Mt Whitney Zone
Posted By: wagga Packing Heat. - 02/25/10 10:04 PM
Busy (and heated) threads at some other boards about new laws.

3 Law-enforcement officers shot at Minkler, just a few miles from Sequoia/Kings Canyon.

This is probably a better forum for this, as we rarely resort to name-calling.
Posted By: + @ti2d Re: Packing Heat. - 02/25/10 10:36 PM
Agreed, wagga.

What gets me is you hear reports of people hurting/killing themselves while cleaning their weapon or by not knowing the gun is loaded.

Hello? Why would anyone clean a loaded weapon? Don't you know to check the chamber?

Then there was the Los Banos incident where a dog shot its owner because the owner laid down a LOADED shotgun on the ground with the SAFETY OFF and the dog's paws engaged the trigger. BAM! The man suffered wounds by #2 shot. Luckily he was not killed. Embarrassed, but not killed.

Yeah, I can go on. Know this, I pack heat, but I don't go showing off. I have packed it in Yosemite. I have never packed it on the MWT.

I have drawn my weapon once on my OWN property. Trespassing perp. Needless to say the Madera Sheriff's office was happy the perp was caught. I had to clean up the "mess" because the dude defecated in his britches and left some fecal matter in my carport. Guess he wasn't wearing underwear.

I am off my dais now.
Posted By: wagga Re: Packing Heat. - 02/25/10 11:40 PM
Sheriff's office report is that the SO detective has died, also unsubstantiated report that another officer has died.

Update: As of 5pm. (PT) the officer is on life support.

The names (& photos) of the LE officers are freely reported on local TV, but the name of the alleged perpetrator is protected.
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 02/26/10 12:58 AM
I honestly hate the debate about guns in America, personally I think it's great the law restores that right back to the states where it should be in the first place and I support repealing almost ALL gun control laws.

All this pointless debate on what will change when almost nothing will, you might once in awhile see someone doing open carry which is legal in California but how often do you see that anyway?
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 02/26/10 01:34 AM
Originally Posted By: wagga
This is probably a better forum for this, as we rarely resort to name-calling.

I'm calling you "wagga." smile
Posted By: + @ti2d Re: Packing Heat. - 02/26/10 02:33 AM
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
I honestly hate the debate about guns in America, personally I think it's great the law restores that right back to the states where it should be in the first place and I support repealing almost ALL gun control laws.

All this pointless debate on what will change when almost nothing will, you might once in awhile see someone doing open carry which is legal in California but how often do you see that anyway?


RoguePhotonic, I don't like the debating either.

I don't like reading news of law enforcement getting shot or killed, I don't like reading news of people opening fire in high schools or places of employ. It sickens me. My heart goes out to the victims of these horrific events. Seems too commonplace now. You see it or hear it on the news day after day after day.

Know this all, I have my weapons of choice and my ammunition to go with them and my permits to carry them concealed. I am a law abiding American.

Don't tread on me. Tread? Then, you're _______. Leave me be.

End of comments.
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 02/26/10 07:24 AM
Quote:
I don't like reading news of law enforcement getting shot or killed, I don't like reading news of people opening fire in high schools or places of employ


Events such as these have absolutely nothing to do with guns though, the real tragedy rests with our complex societal interactions and oppressions that push individuals to the breaking point, this whole subject risks to much digression and discussion that is a bit off topic though.

I just get worked up with gun topics because they are so important for the big picture and I feel people that are so anti gun are a bit out of touch with the reality in our world, quoting Thomas Jefferson sums it up well enough "The most important reason for the people to maintain the right to bear arms is as a last resort to defend themselves against tyranny from government"

200 million people died from governments in the 20th century alone and people really are willing to surrender their final life line to governments?

Yet again sorry to digress but it's not only an important point it's the most important point.

~quote "no one is more hopelessly enslaved then those who falsely believe they are free"
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 02/26/10 02:43 PM
Originally Posted By: + @ti2d
What gets me is you hear reports of people hurting/killing themselves while cleaning their weapon or by not knowing the gun is loaded.

Hello? Why would anyone clean a loaded weapon? Don't you know to check the chamber?


That one has always mystified me as well. I've tried countless times to visualize how you begin the cleaning process without emptying the weapon first. Or for that matter, why a round would even be in the chamber at any point other than high-alert time. Seems that most of these incidents are either semi-auto pistols or hunting rifles, and those are the two categories that common sense dictates should never have a round in the chamber unless use is imminent. Even some police and military groups insist on a clear handgun chamber when not in certain circumstances.

It just baffles me that people can be so stoopid with a firearm. In many cases it's probably the same Einsteins who text while driving or smoke when pumping gas.
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 02/26/10 04:14 PM
Originally Posted By: Bulldog34
It just baffles me that people can be so stoopid with a firearm. In many cases it's probably the same Einsteins who text while driving or smoke when pumping gas.

We had a neighbor once who was cleaning his motorcycle in his living room. He was smoking when the gasoline started to spill from his full tank. We were lucky. Only his house burned to the ground. I don't know if he owned a gun but, if he did, I would guess that when he cleaned it...
Posted By: wagga Re: Packing Heat. - 02/26/10 04:18 PM
So, did he qualify for a Darwin award?
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 02/26/10 04:57 PM
I've come to firmly believe that modern societal comforts - with a bit of help from legislation and the courts - have doomed the human natural selection process.

The guy cleaning his motorcycle in his living room - c'mon! Even without the spilled gas and the burning butt, this guy would have been "naturally selected" out of everyone else's way a hundred years ago. Alan, any chance he (1)didn't have homeowner's insurance, or (2) tried to litigate it into being someone else's fault?
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 02/26/10 05:32 PM
Originally Posted By: wagga
So, did he qualify for a Darwin award?

Disqualified for award because he made it out alive.

Originally Posted By: Bulldog34
I've come to firmly believe that modern societal comforts - with a bit of help from legislation and the courts - have doomed the human natural selection process.

We certainly interfere with it!

Originally Posted By: Bulldog34
The guy cleaning his motorcycle in his living room - c'mon! Even without the spilled gas and the burning butt, this guy would have been "naturally selected" out of everyone else's way a hundred years ago. Alan, any chance he (1)didn't have homeowner's insurance, or (2) tried to litigate it into being someone else's fault?

The incident happened in 1963. I was all excited to come home to see fire trucks on our street, but my dad's worried manner clued me in to the seriousness of what was going on. I was sure glad we lived less than a mile from the local FD.

I believe that the guy was renting the house. Guys like that are one reason I am not a landlord.
Posted By: Steve C Re: Packing Heat. - 02/28/10 07:00 AM
Just HAD to respond...
On that other board, Mike Condron wrote:
> So Mr **** ***, how old are you? About 25? You have that 25 year old attitude. Not very chivalrous are you. Screw the feelings of those people around you as long as you get your way.

Don't give him that much credit. I think he's more like... 17?

And I appreciate Alan K's bringing wilderness focus back to the debate:
> I think that they lose their focus over finding things like bags of Doritos.
Posted By: Bee Re: Packing Heat. - 02/28/10 07:11 AM
There has been trouble before with that particular poster -- Doug deleted his posts.
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 02/28/10 04:03 PM
That thread has a fair amount of thoughtful, and thought-provoking, material. Along with some apparent attempts to drag it down. I hope that Doug does not kill the whole thread.

Steve -- Yes, wilderness focus should not be lost. Setting aside discussion of guns for a moment, if we could keep Doritos out of parked cars at Whitney Portal, the bears would have to go back to their long-forgotten natural diet. I'm not sure there's any hope for the summit marmots, though. There will always be enough crumbs, plus the occasional pack left unguarded, to keep them fat.
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 02/28/10 05:24 PM
I agree Alan - it's an important topic and very relevant to the board. On a subject like handguns the thread will stray a little more than normal - like you and I with the whole firearms statistics thing. It can't avoid morphing into a larger arena as each person tries to make their point. It doesn't have to be a bloodbath, though. Diversity of opinion is supposed to be a good thing, and if some folks would grow up and listen as much as they opine, a thoughtful discussion can be had. No one is ever going to "win" this debate - the extremists on both sides are too polarized - but it's really counter-productive to get inextricably cornered into an inflexible position just because you can't control your temper.

I'd happily debate/discuss any topic with the likes of yourself and Icystair any day. Like you said, we really aren't that far apart even though we're not exactly on the same page. I understand and respect your thoughts, and I think you reciprocate. We could probably spend hours debating in a bar from opposite perspectives on a given matter, and part agreeing to happily do it again soon. Mike and Fuji, though - neither was inclined to take the high ground so they're both equally at fault in my opinion. The board should sentence them to climb Whitney together. An overnighter at that - with just one tent.
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 02/28/10 05:54 PM
I agree with you both. I'll admit that I was baiting Fuji Guy. Read this thread http://yosemitenews.info/forum/read.php?3,22983 please if you already haven't. Fuji Guy, in my opinion, is deserving of all the consideration, and deference he is willing to give others which seems to be none. I'm up to my eyeballs with the attitude of guys like him that think just because they can, they will, regardless of how uncomfortable they make people around them feel, no matter how much they would disrupt an otherwise tranquil setting. Imagine a few guys with that attitude at their campsite at the portal after a few beers with a loaded firearm on their hip. Wearing a loaded firearm in your own campsite is legal.

Now for me, I am in favor of removing most all gun controls, "shall issue concealed permits" wording, firearm ownership and training, people carrying concealed. What I'm radically opposed to is the argument that "I must be armed while in my campsite on the Yosemite Valley floor to protect myself from bears, rapists, muggers, pot farmers, criminals, etc. and I don't care if it bothers the other visitors that are camped around me because I am exercising my constitutional rights and nobody is going to stop me." Mr. Fuji Guy is one of these.
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 02/28/10 06:53 PM
Mike, I hear you and I agree completely that Fuji was pushing the envelope too far. I'm all in favor of keeping our NPs as serene as humanly possible - after all, visiting these parks around the country is my personal passion. My experience with guys like Fuji is that there is no counter-argument that they'll listen to. It always breaks down in to a shouting match, which is really what they seem to want. Personally, when I get a whiff of that kind of attitude, I just ignore them - which is the worst possible frustration for them.

I was just concerned that the topic - which is really of importance to all of us who spend time on federal lands - was spiraling out of control and discouraging others from posting their opinions. And possibly tempting Doug to shut it down, which I always hate seeing.

I realize I did a lot of posting on that thread, but most of it was replying to comments/questions directed to me after my first couple of responses. I really don't have a dog in this hunt either, since I'll never carry one of my firearms into a park or on a trail. My whole purpose in jumping in was to point out that the alarmed, wild-west, slapping-leather concerns of the locals could be moderated if you just took a look outside your own state where handguns are the norm.

If there's going to be an armed yahoo-related problem with this law, look for it in Great Smokey Mountain National Park first, not Yosemite. The Smokies are so far and away the most visited national park in the country, it's beyond the point of comparison. It's also in the heart of Second Amendment territory. I can assure you, law or not, a great many visitors to the Smokies have always been armed. Aside from the different mindset (and permissive local laws) about guns, the bears are not nice there and have been known to attack people - especially children.

I live just a 3-hour drive from the Smokies, and hike there fairly regularly. To my knowledge, the preponderance of firearms in the area around the park (and in it, illegally up to this point) has not resulted in anything like the fears and concerns that are being expressed by Californians regarding open-carry in Yosemite. My point was just to ask why anyone expects Yosemite to be different - and I was not being tongue-in-cheek about it. Maybe there's an x-factor at play locally that I'm not aware of that would result in different behavior - but I guarantee you we have plenty of FujiGuys in our backyard as well. Oh, do we!

