Sierra/Whitney in particular. We have a helluva lot more in common than a few poorly-constructed remarks indicate. Mike and Fuji might realize that if they called a truce and went for a hike together.

Icy, no argument here. It's certainly a problem, as are home burglaries that result in firearms being stolen. People steal guns and always will. I think we can agree, though, that the bad guys are not getting their arsenal exclusively from home and auto burglaries. Channeling weapons to the bad guys is an industry, and not at all dependent on taking them from the law-abiding owners.

I would counter with the example that driving is not restricted excessively because of the incredible number of accident deaths or the other bad things that are the result of sliding behind a wheel - and the "right" to drive is not in the US Constitution, which doesn't even allow the comparison on the same podium as gun ownership, free speech, right to assembly or other guaranteed liberties. People insist on driving (quite badly and recklessly at times), and many people also insist on reasonable gun ownership regulations, which sometimes produce less than desirable results. There's no perfect solution for either - it's a matter of what level of risk the group at large is willing to accept in order to possess a liberty.

I would also be interested in how stolen firearms from autos or homes in a less-regulated big city like Atlanta compare to a heavily-regulated big city like Chicago or Washington (I'm sure Alan is on it - do your magic, dude!). My gut tells me the difference may not be as dramatic as expected.

Well said bulldog34,

I don't feel like we have heard enough from the more moderate members on this issue. This will be my last post on this thread for awhile because, I've learned so much about how people feel and think about firearms relating to open carry in National Parks. For me, it's very important to listen to people that don't agree with my views.

We have such a broad range of weather in our Sierra Nevada: Serene afternoon sunsets, loud violent terrifying thunderstorms, cloudless hot days when you can see forever, white-out subfreezing snowstorms, and the quiet tranquility of a morning sunrise.

People that take the time and dedicate their personal energy and resources to hike into the back country also have a wide range of temperament and life perspective. I think there is enough room for all of us in our National Parks and on this message board for which it is dedicated.

Ditto Icy. I'm now an observer of this topic, other than replying to any posts directed my way.

What I'd really like to hear is the opinions of the female board members, of which there are a bunch. Bee and BiletChick weighed in earlier, but it's pretty much been a testosterone-laced discussion. The prospect of armed national parks affects women as much as men, and there have to be some pretty signficant thoughts out there among the gentler gender. I'd love to hear them.

Okay, doggie -- you asked!

Let me just say for experience sake, that I have been surrounded by firearms my whole adult life, and I am very proficient at nailing loquats from trees and eliminating small vermin on the ground. WHile serving in a special unit in the IDF, I was trained and issued a variety of weapons, but I chose to let the more experienced soldiers "pack the heat" (just wanted to use that goofy description)while I packed the medical supplies (one of those strange paradoxes of war)

I have mentioned before that I am an ardent believer in statistics, and fortunately -- or unfortunately -- working in a Mortuary allows me all sorts of access to numbers related to death. One of the most surprising statistics that I read is how often the victim knew her assailant, be it for minutes, hours, days or years. Women are stalked, hunted, and preyed apon many times in the most strategic ways, rather than being "rushed" at from a distance, like some lineman taking down the quarterback. Referring specifically to assualts in National Parks as they relate to women, you will read over and again that the huge percent of the small numbers were perpetrated by boyfriends, husbands, and occasionaly, a stray whom the woman allowed to befriend her. At the end of the list is the random encounter/assualt.

Carrying sidearms in parks, specifically.

I am a little confused in the discusssion as to whether the sidearm must be unloaded or not when "openly packed" on her hip in the backcountry. Unloaded sidearm proudly displayed as some means of deterrant? (assuming unloaded) Excuse me while I stop choking myself with laughter! Most people are so damned inefficient with a loaded weapon, that I daresay an assailant could stand around twidling his thumbs waiting around for most individuals to get their act together enough to be effective with the sidearm that started out as unloaded.

Secondly, in reference to the Hilton(sp) case, I don't know how he overpowered her, specifically, but I will say that it is very difficult to maneuver and defend onesself with a firearm when someone is within the strike zone (he used a baton on his victims). A better weapon would be martial arts -- a hard form (my understanding that the victim put up a good fight; I don't know what her level of training was) I assert that once the assualt was launched, a firearm would have been marginal at best as a means of defense. Worth mentioning: it was stated later on that Hilton abandoned attempts on the first targeted victim because she was with a group. While most of us solo hiking females believe that it is our constitutional right to hike alone, at the same time, it immediately increases our chances of an assualt.

Sidearms as a display of force -- keep back, mo-fo!

An armed society is a polite society? Perhaps. If everyone is trained and practices regularly. Right. You can't even get people to overcome the lard on their asses. I believe in the inherent laziness of human beings, and I also believe that there is a certain vanity associated with openly displaying firearms: folks wanna wear it, but they don't want to work for the privilidge of doing so (practice). If I could be sure that those "ladies packing heat" could REALLY pack that heat in a matter of seconds, perhaps I could be convinced that it would serve some purpose other than a false sense of security.

Bee

Hey Bulldog, Geeez, you are going to be way fun to hike with!!! I do remember you saying you're a bit quiet on the trail though. I'm usually a bit too quiet for everyone else, so we'll see what happens.

