The case against guns

[Collector1337]

Collector

Re bullets killing bears. Yes, if the bullet is well aimed. However, the Forest Service does not warn against using hand guns, and relying on bear spray instead for no good reason.

Seth's recent posts conjured up this image of the guy falling into water and sinking like a stone with weight of all his armaments. There is such a thing as being over equipped.

How many bears have you shot and killed?

[Collector1337]

They might have it in a vehicle, but they definitely don't walk around with it. They walk around with guns though.

You know this how?

So, you're telling me you've never encountered a Ranger in your entire life?

[Seth]

Collector

Re bullets killing bears. Yes, if the bullet is well aimed. However, the Forest Service does not warn against using hand guns, and relying on bear spray instead for no good reason.

Actually, they do. As an organization the Park Service detests the recent amendments to federal law that make it lawful for people to carry handguns in the National Parks and Monuments if they have the right to do so under state law, including concealed carry. The Park Service has ALWAYS prohibited firearms in National Parks, including firearms that are disassembled and stored away that you might have simply because you happen to be visiting a National Park while enroute to or from hunting or shooting. It's an institutional bias based on two things: First, they did it because they could, and feds, whenever they can, prefer to disarm the public because it makes THEIR job "safer" and easier (it really doesn't); and second they have a bias towards "wildlife" and a mistaken assumption that if allowed to carry defensive arms visitors will go about shooting animals and endangering the public by randomly firing their guns unexpectedly.

That's been the institutional bias since the very beginning of the NPS. It took the Congress to get the NPS to grudgingly allow people with CCW permits to carry in National Parks, but they still make it a PITA by prohibiting them inside ANY buildings on NPS property, including visitor centers, public bathrooms, hotels, eating facilities and every other structure.

And yet despite the law, there is no evidence of gun owners going crazy and shooting up National Parks.

What there IS evidence of is lower violent crime rates in National Parks since the law was enacted.

The popular National Parks like Yellowstone and Yosemite were actually hotbeds of criminality and no few murders have happened in the parks BECAUSE people are in remote back country areas without personal protection arms...and so are violent criminals looking to victimize, rob, murder and rape park visitors.

Seth's recent posts conjured up this image of the guy falling into water and sinking like a stone with weight of all his armaments. There is such a thing as being over equipped.

Yes, there certainly is. Choosing your basic load for back-country wandering requires careful balancing of plusses and minuses.

I've got a friend who is (was) into ultra-lightweight back country hiking. For years and years he's hiked solo in places like Nepal and all over the US with minimal equipment. A month or so ago he was at White Sands National Monument hiking alone in the dunes when he became quite ill and weak. He barely made it back to his car, and when he got to his hotel he started vomiting bright red blood. He tried to tough it out and very nearly died of blood loss before he called 911. They had to stabilize him locally and then helicopter him to El Paso, Texas for critical care and surgery. He had ruptured some "varices" (like vericose veins) inside his esophagus and had been bleeding internally for hours out in the dunes. He could have easily died right there.

He didn't even have a cell phone with him because it was too heavy. He's recovering, but his solo hiking days are pretty much over. I offered to buy him a SPOT locator if he'd promise to carry it and he declined, saying that even his GPS was "too heavy."

On the other hand, I tend to pack way too much and end up dumping stuff in the car before hiking off because I can barely hoist the pack onto my back.

But I'd rather have it and decide to leave it behind than need it and not have made the decision to leave it behind.

[Seth]

Collector

Re bullets killing bears. Yes, if the bullet is well aimed. However, the Forest Service does not warn against using hand guns, and relying on bear spray instead for no good reason.

Seth's recent posts conjured up this image of the guy falling into water and sinking like a stone with weight of all his armaments. There is such a thing as being over equipped.

How many bears have you shot and killed?

As for me, one, with a bow and arrow, at four yards.

[Blind groper]

Re the Forest Service.

Yes, I can well understand a bias against guns. The Forest Service has a need to protect wild life, and having a bunch of gun nutters running round carrying guns inevitably will result in animals being killed. After all, in any group of people, there are always those who are irresponsible and break the law.

I do not believe any statement that carrying guns reduces crime. That flies against observation, and against the carefully gathered results of published research I have seen. Of course, if it is John Lott reporting, we can expect that sort of crap.
However, the statement I read from the US Forest Service did not say "we don't want guns because they make our jobs harder." The statement said that survival rates from bear attack using bear spray are higher than survival rates if using a hand gun.

[Seth]

Re the Forest Service.

Yes, I can well understand a bias against guns. The Forest Service has a need to protect wild life, and having a bunch of gun nutters running round carrying guns inevitably will result in animals being killed. After all, in any group of people, there are always those who are irresponsible and break the law.

Yes, there are, and they can and will do so in violation of the law, you dunce. People who have no compunctions about breaking the laws against illegal hunting or shooting in National Parks ALREADY DO SO, and have done so all along. The law was changed to accommodate those of us in the vast, vast majority who are NOT scofflaws and criminals who want to legitimately carry personal defensive arms against the varmints, human and otherwise, that can threaten our lives and safety even (or especially) in National Parks.

Contrary to your assertion, the mere possession of a firearm does not drive ordinary law-abiding people into a frenzy of gun-related crime.

The Congress recognized this fact, which is why they changed the law.

I do not believe any statement that carrying guns reduces crime.

That's because you're a biased hoplophobe would wouldn't accept the evidence even if someone used a gun to save YOUR life.

That flies against observation, and against the carefully gathered results of published research I have seen.

Yeah, but you're willfully ignorant you see, so your opinion on the matter isn't worth the bum custard I shat out this morning.