Posted By: Bee Re: Packing Heat. - 02/28/10 07:26 PM
Doggie, I answered your call for a response on the WPSMB smile

http://www.whitneyportalstore.com/forum/...age=0#Post73510
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 02/28/10 07:58 PM
Saw it Bee - I've read it 3 times. Great expression of your thoughts, and just the right amount of humor! It's a particularly sticky wicket for women. I've sounded my wife out about it, and she has mixed feelings as well (personally, she refuses to even handle a firearm). The strike zone you refer to is all too real, as is the statistical probability of a woman being attacked by an intimate as oppossed to a stranger on the trail.

My focus on this issue and how it affects women burns pretty deep. Aside from my wife and daughter, who won't hike without me, Meredith Emerson's murder struck a chord in me that has resonated for two years now. She was young enough to be my daughter (or I'm old enough to technically be her dad, as my wife would say), and she should still be out there with her dog enjoying the beauty of the Blue Ridge mountains. There are a lot of what-ifs that regularly crop up in my mind about this tragedy (as well as Hilton's other 3 victims, may he roast in Dante's Inferno for eternity). Logically, I know that an open sidearm might not have deterred him once he was in that strike zone - the trail she was abducted on is one I've hiked many, many times, and there is no way two oncoming hikers can avoid being in close range to each other. Emotionally, though, I desperately want her to have pulled a Beretta or Glock on his cowardly ass and dispatched his black-hearted soul off to the toasty halls of hell.

Thanks for your thoughts. They are always educational.
Posted By: Bee Re: Packing Heat. - 02/28/10 08:17 PM
I hear you, Doggie....and thank God you care! Apathy and indifference are going to take this country down. You just keep right on caring, and I will keep up the hope.

The Hilton case is that hesitation every time I enter the trail alone (we had the Trailside Killer in the SF BaY Area)Its that little catch that I experience when I see "others" on the trail (I have all sorts of evasive maneuvers that I am forced to use on the prettiest and what should be the most glorious of days) I hike alone almost every single day on the nature trail, and by golly, most of it is done at a full run due to paranoia.

B
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 02/28/10 09:01 PM
Bulldog34,
Do some googleing on Cary Stayner. He's the guy that beheaded the Yosemite naturalist and killed three other women near Yosemite. A mother, her daughter, and a friend visiting from South America. Some transcripts are on line and detail his process for getting to his victims. All by gaining close access to them by deceit. The Joie Armstrong story is especially telling. http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/s/p/2002/stayner/STAYNER15TR03.DTL
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 02/28/10 09:37 PM
Originally Posted By: Bulldog34
I agree Alan...

I'd happily debate/discuss any topic with the likes of yourself and Icystair any day. Like you said, we really aren't that far apart even though we're not exactly on the same page. I understand and respect your thoughts, and I think you reciprocate. We could probably spend hours debating in a bar from opposite perspectives on a given matter, and part agreeing to happily do it again soon.

I enjoyed much of the discussion on the WPSMB thread, although there were a couple of exasperating posts too (by people who aren't over here). I especially appreciated a couple of Bulldog's essays. I mentioned somewhere that I own no guns and also that I have always lived in places where I could go out walking at any hour without fear. I also admitted that some event could cause me to regret that attitude, or at least change my mind. For example, if I am held up at gunpoint a couple of times, I might very well re-think my gun non-ownership. In any case, I certainly don't go around telling other people how to respond to such situations!
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 02/28/10 09:47 PM
Chilling Mike. And infuriating as well. This kind of stuff makes me so mad I can hardly see straight.

Meredith Emerson was decapitated as well by Gary Hilton. He abducted her on the trail, walked her back to the trailhead and forced her into his van - it was during that struggle that he lost the baton he had been using, and which helped police identify him very, very quickly. He tried to use her debit card at an ATM, but she had lied about the PIN. As I recall - and I hate to think about this - he finally bludgeoned her to death then decapitated her. A caring, promising young life brutally and mercilessly taken just like that.

I know Meredith and Joie are drops in the bucket compared to the brutality that goes on daily in places like Somalia - or even here in the states - but I believe (or want to, anyway) that there is a special place in hell reserved for (1) anyone who deliberately hurts children, and (2) men who deliberately hurt women. I sometimes waver on the death penalty, but it's instances like these that make me want to volunteer to pull the switch.
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 12:00 AM
Originally Posted By: Bee
I hear you, Doggie....and thank God you care! Apathy and indifference are going to take this country down. You just keep right on caring, and I will keep up the hope.
B


Deal!

laugh
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 01:26 AM
I do have to admit that in an open carry situation I would hold no regard what so ever to how others feel about it around me and it's certainly not that I want to worry anyone or that I don't really care but the very nature that others get worried or feel nervous or feel in danger from a person doing open carry completely disgusts me at the state of propaganda and conditioning being put forth in this country, it's probably safe to say that 99% of the people that would open carry are exactly the sort of people you would "want" to have around you and you should feel safer.

People die every single day from a multitude of things that aren't really considered, when someone gets stabbed do we have a national debate on why knifes should be eliminated from society? and with other issues such as big pharma, nearly 300 people die every single day from legal pharmaceutical drugs but no one is getting worked up, or how about the hundreds of thousands of people that die every year from medical personnel making mistakes such as giving you the wrong medicine while in the hospital, oops! sorry we killed him! next!, the point is there is so many other issues to worry about and guns is the least of those, especially when it comes to using any examples of accidents against them, now how many die from car accidents? would be a powerful figure to use in a debate on banning all cars in the world wouldn't it?

On the subject of having a nice debate about stuff I agree that it's good to have opinions posted and considered regardless if you disagree even to the point of becoming angry, I only have come to hate constant debating from past forum experience, I used to engage in heavy digital political activism to the point where it could take 4 hours to write a single post because there was so much information to provide, what I learned is you never get anywhere ever, very few people are willing to consider points or information that can change their constructed view of the world.
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 02:26 AM
Rogue, I agree wholeheartedly that constant debating gets incredibly tiresome, especially with those who get their rocks off by delivering inflammatory rhetoric in an open forum. For me, I try to always remember what my high school debate team instructor preached, lo those many years ago.

There are only 3 types of people in the world, she said: those who firmly believe one thing, those who just as firmly believe the exact opposite, and those who occupy the space in between. All debate, she insisted, should be delivered with that last group in mind as your audience - they're the only ones whose opinion you can really impact.

Rush Limbaugh and Al Franken will change one another's minds when hell freezes over. Revising the opinion of an entrenched opponent should never be your goal - it's a an exercise in futility and leads to the frustration you refer to. Regardless of how nasty an opponent may get, keep your eye on the ball and avoid stooping to their level. A little lightheartedness and humor in a fiery debate can go a long way toward defusing the tension (for that audience I mentioned), and earn you hero points besides. It's the (usually) non-participating audience that you'll strike a chord in and who will remember your well-constructed, thoughtful and civil remarks. You may not see the results as often in a digital forum, but they really are there.
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 02:38 AM
RoguePhotonic

I fail completely to see the point of an open carry especially in a benign situation. Am I missing something you could fill us in on?
Posted By: George Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 05:11 AM
Quote:
I fail completely to see the point of an open carry especially in a benign situation.


Boy, does that ever sum it up. That Mt. Whitney thread was getting totally out of hand, mostly due to that Fuji guy. As I said there, I don't understand this gun thing -- totally beyond the imagined risk involved.

I will repeat here my point there: In the last 40 years, I don't know of a single incident where a hiker in the backcountry would have prevented injury by having a gun available. There's lots of other incidents where various equipment would definitely have prevented injury or death, but not a gun (helmets, maps, satellite phones, a good tent...). You're looking at your trip junk spread out on the floor. Hmmmm, two extra pair of wool socks or a gun?!? Why this shrill emotion over a gun is beyond me.

So to everyone else, keep hiking and don't be unduly paranoid (though always situationally aware...). Use that weight saved by not carrying a gun by carrying another day or two of food.

g.
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 05:14 AM
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
I do have to admit that in an open carry situation I would hold no regard what so ever to how others feel about it around me and it's certainly not that I want to worry anyone or that I don't really care but the very nature that others get worried or feel nervous or feel in danger from a person doing open carry completely disgusts me at the state of propaganda and conditioning being put forth in this country, it's probably safe to say that 99% of the people that would open carry are exactly the sort of people you would "want" to have around you and you should feel safer.

I sometimes have a bad attitude. Nothing stimulates that sort of attitude quite like someone - anyone - telling me what type of person I should want to have around me. Telling me that runs 180 degrees opposite from the attitude of rugged individualism that people who advocate things like open carry profess to believe in and practice. I reserve for myself the right to decide whom I should want to have around. This has nothing to do with fear of guns. I lived for many years in upstate NY and am quite used to encountering people in the woods carrying various firearms. This is about not liking to be told what to think.
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 05:32 AM
Rogue,
The people that would open carry are not the type of people I would like to have around in any kind of situation, emergency or otherwise. It seems their focus would be on how to solve the situation with a gun instead of their wits, knowledge, and experience.

I just don't get the open carry mentality.
Posted By: DUG Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 03:28 PM
I'm supposed to be deep in my winter hole, but I will say this - I've been deep in the back country with my son, with Scouts and alone. Day and night. I've ran across just about every form of wildlife that you would see in the Sierras yet I have NEVER needed or wished I had a gun. Fresh socks, a bigger sandwich, maybe even a change of underwear, but never a gun. I feel confident in my abilities to protect myself and those with me without bringing a gun. I respect (and defend via my day job) the rights of those who wish to carry one, however I refuse to hike with those who do. Why? There is no way that anyone packing the extra weight could keep up with me. I won't be slowed down by someone exercising their rights. I would rather hike with someone who packed in a package of cookies to share on the peak.

If you have EVER been in a situation in the backcountry where you thought to yourself - "Damn I wish I had a gun right now", please share.

Back to the dark hole..................................DUG
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 03:54 PM


Quote:
If you have EVER been in a situation in the backcountry where you thought to yourself - "Damn I wish I had a gun right now", please share.

Back to the dark hole..................................DUG



Also if you have ever been in a car camping situation where you thought to yourself - "Damn I wish I had a gun right now", please share. (a more likely scenario)
Posted By: Ken Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 04:30 PM
I kind of touched on this on the other thread, but someone openly carrying is making a statement ("I'm dangerous"), and going out of their way to make others around them uncomfortable, nervous, and offended. I can imagine seeing such a person drinking a beer (legal), who is now also impared.

"God created man, and Sam Colt made them equal."

Since virtually no one is likely to be openly carrying around this person, no one else is equal, that is to say, they are superior to all around them. Should someone want to take their gun away (you can't come into my store wearing that), you are now in a confrontation with an armed person, and you are arguing with them about something that gives them their status above others at the time. People don't like to lose their status, so you now have a dangerous person. If they have been drinking, you have a dangerous person with reduced restraint, reduced reasoning ability, and propensity to fly into a rage. In that condition, anything can happen. They may want to "teach a lesson".

Yikes. These are people to be shunned and avoided.
Posted By: Ken Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 04:40 PM

http://cbs13.com/local/starbucks.gun.open.2.1526840.html

Gun Fans Applaud Starbucks For Allowing Open Carry

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) ― Dale Welch recently walked into a Starbucks in Virginia, handgun strapped
to his waist, and ordered a banana Frappuccino with a cinnamon bun. He says the firearm drew a double-take from at least one customer, but not a peep from the baristas.

Welch's foray into the coffeehouse was part of an effort by some gun owners to exercise and advertise their rights in states that allow people to openly carry firearms.