The debate here on the board is great.....but the personal attacks seem a bit out of line. After all, I truly believe that most of the people on this board would get along extremely well on the trail. I could actually see a couple of people who disagree on this board, being good buds on Whitney. Anonomousity on the internet brings out stronger emotions, but we really aren't all that anonomous. Even as a Whitney Newbie", I've met a few people from this board. So, sooner or later, there's a good chance posters on WPSMB will meet. And that's a good thing. There may even be a beer shared soon at the WPS by some of the stronger posters. And, if not, I still remember Bulldog offering beers when he gets to Whitney in July.

As a note, you have really brought out your "A" game on this subject. This thread has been very educational.

OK, I said I'd shut up - but this is a direct response to the posting by my buddy Joe Quillan, alias quillansculpture, who is undoubtedly the only nine-and-a-half-fingered, cancer-surviving, artificially-hipped, gunshot-victim sculpture artist to have ever summitted Whitney. The man has excellent character and a will of iron - we should all be so gifted.

Joe, as originally planned for this weekend, you and I and DJ and Rod should be standing on the summit of Corkscrew Peak or some other superb spot in Death Valley. I've been very conscious of this fact all weekend, dammit, but family deaths have a way of screwing the best plans. Count on Whitney in July, my friend - we'll be there!

To Joe's point, many people on this board eventually meet in the Sierra. Unfortunately, due to me being here, and most everyone else being there, the only participant on this board I've ever met face-to-face is Doug Senior. I have, however, had the extremely good fortune to form friendships through this board, and Joe is a shining example of that. I typically spend a week hiking DV in February or early March most years, and this year's trip was going to be a chance to finally meet and hike with Joe and Rod from these boards. Unfortunately, my father-in-law passed away a few weeks ago and threw those plans into chaos. So we postpone a few months and climb Whitney together in July (Moosie, can we convince you to put your hand in the lottery bin one more time?) - something I'm very much looking forward to.

Joe's comment about the drinks referred to my promise to buy a round or five this weekend for any board members who were present at the (fill in the blank) watering hole in Lone Pine while we were there. That promise will be kept, but it's going to have to be July.

And I am quiet on the trail, but not because I'm a quiet kind of guy (surely that can be deduced from my posts). I'm quiet on the trail because I (1) generally hike solo, and (2) otherwise hike with my wife and daughter, who dominate all available chat time . . .

My brief comments. I used to try to patch up the survivors of the mayhem. Those I could not, I sent to Bee.

I cannot remember seeing anyone carrying a gun (other than LEO's or hunters in the field) in the last 20 years (can't remember anything before that!)

A person wearing a visible gun is making a statement. They KNOW that they are making many people very nervous. They KNOW that they are offending many people. They KNOW that they are creating stress for every person that does not know them.

What does this say about such a person? From a psychiatric standpoint, nothing good that I can think of. They are deliberately destablizing the situation, and creating discomfort for most people. And they are doing it to make themselves feel good, and no other real purpose.

Actually the only good thing, is that if anyone is going to commit a violent crime, the carrier will be the first target!

You go Ken!

Spent a very good part of my life climbing, lived and travelled around the world (3rd and 4th world), somehow never felt the need to carry a firearm. Did learn to shoot as a kid and hunting was a normal activity; understand their utility. Cannot imagine the fear these gun people live in; why are they so afraid?? This is the United States, not Afghanistan....And the sad thing is that the fear remains for them even with a weapon close at hand. Would suggest that these unnatural fears and feelings of powerlessness be dealt with in the proper setting, i.e., a therapist's office or state mental facility, please, not in our mountains, a setting more suited to the brave and strong of heart.

I have a GREAT deal of respect for you Ken as a mountain man but have to disagree with you a bit here. Just because you've never seen anyone carrying in California does not mean you haven't come into contact with some who have been carrying concealed. An obvious point. What may not be so obvious about that at first blush is that, given the extremely low numbers of carry concealed permits in California, it only stands to reason that most of those folks are carrying unlawfully. I think that among those folks it is also reasonable to expect that many of them would like to carry in a way that is lawful. Sure, there are those who would do so with less noble motivations but I would personally guess that they are in the vast minority. I've carried concealed in Glacier and will probably continue to so that others don't feel threatened. I'm certainly aware that a visible weapon makes some folks nervous - even in Montana. Secondly, it saddens me a bit that you would pass judgment on someone without REALLY knowing their motives to the extent that you think it would be a good thing if a bad guy shot them first. Can't say that I understand that kind of attitude from a mountain man like yourself. If it was meant as a joke it isn't a good one.

WhiteRat,
Your comments raises the question: Why open carry in a benign place like a highly populated campground or a well traveled trail?

Secondly if someone is carrying concealed illegally of course they would not be obvious to those around them but wouldn't they be violating the the spirit of the very constitution on which they tend to stand? Like the rule of law?

Rat, better read my post again. I'm not talking about concealed (how could I see a person carrying, if it is concealed?????)

I'm talking about open carrying, another category whatsoever. I've not opined on concealed.