Even in some "open carry" states, businesses are allowed to ban guns in their stores. And some have, creating political confrontations with gun owners. But Starbucks, the largest chain targeted, has refused to take the bait, saying in a statement this month that it follows state and local laws and has its own safety measures in its stores.

"Starbucks is a special target because it's from the hippie West Coast, and a lot of dedicated consumers who pay $4 for coffee have expectations that Starbucks would ban guns. And here they aren't," said John Bruce, a political science professor at the University of Mississippi who is an expert in gun policy.

Welch, a 71-year-old retired property manager who lives in Richmond, Va., doesn't see any reason why he shouldn't bear arms while he gets caffeinated.

"I don't know of anybody who would provide me with defense other than myself, so I routinely as a way of life carry a weapon -- and that extends to my coffee shops," he said.

The fight for retailers heated up in early January when gun enthusiasts in northern California began walking into Starbucks and other businesses to test state laws that allow gun owners to carry weapons openly in public places. As it spread to other states, gun control groups quickly complained about the parade of firearms in local stores.

Some were spontaneous, with just one or two gun owners walking into a store. Others were organized parades of dozens of gun owners walking into restaurants with their firearms proudly at their sides.

In one case, about 100 activists bearing arms had planned to go to a California Pizza Kitchen in Walnut Creek, Calif., but after it became clear they weren't welcome they went to another restaurant. That chain and Peet's Coffee & Tea are among the businesses that have banned customers with guns.

Just as shops can deny service to barefoot customers, restaurants and stores in some states can declare their premises gun-free zones.

The advocacy group OpenCarry.org, a leading group encouraging the demonstrations, applauded Starbucks in a statement for "deciding not to discriminate against lawful gun carriers."

"Starbucks is seen as a responsible corporation and they're seen as a very progressive corporation, and this policy is very much in keeping with that," said John Pierce, co-founder of OpenCarry.org. "If you're going to support individual rights, you have to support them all. I applaud them, and I've gone out of my way personally to let every manager of every Starbucks I pass know that."

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has responded by circulating a petition that soon attracted 26,000 signatures demanding that Starbucks "offer espresso shots, not gunshots" and declare its coffeehouses "gun-free zones."

Gun control advocates hope the coffeehouse firearms displays end up aggravating more people than they inspire.

"If you want to dress up and go out and make a little political theater by frightening children in the local Starbucks, if that's what you want to spend your energy on, go right ahead," said Peter Hamm, a spokesman for the Brady campaign. "But going out and wearing a gun on your belt to show the world you're allowed to is a little juvenile."

The coffeehouse debate has been particularly poignant for gun-control advocates in Washington state, where four uniformed police officers were shot and killed while working on their laptops at a suburban coffeehouse. The shooter later died in a gun battle with police.

Ralph Fascitelli of Washington Ceasefire, an advocacy group that seeks to reduce gun violence, said allowing guns in coffeehouses robs residents of "societal sanctuaries."

"People go to Starbucks for an escape, just so they can get peace," Fascitelli said. "But people walk in with open-carry guns and it destroys the tranquility."

Gun control advocates have been on the defensive. Their opponents have trumpeted fears that gun rights would erode under a Democrat-led White House and Congress, but President Barack Obama and his top allies have largely been silent on issues such as reviving an assault weapons ban or strengthening background checks at gun shows.

Gun rights groups are looking to build on a 2008 U.S. Supreme Court ruling that struck down Washington, D.C.'s handgun ban, and cheered legislation that took effect Monday allowing licensed gun owners to bring firearms into national parks. Obama signed that legislation as part of a broader bill.

Legislators in Montana and Tennessee, meanwhile, have passed measures seeking to exempt guns made and kept in-state from national gun control laws. And state lawmakers elsewhere are considering legislation that would give residents more leeway to carry concealed weapons without permits.

Observers say the gun rights movement is using the Starbucks campaign to add momentum and energize its supporters.

"They're trying to change the culture with this broader notion of gun rights," said Clyde Wilcox, a Georgetown University government professor who has written a book on the politics of gun control. "I think they are pressing the notion that they've got a rout going, so why not just get what they can while they're ahead?"
Posted By: bobpickering Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 06:45 PM
I own six guns, but I don't feel comfortable around people who insist on carrying them when they aren't hunting or target shooting. During the course of life, tempers sometimes flare, and it's a good thing that people without guns can't shoot anybody when they get mad.

I live just north or Reno, and the hills around my house are a great place to ride my horse or my mountain bike. Many other people also ride motorcycles and ATVs in this area. There is a lot of traffic on the weekend when the weather is nice.

Unfortunately, it's also a popular area for shooting. That wouldn't be a problem if the shooters cared about the safety of others. They routinely shoot across a road or where their bullets could ricochet towards other people. I met one guy who set up his targets in the middle of the road I was riding down. Another time, I was riding up a hill and heard bullets whizzing over my head from the other side. When the shooting finally stopped, I hurried to the top of the hill, made sure the shooters saw me, and rode down to talk to them. When I told them that their bullets were ricocheting right over my head, and that there were other shooters just beyond where I had been, their response was "What can I tell you? We're shooting into the dirt!" When I try to instill a little concern for safety into the local rednecks, the response is always along the lines of "We've been shooting out here since blah blah blah and it's not our fault if somebody else gets shot."

I do my best to avoid the shooters, and I've just about given up riding on the weekends. I need to see whether the local sheriff will agree that the right not to be shot at trumps somebody's Second Amendment right to shoot wherever he pleases.
Posted By: Steve C Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 07:13 PM
> When I try to instill a little concern for safety into the local rednecks, the response is always along the lines of "We've been shooting out here since blah blah blah and it's not our fault if somebody else gets shot."

And the open-carry fanatics wonder why people get nervous when they see someone carrying a weapon just because it's their right. I worry that the guy carrying the weapon is "carrying with attitude".

How many more Rick Liles are there out there?
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 08:38 PM
Ken,
A scary thing also is that there are people that will fly into a rage without the beer. When you hear "I'm going to carry no matter what." you've found one. Several have posted on the various forums. They do seem to have gone quiet though.
Posted By: MooseTracks Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 08:47 PM
From the other board (but I'd rather answer here)...

Originally Posted By: bulldog34
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.

...



...



...



...




...



I'm scary enough without a gun. mad



Now, ya'll go and take care of that testosterone poisoning...

Next thing you know, there will be more whining about having to carry bear cans... oh wait...
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 08:59 PM
I knew you'd come back with something like that Laura - when I originally posted that the thought crossed my mind, "If there's anyone in the Sierra that doesn't need a weapon, it's Moosie"!
Posted By: CaT Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 09:14 PM
Moosetrogen does seem to have a testosterone-neutralizing effect.

CaT
Posted By: Steve C Re: Packing Heat. - 03/01/10 10:42 PM
grin   grin   grin

If Laura could bottle it, she'd be rich!
Posted By: MooseTracks Re: Packing Heat. - 03/02/10 12:06 AM
You all with your leg straps. Get a real gun... I'll be sure to throw one of these on the pack this summer:

[video:myspace]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLKQHmTa6C0[/video]
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 03/02/10 01:47 AM
Like I said Laura, a few armed ladies on the trail will almost always tame the cowboy mentality. With that freakin' thing, you could tame the entire Sierra. Oh, I forgot - you pretty much already have.

Dollars to doughnuts, some on the board are watching that clip and sayin', "I GOT to get me one'a these things!"
Posted By: MooseTracks Re: Packing Heat. - 03/02/10 02:13 AM
Originally Posted By: Bulldog34
Like I said Laura, a few armed ladies on the trail will almost always tame the cowboy mentality. With that freakin' thing, you could tame the entire Sierra. Oh, I forgot - you pretty much already have.

Dollars to doughnuts, some on the board are watching that clip and sayin', "I GOT to get me one'a these things!"


I'm sure Gary has one on backorder... wink

And it's not Laura... It's Lara...
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 03/02/10 04:28 AM
Originally Posted By: MooseTracks
I'm sure Gary has one on backorder... wink

And it's not Laura... It's Lara...


Got it - Lara. Give me a few minutes - I'll come up with something snappy to morph from Tomb Raider.

Actually, I think it would make a great hood ornament for DUG's truck.
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/02/10 05:37 AM
Quote:
I fail completely to see the point of an open carry especially in a benign situation. Am I missing something you could fill us in on?


I'm not sure if your saying you fail to see the point of open carry in all places we might visit or just in the backcountry, honestly it seems a bit asinine to say that about all things but as for the back country including what George says I hardly see any reason to, I certainly would never carry a gun into the backcountry on any typical hike, I don't have any fear out there and I could care less if the remote chance of someone or more likely something attacking me, but I also don't write off those dangers and the fear that others feel about them, in life people do all sorts of things to "feel" safe and carrying a gun is no different, lets take terrorism for an example, such massive fear over this, people are willing to go to all sorts of lengths to "feel" safe but if you look at the statistics and I don't just mean your odds of being attacked but how many people actually die from terrorism every single year in the whole world, it's about 1000 on average, it's a statistical fact that more people die from being struck by lightning, choking on peanuts, drowning in swimming pools, hitting deer on the road etc etc etc , my point is I don't see anyone wanting to strip the liberties away from people over what can easily be considered irrational fear, the only true relevant reason to make something like carrying a gun in the back country illegal is if accident situations become ridiculously common and the collateral damage is just too great and I certainly don't see this as a problem at the moment.

Quote:
anyone - telling me what type of person I should want to have around me.


You misunderstand what I meant, I was only making a point that most people that open carry are extremely responsible and caring people that would be useful in an emergency, I say that because I know that most people have a very different view on who these types of people are, now what sort of people you like or respect or think anything of that's all your own business. =P

Quote:
The people that would open carry are not the type of people I would like to have around in any kind of situation, emergency or otherwise. It seems their focus would be on how to solve the situation with a gun instead of their wits, knowledge, and experience.


Seems that you have met the wrong type of people, we all generalize too much amongst groups of people but how many do we really get to know? i'm sure there is plenty of people just as you describe but from what I have seen it's not the majority.

Quote:
If you have EVER been in a situation in the backcountry where you thought to yourself - "Damn I wish I had a gun right now", please share


Was it one of these boards where I read a mans story of running into a mountain lion on the trail with it only about 20 feet from him and despite all his efforts to scare it the thing had no fear so he had a stand off with it for 30 minutes before it left, that's a damn I wish I had a gun scenario. lol

Quote:
but someone openly carrying is making a statement ("I'm dangerous"), and going out of their way to make others around them uncomfortable, nervous, and offended. I can imagine seeing such a person drinking a beer (legal), who is now also impared.


I think your assumption and scenario are a bit far fetched, I agree that open carry makes a statement but I feel it makes the statement of "if I am violently attacked I am willing to defend myself" and nothing more, I used to never leave the house without a boot knife, 10% self defense use 90% useful tool and you would be surprised how useful always have a knife on you is, I used it all the time but I also got strange looks, even fearful looks, one fork lift driver at a supply yard as I had a knife on each boot said "your looking like a dangerous man right now" and his statement was not in a comical manor, I just feel sorry that people have such apprehension over defensive items.

I also have to argue that the need to open carry is from not being able to concealed carry, in california it's almost impossible to get a concealed carry permit, I talked to one guy that could not get one but just concealed carry anyway and he would tell cops that he concealed carried illegally because of just what you all have been saying that people get nervous and it causes problems and he didn't want any of that and also did not want to cause more problems for the police, the down side is here is a man that respects the law and others yet has to resort to being a criminal in a sense because of outrageous restrictions.

With the Starbucks thing I have to say it surprises me that Starbucks is holding that position and I think it's great, I respect that a business has the right to set restrictions such as the no shirt thing but I really look down hard on restrictions that are anti-constitutional.

Bobpickering's story is a complicated matter, it's unfortunate that they didn't feel more concerned about others safety but when it comes to the matter of who can do what where that is far more complicated, it's your typical issue amongst people when hobbies collide, everyone wants to have their fun.

Back on the idea of people getting angry I think your forgetting the fact that your talking about stripping rights and comforts for some from people, i'm sure if your safety nets or hobbies or what you feel is an essential liberty was being threatened you might become very angry also, especially if it's based on what you personally would regard as irrational fear, logic or general reasoning.

I have to laugh at the testosterone element in this sort of topic, I can't deny it exists in many but not in me, I have no ego what so ever, i've never understood ones need for being better than another.

I don't remember the source but I like the quote in regards to guns "would it make you feel better if they were pushed out a window!"
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/02/10 06:22 AM
Why do you guys keep evading the question about carry open on Yosemite Valley floor an in the car camping campgrounds. What is the possible reason for doing so other than to flaunt.
Posted By: SoCalGirl Re: Packing Heat. - 03/02/10 06:43 AM
I have read and re-read this thread a couple of times now. I try to avoid "polictical" discussions because they usually deteriorate into pissing contests and flame wars... however this one seems to be maintaining a very nice level of civility... so I'm going to chime my two cents worth in.

I come from a very long line of gun savvy women. I learned at an early age to handle a gun from my mother, who learned from her father, who learned from HIS mother... yadayadayada... my daughter shot her first gun at the age of about 5. I have NEVER lived in a house that didn't contain a firearm or ten. My significant other is in law enforcement, my sister and her fiance are MP's... some of my best friends are in the military. I am surrounded on a daily basis at work by people carrying loaded weapons. Some of my fondest childhood memories are of helping my Grandfather with his reloading equipment.. and of watching him refurbish antique rifles... and then going out to the desert (to designated shooting areas) to make use of those rifles and ammo we'd loaded. And DANG does brass get hot laying in the sand!!! I was also raised in the outdoors. As a child almost every vacation was spent at some national park or another in the Southwest US... or in some county or regional park camping. I can remember exactly 1 vacation where we had a firearm with us... and it stayed locked in the truck the entire time we were on the road. But I digress...


I have NEVER run into an issue where I wished I had a gun with me while camping, hiking or backpacking... and I live in San Diego and do most of my playing here as well. I KNOW that there are area's in my part of the state that due to "border" traffic, would be dangerous to hike in. So I don't go to those areas... I also know that if a wild animal is going to attack me, there's about a 99% probability I am NOT going to see it before I feel it's teeth or claws sinking into my flesh. In the instance of an animal attack, your chances of getting a weapon drawn in time to STOP the attack are unlikely. That is even considering the fact that you probably aren't going to be carrying a weapon with enough force to actually stop a charging animal instead of just pissing it off or injuring it (which would probably just piss it off more). You are more likely to avoid becoming animal prey by following the "rules" when you're in the wilderness. You know the ones... make noise, be aware, stay in groups...

I, too, remember following the stories of the poor souls like Meredith who were killed in parks... the older couple that the same guy who hurt Meredith killed... the Mother and daughter and Friend in Yosemite... and unfolding even now as we debate this the poor 17 year old who went running at Lake Hodges in Rancho Bernardo (San Diego) after school and Thursday and never came home. The deviant who is "suspected" to have hurt her has been arrested now... NONE of which were acts perpetrated by gun toting villians (to the best of my knowledge). All of which occured in fairly close proximity to the "fore"country. As a matter of fact... I don't think any of the stories I've ever heard about people being attacked in National (or State or County)Parks have involved guns. Would a gun have saved any of these peoples lives? Maybe in the case of the Mother and two girls... if one of them could have gotten the gun out and capped the crazy before he finished stabbing them. But so far as I know, crazy-mad killers of the type that committed these atrocious acts don't walk up to a persons face... they lie in wait, stalk their prey... wait until their backs are turned, and then incapacitate them in order to do whatever nefarious things it is that they are going to do... just like the animals that they are. You can't shoot at something that you can't see... and if you're being snuck up on... you can't see.

Now... do I worry about crazys? Of course. As a fairly petite female I attempt to be congnizant of my surroundings at all times. If I am aware I am less likely to be taken by surprise. If I'm hiking with my children... my Mother... or my boyfriend, it doesn't matter. I always try to keep on eye who is there, who is paying attention to my kids... who is to close.... but this is the same behavior I display no matter where I go.. the Zoo, the park or the Mall. Do I think having a gun would keep me safe? No... I don't.

Would I carry a gun in the backcountry? Why would I do that? First of all... there is the issue of weight. Anyone who knows me knows I have enough of an issue without adding extra weight to my pack (or my hips). Would a gun make me feel safe? No... if someone is going to the trouble of hauling their ass to altitude and into the backcountry to hurt me... a bullet isn't going to stop them from doing so. Besides... if they're going to ruin my vacation I'm going to want to do alot more hurt then a bullet can do to pay them back from my misery. But in all seriousness... I see no reason what-so-ever to have gun (legal or otherwise) in the parks. Most of us go into the park system to get away from the everyday craziness... we don't want it hauled back there with us.

Ok.. that was only meant to be two cents... it turned out to be more like a buck fifty or so... do with it what you will...
Posted By: DUG Re: Packing Heat. - 03/02/10 02:51 PM
Rogue - I can use Google and find a few hundred stories where a gun in the backcountry might be useful, but I was asking if ANYONE on this board had a personal story to share. As for the person who came up on the mountain lion, it seems like that worked itself out ok. He either knew how to handle himself against the lion without a gun or he figured it out pretty quickly. Who knows, a gun might have made the situation WORSE.

Even though there are, without a doubt, times when someone could make practical use of a gun in the backcountry, those times are a very small drop in the bucket compared to when one would not be needed. You COULD have the timing belt on your car break on your way to work - DO you carry a spare? Do you know how to install one? Do you carry the tools to install one?

For those who will be carrying in the backcountry - are you going to leave something behind as a weight trade off or will you be sucking it up or just putting in fewer miles?

I kinda think if you decide to open carry either while car camping or in the back country, you are looking more for attention than protection. Just my opinion, but that's the opinion I use most often............................DUG
Posted By: CaT Re: Packing Heat. - 03/02/10 05:04 PM
Am currently at lunch at work, and saw this, which I thought might be of interest in this discussion.

CaT
Posted By: Steve C Re: Packing Heat. - 03/02/10 06:41 PM
Thanks, CaT. It will be very interesting to see how the Supreme Court rules on that.

In case people are wondering, the link is to an AP news story:

High court looks at reach of Second Amendment

First paragraph:
Quote:

WASHINGTON -- The Supreme Court appeared willing Tuesday to say that the Constitution's right to possess guns limits state and local regulation of firearms. But the justices also suggested that some gun control measures might not be affected.
 

Posted By: Rod Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 12:26 AM
William Shatner on Gun Control - It's How Well You Aim the Gun



Edit: If you can't see the video here, this is the YouTube link.
Posted By: CaT Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 01:57 AM
Rod - For some reason, your pic is not displaying on my computer -- only getting the little teeny colored square in the upper left corner of where the image should be if it was showing. Anyone else having this same problem?

CaT
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 02:14 AM
SoCalGirl, very well articulated. Plenty to think on in your response - I've read it 3 times to make sure I caught all your key points. Very similar to Bee's line of thinking as well.

Despite the elevated level of debate going on here and at WPS - and my participation in it - my thoughts are pretty much the same as yours. I've never carried in the wild, and probably never will (Glacier and Yellowstone being the parks I'm hedging on). But then again, I'm not the potential target of those two-legged predators like women are, especially the solo female hikers.

It chafes at me that many women can't take a ramble in the woods by themselves without experiencing a level of anxiety that most men will never know. A solo dayhike in the wilderness re-charges me, clears my mind and leaves me feeling relaxed; I'm afraid for many women it's a constant worry and an exercise in 360-degree perimeter-awareness. My wife won't hike without me under any circumstances because of the anxiety level she feels, especially after Meredith Emerson's experience here locally.

Being so conscious of this, I try to give women a reasonably wide berth when I encounter them on a hike. I try to avoid ever entering that strike-zone that Bee refers to, so that their level of tension doesn't go any higher than it has to (I do most of my hiking solo as well, so unfortunately I'm "that guy" many women are concerned about - a lone male hiker). The mountain trails in the South are generally very narrow and steep though, so when you pass another hiker it's almost always in very close proximity. I make it a point to always step off the trail - often not an easy thing to accomplish - to allow women to pass me with a reasonable cushion.

My recognition of this unfortunate fact really hit home a few years ago during a hike in Death Valley. I think I posted on some thread on WPS last year an experience I had between the Keane Wonder Mine and Chloride City with a young lady who had basically been abandoned on the trail by her boyfriend. She was in a bad way physically - dehydrated, exhausted, flushed, trembling, possibly some AMS - and the SOB had taken all of their water and the first aid kit with him as he continued his self-indulgent hike. I eventually got some water and analgesics into her, gave her my wide-brimmed hat (typical DV day), and escorted her back down to the trailhead. Long story short, when we were in view of the parking lot she broke down sobbing - because it was finally evident that I was trying to help her, not victimize her.

The entire way down - about 4 hours at her very slow, unbalanced pace - she was wound tight as a drum, half-convinced I was up to no good despite all the evidence to the contrary. We had a long chat in the lot while she ate a few power bars and waited for her loser boyfriend to return (he had the car keys), and she just kinda let it all out about the fear she felt being alone up on the mountain, but how that fear actually increased during the first couple of hours of my assisting her. I could sense that she was embarrased to tell me this after the effort I had put forth to get her down safely, but I appreciated her honesty immensely. It was eye-opening for me.

That experience has stayed with me ever since - vividly - and has led to some of the modified behavior on the trail I described. I've been hiking steadily and for quite a while - I would estimate well over 5000 miles so far - but that was the only time I had ever rendered assistance by myself to a lone female in the wilderness. In this young lady's fear I saw my own daughter's future, who was very young at the time but already demonstrating a strong interest in hiking with dad - and it scared the bejeezus out of me.

In a roundabout way, that's why I pose the question of how experienced female hikers feel about carrying in the wilderness. I recognize that I may be a little more emotionally invested in the issue than some, and maybe it clouds my perception, but I can't get the image out of my mind of Gary Hilton coming across Meredith Emerson on that Blood Mountain trail two years ago. In my vision, he sees a sidearm on her hip and a confident look in her eye - and keeps on going. I know it's not grounded in reality or even probability, but it provides me some hope.
Posted By: Bee Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 02:28 AM
Originally Posted By: Bulldog34
.....and a confident look in her eye - and keeps on going. I know it's not grounded in reality or even probability, but it provides me some hope.


There it is -- right there, Doggie. Watch (not too obviously) how some women carry themselves -- some like timid does, others like mighty mooses. Some are dressed like 10-year-olds going to a summer pic-a-nic, others like they mean business. Long before the assailant notices the acessory on her hip, he will have assessed the whole package. Like wolverines waiting for the herd stragglers, human predators prefer easy prey, too. By all means, not to say that any woman "asks" to be attacked, rather, I just observe that it is best to put the odds in one's favor by creating a more formidable first impression at a distance(I would rather not have to wait until up-close-and-personal to make a statement.)

b

Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 03:34 AM
Quote:
Why do you guys keep evading the question about carry open on Yosemite Valley floor an in the car camping campgrounds


I never evaded the questions intentionally, carrying in campgrounds or Yosemite Valley are for the same reasons you would carry any where else except the statistical probability of everything you could think of happening is extremely low, I once heard though it's just hearsay that Yosemite has a high crime rate, primarily due to the massive amount of people that are there so maybe chances are higher there although I feel statistical probability might be irrelevant.

I was thinking today about the idea beyond actual need on the subject of guns, and I really feel that "just because I want to" is more than enough reason in itself, after all the very nature of liberty is being free to do the things that you want, to not feel smothered under the confines of oppression, I couldn't help but think of that old cheesy movie called "Demolition man" when Denis Leary's character was ranting about the police state society and said "I want to run down the street naked with my body covered in jello! singing i'm an oscar myer wiener WHY!? because maybe I suddenly get the urge to!"

We can't deny that the apprehension felt around open carry situations is due to fear mongering, it would be hard to find a single person that would not call America a fear mongering nation, people are being made to be afraid of their own shadow, the point is when was the last time you heard of an incident involving a person doing open carry? I can't recall any cases, and there are still a number of states that allow full open carry of loaded weapons and look at the results? no real incidents to report, the point is if incidents are non existent or practically non existent then you really need to ask yourself why you feel uneasy if you see someone carrying a gun, and yes this is exactly the same thing that someone who carries a gun in a campground can ask themselves, the point falls back to basic liberty and a liberty that was considered so important by the architects of this country that it was number 2 on the bill of rights.

Quote:
He either knew how to handle himself against the lion without a gun or he figured it out pretty quickly. Who knows, a gun might have made the situation WORSE.


I think the general logic your trying to use could just as easily be used in the opposite manor, I think the statistic is guns are used 2.5 million times a year by citizens to prevent crime, you could just say well it worked out pretty well having a gun, not having one could have made things worse, but I think we both can agree that on either side of the argument we can find incidents where things would have been better with a gun or without one.

I find it amazing that the supreme court would have to even think about the "reach" of the second amendment, the constitution is "supposed" to be the supreme law of all the land, states have to follow it and then as it says "all other laws are respectfully the right of the states", this element of the constitution has long left me wondering how federal law is even legal, by the wording of the constitution it shouldn't be but that is another matter I have been long meaning to research.

Quote:
William Shatner on Gun Control


Rofl, that part where he says "how about I blow your brains out" " that doesn't work for me, does it work for you?" classic =P
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 03:44 AM
Damn, Rod, that is hilarious! Kudos!
Posted By: Rod Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 03:46 AM
I like Shatner "Here's my watch,here's my wallet, here's my gun"

CaT don't know why you aren't getting it. It works on my computer and apparently RoguePhonic saw it fine.I had to have Steve help me post it.

I wasn't going to comment on this thread at all but this video was just the comic relief this thread needed IMO.
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 04:02 AM
Originally Posted By: Bee
Originally Posted By: Bulldog34
.....and a confident look in her eye - and keeps on going. I know it's not grounded in reality or even probability, but it provides me some hope.


There it is -- right there, Doggie. Watch (not too obviously) how some women carry themselves -- some like timid does, others like mighty mooses. Some are dressed like 10-year-olds going to a summer pic-a-nic, others like they mean business. Long before the assailant notices the acessory on her hip, he will have assessed the whole package. Like wolverines waiting for the herd stragglers, human predators prefer easy prey, too. By all means, not to say that any woman "asks" to be attacked, rather, I just observe that it is best to put the odds in one's favor by creating a more formidable first impression at a distance(I would rather not have to wait until up-close-and-personal to make a statement.)

b



Exactly what we're trying to instill in our daughter Bee. All other accoutrements aside, common sense, awareness and ability are the tools most needed in the wilderness (and really, pretty much everywhere else). Defensively speaking, by age 9 she had the instep-stomp and gonad-smash down pat (boys, watch out in a few years - this cutie will break more than your heart). She's now 10, so I suppose we can move on to eye-gouging and the finer techniques of biting. Sweetheart, Dad's busy - why don't you go practice on the boy next door . . .
Posted By: CaT Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 04:23 AM
Quote:
We can't deny that the apprehension felt around open carry situations is due to fear mongering

Yeah, actually, we can. I don't pay attention to fear mongering from either side of the argument, nor is my real apprehension decided for me in that way.

With the largely duplicate thread going on over at WPSMB, I took the rare (for me these days) step of posting there first because I wanted to add to something Ken said over there. But my response there applies to your comment (quoted above).

So here is my post from WPSMB reproduced below (and having also responded to what Bee asked me on WPSMB about how long this thought process takes, the entire process only takes a couple of seconds, but of course, far longer to type out):

Been lurking on this thread.

Wasn't planning on adding anything to it, but wanted to elaborate a little further on the "destabilization" thought that Ken mentioned (and with which I agree, although I don't agree with the comment about the carrier being the first target...). I want to try and describe how I would probably react (and more important, *why*) if I ran into any stranger (to me), other than law enforcement, who was openly carrying any kind of firearm (loaded or not) in public (city or backcountry).

Roughly, my mental process might go something like this (couldn't get the bullet points to single space, sorry):
  • See person with firearm
  • Do I know this person? If yes, no biggie.
  • If no, is there anything about this person, at first glance (which is probably all I would have), that would cause me to think, even a little bit, that this person might be a threat, even without the firearm? If no, then probably no biggie. But how do I know that for sure? Should I assume, sight unseen, that this person who is unknown to me (and thus an unknown quantity) won't be a threat? If I assume no threat, how do I know that for sure? I don't.
  • If any threat is sensed (rightly or wrongly, based on the immediate circumstances), then the presence of a firearm only heightens that sensed threat.
  • Do I want to socially engage this armed person in the same outgoing manner that I normally do? What will be the consequences of that social engagement?
  • The mere presence of a visible firearm (always presumed by me to be loaded unless proven otherwise) slightly decreases the likelihood that I will as readily engage this person in the same manner that I otherwise might do without the firearm.
  • My mind will automatically ask, why is this person *displaying* a firearm in the first place? Does s/he really feel that unprotected without it, or is s/he just displaying it more as a means of saying to others, in essence, "because I can do it, I am doing it" (sort-of like the same thought process that might motivate someone to demonstrate for or against any principle that they hold very strongly)?
  • If displaying the firearm more on principle (just because I can...), then, without knowing anything about them (again, remember that they are a total stranger and thus, an unknown quantity) I may begin to question their ability to show good judgment and restraint, since I consider such a willful display a bit over the line of what I would consider showing proper restraint and being considerate of how others might be reacting (with unease) to this display of potential deadly force.
  • If a person can't show a basic amount of reasonable restraint in a non-stressed environment, then how are they going to show the kind of restraint that is needed even more in a tense situation? That could be a problem.
These are the kinds of logical thought processes that would probably go through my mind, depending entirely on the situation. Note that I mentioned no names here, because I don't consider that relevant to this line of thought.

My main point here is that a stranger is an unkonwn quantity until I meet them and am comfortable with them so that they are no longer a stranger. I'm very outgoing most of the time, and make friends pretty easily. Also, I am very inclined to give people the benefit of the doubt in just about any situation, all other things being neutral or equal. But even so, until the time a new acquaintance ceases to become an "unknown quanity", if you add to that mix any kind of a weapon, and most certainly an openly displayed firearm of any kind (loaded or not), it will make me more cautious toward and wary of that person. Obviously, that will change completely once I get to know that person, should it get to that point.

I think a few here had commented that they didn't necessarily understand why someone carrying openly, merely on its face, would be a problem for others. The above thought process hopefully answers that question. Before anyone responds and says that I am a fearful person, I am not.

Ooops ... went longer than I anticipated (what a surprise).


CaT

PS - Rod, still not getting the picture above. Maybe it'll work on my computer at work tomorrow.
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 04:25 AM
Originally Posted By: AlanK
Originally Posted By: Bulldog34
I agree Alan...

I'd happily debate/discuss any topic with the likes of yourself and Icystair any day. Like you said, we really aren't that far apart even though we're not exactly on the same page. I understand and respect your thoughts, and I think you reciprocate. We could probably spend hours debating in a bar from opposite perspectives on a given matter, and part agreeing to happily do it again soon.

I enjoyed much of the discussion on the WPSMB thread, although there were a couple of exasperating posts too (by people who aren't over here). I especially appreciated a couple of Bulldog's essays. I mentioned somewhere that I own no guns and also that I have always lived in places where I could go out walking at any hour without fear. I also admitted that some event could cause me to regret that attitude, or at least change my mind. For example, if I am held up at gunpoint a couple of times, I might very well re-think my gun non-ownership. In any case, I certainly don't go around telling other people how to respond to such situations!


Alan, I apologize - in all the back-and-forth between the two boards, I completely missed this post and just now saw it. In all honesty, I'd rather debate or discuss a topic with someone who is not necessarily on the same page as me than someone who is - if they bring civility and mutual respect to the table. It's not worth the effort if you can't learn something new or gain a different insight. You do that, and I appreciate it.

Essays, huh? Oh well, I've never been accused of being shy . . . or concise.
Posted By: DUG Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 04:32 AM
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
Quote:
He either knew how to handle himself against the lion without a gun or he figured it out pretty quickly. Who knows, a gun might have made the situation WORSE.


I think the general logic your trying to use could just as easily be used in the opposite manor, I think the statistic is guns are used 2.5 million times a year by citizens to prevent crime, you could just say well it worked out pretty well having a gun, not having one could have made things worse, but I think we both can agree that on either side of the argument we can find incidents where things would have been better with a gun or without one.

I find it amazing that the supreme court would have to even think about the "reach" of the second amendment, the constitution is "supposed" to be the supreme law of all the land, states have to follow it and then as it says "all other laws are respectfully the right of the states", this element of the constitution has long left me wondering how federal law is even legal, by the wording of the constitution it shouldn't be but that is another matter I have been long meaning to research.


All I'm trying to say is the situation ended well. Hard to argue that. Also, the situation may have ended badly if he had a gun and wasn't able to get a kill shot quickly enough. Or the gun could have gave him a false sense of security changing how he handled himself. Without it he had to use his wits to survive. I am only going off the little info you've posted, but at the end of the day if he is alive and the animal is alive, that seems like a good thing.

I'm not anti gun and I'm not into giving up any freedoms or rights. I just don't see a need to carry in the backcountry. You say just because you feel like it should be good enough. It might be, if that's your standard. It's also my right to fart in church next to you while drinking a beer, but I don't. Sometimes I don't do whatever I feel like, even though it's my right just because I care how my actions affect other people. I'm funny that way.............................DUG
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 06:56 AM
To CaT, the notions are certainly intriguing, my first argument would be in the notion of how people generalize what they consider a "threatening appearance", I don't deny at times judging people in ways based on their looks but I do say that this is one of humanities greatest down falls, looks can be extremely deceiving and by using them as judgement against people we don't even know we only help to create greater segregation between ourselves.

Honestly though I do believe we are beginning to find a solution to the nature of open carry for someone like me at least, many other states of mind expressed I completely disagree with their assessment and feel they are wrong, I think we can agree it's not based on personal or heard about grievances associated with the situation and the sources of those feelings or thoughts are undoubtedly a far more complex matter that extends to the very heart of this country but in the end does it even matter? as a person that would open carry (I never have before) I have to make a decision and I personally would have to disregard others feelings and make people feel uncomfortable, and I certainly do not like making people uncomfortable but it comes down to that or me surrendering what I consider a very important liberty and to do so under the notion I consider completely irrational apprehension, and I cannot do that, I will not do that, and I think that by doing open carry and exposing people to it I will be doing a greater part no matter how small of it to change peoples opinion on the matter, after all the more people are exposed to something like that the more comfortable they will become with it and in my opinion will add a positive element back into society.

I also think that people are more inconsiderate in asking others to give up their legal rights/comfort/hobbies so that they themselves can feel a bit better, just think about how many different things you could apply that idea to in society, things people wished others did not do for one reason or another but have the legal right to...

Quote:
All I'm trying to say is the situation ended well. Hard to argue that. Also, the situation may have ended badly if he had a gun and wasn't able to get a kill shot quickly enough. Or the gun could have gave him a false sense of security changing how he handled himself. Without it he had to use his wits to survive. I am only going off the little info you've posted, but at the end of the day if he is alive and the animal is alive, that seems like a good thing


I agree all ended well, if I had a gun in that situation it would go about like this "pulls out gun, fires shot into air and points at the animal, if it does not scare and does not charge then it would just be a stand off anyway" no need to fire at the animal until it becomes a threat.

Quote:
I just don't see a need to carry in the backcountry.


I don't either, you wont ever see me carry in the backcountry concealed or not unless I have something like hunting in mind, I already burden myself with 7 pounds of camera gear and hell if I am going to bring a gun!
Posted By: SoCalGirl Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 06:51 PM
Bee... you're right.. how a person (read "woman") carries themselves is very much a part of how their interactions in the wilderness (or anywhere else) are going to go... someone who looks around... makes eye contact.. stands taller.. is going to be less likely to get "targeted" then someone who walks with shoulders hunched, folded in on themselves, constantly staring at the ground and their toes.

BullDog... several weeks ago I went to one of our local county parks to photograph the flood stage river that had resulted from the massive rains we'd recieved here in SoCal. I had mentioned the previous evening to my Mom that I would be going during lunch... and then sent a cell phone photo to a couple of friends from the park. As I walked a little further back into the park to get to a different vantage point I crossed paths with a couple of guys (looking a tad bit disheveled) and the thought process that went through my head (as a solo female in a fairly remote area) was as follows: 1- Are these two going to be trouble for me? 2-Who knows where I am? 3- Can I defend myself against these two? 4- Do I turn around and get back to my car right now? 5- Could I get to my car before they get to me? 6- Now that I've passed them do I hear them following me? 7- I'm due back to work at 1, how long will it take them to notice I'm not there and start wondering where I am? (I was on my lunch break). This entire thought process took about 2 seconds... but it still put me on edge for the rest of my walk, so I totally sympathize with the girl who you assisted. It doesn't matter what the intentions are.. if you're already stressed out... (and I do remember you talking about that incident on the other board).

Another thing to consider regarding carrying firearms... if it comes down to it are you going to be able to use that weapon? If you were attacked... do you have the cahones to pull that gun, point it at another living human being (no matter what threat they are) and pull the trigger? If you freeze or panic and get the gun out, but then can't pull the trigger... guess what? You've just put another advantage (and weapon) into your attackers hands, because as soon as they overpower you, that gun is theirs. I'm sure that the whole overpowering thing would be less likely to happen to a man then it would be for a woman... but take me for example. I am 5'00" in my stocking feet... I weigh in at just over 140... if I don't fire that weapon as soon as it's out of it's holster, danged near any man is going to be able to wrestle that from me. Don't think I won't put up a fight... but I am not going to disullision myself far enough to think that I'm goign to be able to keep my weapon from any average sized man who wants it...
Posted By: MooseTracks Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 07:34 PM
re: critters...

I've stared down a cougar, and walked up the Taboose Pass trail with a bear. In neither situation did I think I needed a gun. I needed to shit my pants at first, but then I calmed and assessed the situation, made myself large and noisy, and took steps towards both animals. In the case of the bear, it simply turned and walked with me (about 100ft ahead) and I just kept talking to it so it knew I was still there. It finally got tired of my jabbering and headed down into the creek.

re: generalizations...

Both sides of this discussion are making gross generalizations. One is saying that everyone who carries is trustworthy and has the knowledge and skills to know when and how to use said tool. The other is saying that all of those people who carry are not to be trusted, destroy my sense of peace and quiet, etc.

With something like this, which in part hinges on human nature(s), generalizations are pointless and worthless. We each know how we, individually, would react to a situation. There is no way of knowing, until you have been in a situation with another person, to know how they will react. I've seen some of the bravest people I know reduced to standing around in shock and assume a follower role instead of the leaders they usually are.

It is that variability that concerns me. Not the right to carry or not. Hell, you want to carry the weight, go right ahead. I used to throw my K-Bar on the side of my pack on my solo trips. I got a lot of looks, mostly from men, btw, and comments about the size of my knife. Helluva lot more useful in the backcountry, too.

Of course, as I say this, I do have to take into account that I'm 10 feet tall, I chop down trees with my bare hands, lug 100 pound packs full of three bear cans over the tops of mountains, and cuddle with the mountain lions at night.

Speaking of which... maybe I need to go find DUG and keep him company in that winter hole of his... smirk
Posted By: George Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 08:14 PM
Quote:
If you freeze or panic and get the gun out, but then can't pull the trigger... guess what? You've just put another advantage (and weapon) into your attackers hands, because as soon as they overpower you, that gun is theirs. I'm sure that the whole overpowering thing would be less likely to happen to a man then it would be for a woman...


This gets back to what I've been trying to emphasize on this gun carrying mania. One of the reasons that I'm incredibly uneasy with all these guns out there is the poor level of training required for even a CCW in California. It's not just about basic safety (don't clean a loaded weapon) and it is definitely not just about hitting a target with a score of xx. We no longer train with a numbered scoring system, so the emphasis is not on your score, but firing quickly and accurately into the center of mass to stop the threat.

SoCalGirl is right, it's also about weapon retention (forgotten the number, but a significant number of trained officers are shot with their own weapons); deciding when to shoot or not shoot; understanding lethal force; when to use a secondary weapon when lethal force is not justified; how to shoot quickly and accurately in an adrenaline situation. Most police shootings happen within about a 5 foot distance and are over in 3 (!!) seconds (should be verified, but I think that's from FBI stats). One study found the best trained officers in daylight conditions hit the person with about 65% of rounds fired. That's officers who probably train several times a year in tactical scenarios, not standing on a range firing at a stationary paper target. Other studies have shown hit ratios in the 15% range.

And then, yes, the psychological part of shooting. You have to be absolutely prepared to instantly recognize the situations where lethal force is necessary and justified; draw, aim and shoot. That's less than a second.

If people feel the need for a weapon, take a close look at Tasers. The new civilian models are made to go long enough for you to drop it (still active) on the ground and run away. The C3 is small and lightweight and comes in a variety of complimentary colors.




g.
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/03/10 11:50 PM
Quote:
I've stared down a cougar, and walked up the Taboose Pass trail with a bear. In neither situation did I think I needed a gun.


I also have not felt I needed a gun with any animal situation I have encountered, I walked a trail with a mother bear and her two cubs but I never felt worried even though I know of the dangers of being around the cubs, the odds of coming across a situation where I would feel threatened is extremely low.

I do admit that I am making generalizations, my only argument is I am basing the generalizations on the lack of any cases of open carry problems while the other side makes them based on what exactly? what ifs?

I also agree completely that we can never know exactly how we will react until something happens.

Thanks for the comic relief, exactly what this thread needs. smile
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 12:48 AM
Has anybody offered up a good "why" on open carry yet. If so then I missed it.
Posted By: Bee Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 12:52 AM
Originally Posted By: Mike Condron
Has anybody offered up a good "why" on open carry yet. If so then I missed it.


'cause I can

(answer does not reflect the opinion of this poster who only aims to annoy Mike grin )
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 12:56 AM
Oh yeah???? Annoy this!!!! mad
Posted By: Bee Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 12:58 AM
Originally Posted By: Mike Condron
Oh yeah???? Annoy this!!!!


Now take it easy, mister, we don't want anyone to get hurt.
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 01:01 AM
Quote:
Has anybody offered up a good "why" on open carry yet. If so then I missed it.


The good reasons are all the ones you already know such as self defense, I think we can agree the reasons are sound but our argument has centered around the nature of statistical probability and whether it's irrelevant, I maintain that it is.
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 01:10 AM
Actually I think I should make a point that falls outside of statistical probability, open carry is a visual deterrent and greatly reduces your chances of being attacked, criminals prey on the weak and are not likely to take on a person with a gun on their hip.

On guns in general we could break out all the statistics of where they have helped, I forgot which town it is in America if anyone has the name that passed a law requiring the head of every house hold to own a gun and ammo for it, when that law passed the burglary rates dropped 95%, or how about the other way around such as when Australia banned guns, crimes rates across the board sky rocketed.

Or how about the bigger picture such as many years ago when Japan said they would never want to invade America because they knew how everyone was armed. =P
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 01:26 AM
Add "in a campground such as those near the Whitney Trailhead or in at the car camping campgrounds in Yosemite".

Does the same "self defense" rational apply in these very benign locations?
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 01:35 AM
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
I forgot which town it is in America if anyone has the name that passed a law requiring the head of every house hold to own a gun and ammo for it, when that law passed the burglary rates dropped 95%, or how about the other way around such as when Australia banned guns, crimes rates across the board sky rocketed.


Rogue, coincidentally I posted that information on WPS this afternoon - it's Kennesaw, Georgia, here in metro Atlanta. Here's the post from today:

Jim, Georgia has 159 counties (insane, I know - only Texas is crazier) and about 800 incorporated cities and towns (many of them smallish, but then again 6 million of Georgia's 10 million people are in metro Atlanta), but the firearms regulations are pretty homogenic throughout the state due to the state law pre-emption statute - in other words, no governing body may restrict firearms regulations further than state law allows, which is pretty wide-open.

However there is one city that has "enhanced" state law by having an ordinance on the books that requires every head of household to possess a firearm and ammunition. The city is Kennesaw (right next to my little burg of Marietta), and it actually has an NPS-operated park within it's city limits - Kennesaw Mountain National Battlefield Park - with about 27 miles of extremely heavily-used trails lacing two mountains. From Wiki:


On May 1, 1982 the city passed an ordinance [Sec 34-1a] requiring every head of household to maintain a firearm together with ammunition. It was passed partly in response to a 1981 handgun ban in Morton Grove, Illinois. Kennesaw's law was amended in 1983 to exempt those who conscientiously object to owning a firearm, convicted felons, those who cannot afford a firearm, and those with a mental or physical disability that would prevent them from owning a firearm. It mentions no penalty for its violation. No one has ever been charged under the ordinance. In the first year, home burglaries dropped from 65, to 26 in 1983, to 11 in 1984.

Even though the law is clearly tongue-in-cheek, has no associated penalty, and has never been enforced, I suppose a broad interpretation could be made by some that it now requires all KMNB park visitors to be armed and loaded . . .

Good for some comic relief anyway in what has occasionally become a flashpoint thread.


Posted By: wagga Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 02:17 AM
"Ms. Ordinance, please meet Mr. Ordnance"
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 02:49 AM
Jeez wagga, do you just sit around all day and make this stuff up? When does your brain get a rest?
Posted By: wagga Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 03:09 AM
Mr. Ordnance eventually summoned up the brass to invite Ms. Ordinance out for a sedate date. He proved to be an excellent lead in dancing. She correctly gauged him to be of the appropriate caliber and, as he didn't choke, allowed him to shoot his wad. The resultant shotgun wedding...

Is outside of the scope of this forum.
Posted By: Bulldog34 Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 03:14 AM
I rest my case . . .
Posted By: wagga Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 03:34 AM
A good punt, but they are illegal now.
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 04:17 AM
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
when Australia banned guns, crimes rates across the board sky rocketed.

Not true.

Quote:
Not surprisingly, the National Rifle Association didn't let the facts get in the way of its claims that stricter gun laws had caused an increase in crime in Australia. Attorney-General of Australia, Daryl Williams, pointed out in letter to Charlton Heston that "firearms are being used less often in murder, attempted murder, assault, sexual assault and armed robbery in 1998 compared with 1997." He also stated in his letter, "The 54 firearm-related homicides in Australia in 1998 equate to a rate of only 0.28 per 100,000 people. I have been advised that this compares to a rate which is in the order of 4 per 100,000 in the United States. Now that you have the facts, I request that you withdraw immediately the misleading information from your latest campaign."

Ref.

See also a decent discussion on the Snopes Web site.
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 04:33 AM
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
Or how about the bigger picture such as many years ago when Japan said they would never want to invade America because they knew how everyone was armed.

You are kidding, right? Surely you don't believe this!
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 04:37 AM
Quote:
Does the same "self defense" rational apply in these very benign locations?


Of course it does, yet as I already pointed out it depends on how relevant you hold the statistical probability, if someone wants to carry a gun in a location with almost no chance of ever needing it's use then who am I to really argue their happiness.

And if the mind set was i'm going to say "freed" then they wouldn't be taking anything from others.

Thanks for the information Bulldog34, although I think the figures can prove a point I can't say I support the idea that everyone should have to be armed, that is taking their rights away just the same if they could not have guns with different implications of course, people should always be allowed to not own a gun as much as they should be allowed to own them IMO.

I do like though when states have things like guns put into their constitution, it stops draconian local ordinances.
Posted By: wagga Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 04:46 AM
I'm Oz., and I live in America. California, to be specific.

I was brought up with guns; 10 gauge shotguns for snakes & general carnage, long-barreled .22 long rifle revolvers for surprises, and Olympic air guns for precision practice.

Step into my bedroom in the wee smalls & take your choice. Nah., It's my choice. A 10 gauge discharge is quite loud. The last sound you would ever hear.
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 04:49 AM
I missed page 5 to respond to and since so many seem to read before I can edit i'll make a new post.

In regards to the bit posted by AlanK, there is a key bit of wording in that memo " firearms are being used less often in murder", it's only natural that firearm related crime goes down but the crime rates in themselves don't go down, I am going by memory from reading years ago but after the ban the homicide rates went up 134% wasn't it? and that being on one crime rate that shot up, now I do admit that sky rocketing crime rates don't necessarily mean it has anything to do with the ban on guns, speaking from a strictly scientific view point but the sudden rise in conjunction with the ban is worth a mention.

Quote:
You are kidding, right? Surely you don't believe this!


I wish I had the quote on hand as I saw it perhaps a few months ago, was from some member of the Japanese government as I recall, and yes I believe it because it's an easy tactical assessment, a country has millions of gun owners that would resist your invasion, it's an almost unwinnable scenario short of genocide of course.
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 04:52 AM
Just to be sure I hear you right, open carry rights in a benign situation like a car camp campground in Yosemite trump the quiet enjoyment of the park by those visiting and you would carry openly in a car camping campground even though it would upset those camped around you?
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 05:09 AM
Quote:
Just to be sure I hear you right, open carry rights in a benign situation like a car camp campground in Yosemite trump the quiet enjoyment of the park by those visiting and you would carry openly in a car camping campground even though it would upset those camped around you?


Short answer yes, more precisely I say that because I go back to people having completely the wrong attitude, you say trump the quiet enjoyment but how is that? how does an extra piece of equipment on a person make any difference what so ever, it only does in the mind set of those around you and I will always feel that fear is irrational and I do no good to myself, those people or my country to surrender my rights without an absolutely good reason.

To put it in another way, if there were numerous cases around America of shootings involving people doing open carry I might understand peoples fear and give them some space in benign situations, but without that I cannot.

Lets put forth a great example, Americans have been so pumped full of propaganda about the evil Muslims that they feel uncomfortable and feel fear when one gets on an airplane with them, now should that lets say man not wear a turban because it makes people around him uncomfortable? should he not even fly at all? is the feelings those people feel even right? should he surrender his rights his beliefs or his comforts because of irrational fear?

I hope your getting the point I am trying to make because if you don't then all this discussion just becomes in vain, you will take me as a person that has no regard for others and that couldn't be further from the truth but like I said a couple pages back in comes down to choice to carry or not, if people who are against it can come up with anything other then it makes me uneasy or a basis of uneasiness that can be considered justified then I may consider it more seriously.
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 05:19 AM
I just wanted you to put your position out there. Everyone is entitled to one and we now know yours. Thank you for sharing.
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 05:53 AM
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
I hope your getting the point I am trying to make because if you don't then all this discussion just becomes in vain, you will take me as a person that has no regard for others and that couldn't be further from the truth but like I said a couple pages back in comes down to choice to carry or not, if people who are against it can come up with anything other then it makes me uneasy or a basis of uneasiness that can be considered justified then I may consider it more seriously.

FWIW, you don't come across to me as someone who has little regard for others. I'm sure you are a perfectly reasonable fellow.
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 05:58 AM
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
I wish I had the quote on hand as I saw it perhaps a few months ago, was from some member of the Japanese government as I recall, and yes I believe it because it's an easy tactical assessment, a country has millions of gun owners that would resist your invasion, it's an almost unwinnable scenario short of genocide of course.

This article discusses the Australian business as well as the claim about the Japanese. It is pretty clear that the Japanese never considered invading the US, period.
Posted By: Ken Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 07:07 AM
"I do admit that I am making generalizations, my only argument is I am basing the generalizations on the lack of any cases of open carry problems while the other side makes them based on what exactly? what ifs?"

I have to wonder where you live. I lived in Bakersfield, working in the trauma center at Kern Medical. I never saw anyone in the city openly wearing in all that time. I've never seen anyone in Fresno, Lone Pine, LA, Palmdale, Lancaster, Delano, Taft, Porterville, Springville, and many other central valley towns "open wearing."

Understand that you are talking about a behavior that is WEIRD: that is, something that virtually no one has ever seen before. You can believe it or not, but the sight of an armed person makes virtually everyone who sees it nervous and unsettled, because it is WEIRD. WEIRD people, of ANY kind, make most people unsettled. Most people want to move away. Most people, protective of their families, will complain, if they cannot move. If they complain to you, you've made it clear that you will not take their position into account, you don't care if you are destroying their vacation, you don't care if they are upset.

Those attitudes will not win friends and influence people.

You have made it clear that you are willing to take it upon yourself to use a gun to protect yourself from any perceived danger. You might consider that others will consider YOU to be a perceived danger. You might take your gun out to clean, and someone may interpret that as "brandishing", and so state to authorities. THAT is the weapon that they have to protect their families from perceived threat. Off you go to jail for observation, particularly if you make any kind of stink, then you get hit for resisting, and THAT won't go away when the brandishing witnesses don't show up for your trial. By the way, if convicted of that, you are now a felon, and I don't believe you may own a gun. Oh, and if the gun is *loaded*......

Saying that they don't deserve to feel that way, when it is the vast majority of the population, is pretty non-productive.

So you might want to consider the possible consequences of the behavior you advocate, and the reaction that it may trigger, and consequences of that.

People don't like to be made fearful, and when it is done deliberately, they can react in unpredictable ways.
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 09:07 AM
Quote:
It is pretty clear that the Japanese never considered invading the US, period


I didn't mean to imply that they were planning it, the mans comments were probably off slight considerations.

Quote:
I never saw anyone in the city openly wearing in all that time.


I've never seen anyone carrying in any city, something I consider a real tragedy.

Quote:
behavior that is WEIRD


Well by weird you mean uncommon, and I accept everything all you have said about what people feel but i'm going in circles in trying to explain why they think it, every reason I have been given as to why they think it is irrational IMO.

Quote:
You might take your gun out to clean, and someone may interpret that as "brandishing"


I would never take a gun out to clean in a populated area especially if it's filled with people that don't know what is going on.

Quote:
Saying that they don't deserve to feel that way, when it is the vast majority of the population, is pretty non-productive.


I don't see getting rid of guns in any way as being productive though, our species is no where near a level of safety from larger threats to even think about the idea, that's why I sometimes will call anti gun people "genocide enablers".

And sure your notions of being arrested are very real, that's why most people that open carry bring the laws with them and an audio recorder in order to record the encounters with the police because abuses of rights are so common, I heard of one guy that was arrested and held for two days when he was open carrying, the police seem to always get it wrong that you are able to carry loaded magazine clips and it does not matter how close they are to your gun.
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 02:29 PM
Rogue,
You are in the group of "I'm carrying because I can and I don't care one iota about you." people.
Posted By: DUG Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 02:50 PM
I've thought about it and I've decided that it is my RIGHT to pack heat, just as much as anyone else's. I still think a gun is useless, so my team and I will be packing these -

http://www.thegreenhead.com/2007/07/20-million-candlepower-flashlight-spotlight.php

With at least five of those on the team we should be able to cut our way through the night. Sometimes you got to do it just because you FEEL LIKE IT.

And, no more iPod and headphones! Screw that. It's my RIGHT to listen to music on the trail so we are looking into a system that allows each member of the team to carry a speaker and we can listen to our music wirelessly. If you know of a semi portable stereo system that uses wireless speakers - please LMK. Louder is BETTER.

Outpost Camp and Trail Camp should expect to hear the Warrior Song (http://www.thewarriorsong.com/) as we pass through.

It's my RIGHT to pack the brightest flashlights known to man and I refuse to give up that right (unless someone here asks me not too).

At least a 20 million candlepower flashlight would be useful - what bear or cat is gonna go after us when that is shined in their eyes? What human? No more stove either - we can roast hotdogs on it!

The future is soooooo bright, I gotta wear shades.................................................DUG
Posted By: MooseTracks Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 03:52 PM
Originally Posted By: Mike Condron
Rogue,
You are in the group of "I'm carrying because I can and I don't care one iota about you." people.


And Mike, you are in the "I'm going to pick the scab off this thing and irritate the s**t out of it until someone realizes it's bleeding."

We know Rogue's position. We know your position. Give it a rest.
Posted By: Steve C Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 05:10 PM
I might just GET ONE of those lights, DUG! Some years ago, I got one of those lighter-plug-in lights that was really bright at the time. Used it one night on the Tioga road, half way between Tuolumne Meadows and Tioga Pass at the meadow where they have the deer crossing signs.

Pulled off the road, flicked on the light.

All these glowing eyes immediately showed up! Fun stuff.

Rogue, click the blinking red envelope at the top of the page.
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 05:18 PM
Laura,
This is the "Packing Heat" thread and the topic will be debated for a while yet I'm sure. We differ on whether or not it's scab picking.

Mike
Posted By: dbd Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 05:52 PM
Originally Posted By: Mike Condron
Laura,
This is the "Packing Heat" thread and topic will be debated for a while yet I'm sure. We differ on whether or not it's scab picking.

Mike


Some of this topic has been debate and some has been name calling. I think Laura noticed the difference. Some don't or can't.

Dale B. Dalrymple
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 05:55 PM
Originally Posted By: Mike Condron
Your limit is the thing you did just before the one that killed you.

That reminds me of the old Calvin and Hobbes cartoon in which Calvin asks his dad how they determine the weight limit on bridges. His dad replies that they drive bigger and bigger trucks over it until it collapses. Then they rebuild the bridge exactly as before and the limit is the largest truck that made it over.
Posted By: MooseTracks Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 06:42 PM
Originally Posted By: Mike Condron
Laura,
This is the "Packing Heat" thread and the topic will be debated for a while yet I'm sure. We differ on whether or not it's scab picking.

Mike


Then debate the topic. Both of your positions have been stated, and if there's any question, reviewing the ump-teen pages of rehash on those positions will drive the points home.

For the record, I don't agree with either position. I don't really care if someone carries or not. Even if I'm crapping my pants because I'm scared of the individual, you will NEVER see it. I am more scared of unprepared people in ANY situation, be it using snow gear properly or shooting warning shots into the air (the bullets have to come down SOMETIME).

You admitted to baiting Fuji on the other thread. You're doing the same here. I don't care how old you are (which is also a common question on all 3, yes 3!!!, boards. Baiting an argument is childish.

Move on.
Posted By: DUG Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 07:08 PM
If you want to open carry where it's legal, go for it. The only logical reason I can think of is you want to draw attention to yourself. Much like these people:

www.peopleofwalmart.com

There are a LOT of things that are perfectly legal that most folks don't do simply out respect for others..............................................DUG
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 09:52 PM
Laura,
I'm pretty sure all of my questions to the "carry because I can" people have been confined to why they would carry in Yosemite Valley and why they would carry loaded in a Yosemite car camp campground campsite. I also think that anyone who would carry in these places needs to have their reasons made public so people can see them in the light of day stripped of the NRA rhetoric and extraordinary lame self protection arguments.

For the record, I am now and have been most of my life a multiple firearm owner, I believe carrying concealed should be allowed by most everyone if they choose, but I can't sit by and give the "carry because I can" people a free ride when it comes to being armed in Yosemite in the manner and places I've mentioned.

Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 10:11 PM
You analogy's are very comical DUG although i'm not sure I understand the one about the super bright lights, I don't know how candle light rating compare to lumens but I carry a 100 lumen flashlight and would actually like to buy that 300 lumen headlamp =P, whether you shine that massive light in the eyes of those that pass you is a whole different thing lol.

The Ipod one is not the same also, it's based on face value, the reasons why it bothers them and is rude is quite simple, why a gun is bothersome I think we have already shown to be a far more complex matter, one which we cannot resolve between us.

Quote:
And Mike, you are in the "I'm going to pick the scab off this thing and irritate the s**t out of it until someone realizes it's bleeding."


Rofl!

Quote:
the bullets have to come down SOMETIME


If fired up then simple science dictates they cannot harm you, an object can only fall so fast.

Quote:
The only logical reason I can think of is you want to draw attention to yourself


I'm sorry that after all our discussion I have failed to change your mind about those sorts of assumptions.

I'm now noting back to when I said I gave up on debating anything with people on forums because after countless hours you get no where. crazy

Quote:
There are a LOT of things that are perfectly legal that most folks don't do simply out respect for others


Very true but I cannot think of one that holds the same implications that this example does.

Since Mike mentioned the NRA I need to state I do not support the NRA at all, they have been completely taken over by government influences and work more often to help create more gun control laws.
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 11:06 PM
Photo,

http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read...n-it-comes-down
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 11:13 PM
Photo,
Am I reading this correctly?

Quote:
Since Mike mentioned the NRA I need to state I do not support the NRA at all, they have been completely taken over by government influences and work more often to help create more gun control laws.
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 11:28 PM
Originally Posted By: Mike Condron
Photo,
Am I reading this correctly?

Quote:
Since Mike mentioned the NRA I need to state I do not support the NRA at all, they have been completely taken over by government influences and work more often to help create more gun control laws.

On the other hand, I've heard people claim that the Government had been taken over by the NRA. smile
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 11:41 PM
AlanK,
Are you a "Conspiracy Theorist"? You sound like one. smile
Posted By: DUG Re: Packing Heat. - 03/04/10 11:58 PM
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic

If fired up then simple science dictates they cannot harm you, an object can only fall so fast.



Are you SERIOUS? Please for the love of GOD tell me you don't SERIOUSLY think that is true. My gawd man..............................................DUG
Posted By: Steve C Re: Packing Heat. - 03/05/10 12:30 AM
> I'm sorry that after all our discussion I have failed to change your mind

It's a very rare situation where arguing/debating with someone will result in their changing their mind.

Obviously more learning going on here...
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/05/10 12:48 AM
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
You analogy's are very comical DUG although i'm not sure I understand the one about the super bright lights, I don't know how candle light rating compare to lumens but I carry a 100 lumen flashlight and would actually like to buy that 300 lumen headlamp =P, whether you shine that massive light in the eyes of those that pass you is a whole different thing lol.

Roque,
This will help make sense of it. Since we don't like the metric system in the US we use stuff like foot candles and lumins.

http://www.theledlight.com/lumens.html
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/05/10 12:51 AM
Originally Posted By: Steve C
> I'm sorry that after all our discussion I have failed to change your mind

It's a very rare situation where arguing/debating with someone will result in their changing their mind.

Obviously more learning going on here...


Doesn't that quote finish with, "but you're still and idiot."?
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/05/10 12:58 AM
Originally Posted By: Bee
Originally Posted By: DUG
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic

If fired up then simple science dictates they cannot harm you, an object can only fall so fast.



Are you SERIOUS? Please for the love of GOD tell me you don't SERIOUSLY think that is true. My gawd man..............................................DUG


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celebratory_gunfire

Falling-bullet injuries

People are injured, sometimes fatally, when bullets discharged into the air fall back down. The mortality rate among those struck by falling bullets is about 32%, compared with about 2% to 6% normally associated with gunshot wounds.[5] The higher mortality is related to the higher incidence of head wounds from falling bullets.

A study by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) found that 80% of celebratory gunfire-related injuries are to the head, feet, and shoulders.[6] In the U.S. Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, about two people die and about 25 more are injured each year from celebratory gunfire on New Year's Eve, the CDC says.[3] Between the years 1985 and 1992, doctors at the King/Drew Medical Center in Los Angeles, California, treated some 118 people for random falling-bullet injuries. Thirty-eight of them died.[7] Kuwaitis celebrating in 1991 at the end of the Gulf War by firing weapons into the air caused 20 deaths from falling bullets.[7]


This absolutely flies in the face of intuitive metaphysics. How can an object fall from the sky faster than a feather?
Posted By: SoCalGirl Re: Packing Heat. - 03/05/10 01:01 AM
Originally Posted By: DUG
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic

If fired up then simple science dictates they cannot harm you, an object can only fall so fast.



Are you SERIOUS? Please for the love of GOD tell me you don't SERIOUSLY think that is true. My gawd man..............................................DUG


Photo... if DUG's disbelieving utterances don't make you double-check your facts... look to MythBusters... they know everything! (Or you can just google it and find all sorts of interesting information...)

http://mythbustersresults.com/episode50

Originally Posted By: MythBusters
...if a bullet is fired upward at a non-vertical angle (a far more probable possibility), it will maintain its spin and will reach a high enough speed to be lethal on impact. Because of this potentiality, firing a gun into the air is illegal in most states, and even in the states that it is legal, it is not recommended by the police. Also the MythBusters were able to identify two people who had been injured by falling bullets, one of them fatally injured.
Posted By: AlanK Re: Packing Heat. - 03/05/10 01:18 AM
Originally Posted By: Mike Condron
Are you a "Conspiracy Theorist"? You sound like one. smile

I was only passing on something I'd heard. smile

My head spins too fast when I hear conspiracy theories, so I don't think I'm qualified to cook them up.
Posted By: Mike Condron Re: Packing Heat. - 03/05/10 01:36 AM
Originally Posted By: AlanK
Originally Posted By: Mike Condron
Are you a "Conspiracy Theorist"? You sound like one. smile

I was only passing on something I'd heard. smile

My head spins too fast when I hear conspiracy theories, so I don't think I'm qualified to cook them up.


Alan,
You are a weakling!
Posted By: DUG Re: Packing Heat. - 03/05/10 01:54 AM
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic
You analogy's are very comical DUG although i'm not sure I understand the one about the super bright lights, I don't know how candle light rating compare to lumens but I carry a 100 lumen flashlight and would actually like to buy that 300 lumen headlamp =P, whether you shine that massive light in the eyes of those that pass you is a whole different thing lol.

The Ipod one is not the same also, it's based on face value, the reasons why it bothers them and is rude is quite simple, why a gun is bothersome I think we have already shown to be a far more complex matter, one which we cannot resolve between us.



Glad I bring a little humor - I try not to take some things too seriously. My flashlight analogy is simple - Openly carrying a gun in the backcountry (or car camping spots) is basicly visually offensive. It is certainly legal (usualy) and one's RIGHT to do so, but it makes a lot of people uneasy. The light I picked out for my analogy is rated at 3335 lumes which will make your 300 lume light look like a pen light on a sunny day. It is legal for me to use any light I want to hike the trail and it has been suggested that Just Because I Want To should be good enough reason. Even if it is visually offensive to most and would frighten Stevie Wonder. Same thing for the iPod and speakers. I haven't heard of a law that makes rocking one illegal on the trail.

My analogy, my point, my reason for typing is - I beleive that those who open carry are doing it for attention even though they know it is visually offensive to some and could cause some to be uneasy.

If I were a bad guy in the backcountry I would TARGET someone open carrying. Why? He/she probably has something worth protecting and I can see the damn thing. It's those I can't see and track that I would stay away from. If nothing else while I distract him and my partner hits them over the head with a sierra provided rock, we will score his gun and pack.....................................................DUG
Posted By: RoguePhotonic Re: Packing Heat. - 03/05/10 02:07 AM
In regards to the falling bullets being dangerous I am quite dumb founded that an object so small could fall at fast enough speed with the wind resistance to be dangerous, I based the initial statement off what I thought was a long dispelled myth about throwing coins off high buildings because of the air slowing them down, perhaps if that much is true then its based off the fact that a coin would probably flip through the air creating more drag vs a bullet.

Quote:
Photo,
Am I reading this correctly?


I don't know how your reading it... crazy

Quote:
On the other hand, I've heard people claim that the Government had been taken over by the NRA


That's a new one for me! shocked
Posted By: MooseTracks Re: Packing Heat. - 03/05/10 02:14 AM
Originally Posted By: RoguePhotonic


Quote:
And Mike, you are in the "I'm going to pick the scab off this thing and irritate the s**t out of it until someone realizes it's bleeding."


Rofl!

Quote:
the bullets have to come down SOMETIME


If fired up then simple science dictates they cannot harm you, an object can only fall so fast.


I'm glad I amuse you, but know that my comment to Mike was in no way a defense of your drivel. You make gross assumptions about issues, generalize information for which you have no supportive evidence other than personal experience, and contradict yourself at every turn (knowingly or otherwise). When you first came on the scene, asking about routes and peaks, a number of us, myself included, attempted to offer answers to your questions and suggestions for safe strategy in the mountains. You disregarded the advice, treating those who might, indeed, have a bit more experience than you like those you would meet on the trail while wearing a piece, stating how little you cared about others and, actually, even yourself, discussing being left on high if you perished.

You claimed there were no bears in Horseshoe Meadows because you had never seen one.

You openly discussed, in the presence and after warnings from a veteran and highly respected backcountry ranger, your intentions to place food drops so you could avoid paying resupply fees.

If you want to carry a piece, fine. No one is getting anywhere with you, either, in this discussion. But I simply hope you've been trained in proper use and upkeep, you realize that ANY action you take could have consequences (ie: shooting into the air... why not shoot at the animal's feet if you're feeling threatened???), and that you take good care not to do anything stupid in the backcountry.

From here on out, ignore button (thanks, Bee) engaged.
Posted By: CaT Re: Packing Heat. - 03/05/10 02:19 AM
This thread is getting a well deserved time out.
© WhitneyZone Message Board