Of course, if it is John Lott reporting, we can expect that sort of crap.

Lott is hardly the only pro-gun authority on the matter, but then I don't expect you to be able to understand that. Fortunately 40 state legislatures and the US Congress DO understand the truth, which is why they have all liberalized concealed carry laws.

However, the statement I read from the US Forest Service did not say "we don't want guns because they make our jobs harder." The statement said that survival rates from bear attack using bear spray are higher than survival rates if using a hand gun.

They still have an anti-gun bias at work, so they too concoct statistics to support their preferences. But, even if true, that's a decision that each and every individual gets to make for themselves now. If I think a handgun (or rifle) will be more effective than spray, I get to make that choice, and I get to live or die with the consequences of that choice. But it's MY choice to make, not yours and not the government's.

To show you how idiotic the feds can be, keep in mind that a rancher in Idaho was convicted of illegally killing an "endangered" grizzly bear in his own front yard because he stepped outside of his own house...not knowing the bear was right around the corner...to check on a disturbance at his horse corral. He had seen the bear the day before, so when he went out he took his rifle with him and was attacked by the bear, which he shot and killed. The feds charged him because they said HE COULD HAVE, AND SHOULD HAVE STAYED INSIDE HIS HOUSE, and that by going outside he "placed himself in danger" which, they argued to a federal judge, stripped him of his right of self defense against the attacking bear.

The fucking bear had more rights than a HUMAN BEING attacking the rancher would have had. It's fucking insane.

And he was only charged because he did the "right thing" by reporting the shooting to the feds, erroneously thinking that he'd done the reasonable, necessary and lawful thing.

Talk about a miscarriage of justice...

And that's why people "shoot, shovel and shut up" when it comes to endangered species. That's what he should have done.

[Tero]

How dare he put that ranch in the bear's back yard!

And did he even fire a warning shot?

[Blind groper]

To Seth

I am still waiting for that intelligent response. This time, you responded to my suggestion that you lacked evidence with further insults, and ignored the lack of evidence.

I quite like it when my debate opponents do that, because it means I am winning the argument. When the response to my posts is assorted "fuck you" comments, or suggestions I am a hoplophobe, or the numerous other insults you and Collector specialise in, I know I am getting through to you. Such insults are a last resort due to frustration, and the knowledge deep inside that I am correct. Since you do not have any valid evidence or valid arguments, you resort to insult, and that puts a smile on my face in the knowledge that I am winning.

[Collector1337]

How dare he put that ranch in the bear's back yard!

And did he even fire a warning shot?

It's usually illegal to fire a warning shot.

[Seth]

How dare he put that ranch in the bear's back yard!

And did he even fire a warning shot?

It's usually illegal to fire a warning shot.

It's also a waste of perfectly good ammunition you might need later.

If you have a reason to shoot something, go ahead and shoot it.

If you don't, then don't.

[Seth]

To Seth

I am still waiting for that intelligent response.

I'm still waiting for an intelligent post from you. I imagine I'll be waiting until entropy turns the universe into cold, dark nothingness before I see one though.

This time, you responded to my suggestion that you lacked evidence with further insults, and ignored the lack of evidence.

That's because you willfully ignore all the evidence I do provide, so there's nothing left to waste time on except making fun of your obvious derangement and impaired intelligence.

I quite like it when my debate opponents do that, because it means I am winning the argument. When the response to my posts is assorted "fuck you" comments, or suggestions I am a hoplophobe, or the numerous other insults you and Collector specialise in, I know I am getting through to you. Such insults are a last resort due to frustration, and the knowledge deep inside that I am correct. Since you do not have any valid evidence or valid arguments, you resort to insult, and that puts a smile on my face in the knowledge that I am winning.

You go right on thinking that dearie. The nurse will be around with your Thorazine presently. Try not to rip your fingernails off in the interim.

[Collector1337]

The nurse will be around with your Thorazine presently.

[Blind groper]

To Seth

The 'evidence' you post that I ignore is generally non evidence. I see you persist in the fallacy that anecdotes are evidence. Rest assured I will continue to ignore them, for the simple reason they do not constitute evidence. If you put together 100% of all cases where guns are used, and subjected them to rigorous statistical analysis, and published in a peer reviewed journal (like the NEJM articles I like to quote), then they would be worth taking note of. But anecdotes are much more often used to mislead than to enlighten, and gun nutters do enough misleading as it is.

[JimC]

To Seth

The 'evidence' you post that I ignore is generally non evidence. I see you persist in the fallacy that anecdotes are evidence. Rest assured I will continue to ignore them, for the simple reason they do not constitute evidence. If you put together 100% of all cases where guns are used, and subjected them to rigorous statistical analysis, and published in a peer reviewed journal (like the NEJM articles I like to quote), then they would be worth taking note of. But anecdotes are much more often used to mislead than to enlighten, and gun nutters do enough misleading as it is.

[Seth]

To Seth

The 'evidence' you post that I ignore is generally non evidence.

Right. Actual reportage of actual lawful defensive gun uses is "non evidence." You are so full of shit.

I see you persist in the fallacy that anecdotes are evidence. Rest assured I will continue to ignore them, for the simple reason they do not constitute evidence. If you put together 100% of all cases where guns are used, and subjected them to rigorous statistical analysis, and published in a peer reviewed journal (like the NEJM articles I like to quote), then they would be worth taking note of. But anecdotes are much more often used to mislead than to enlighten, and gun nutters do enough misleading as it is.

That's because all you care about are statistical arguments. I care about individual people, their rights and their individual safety. And that's what the Constitution cares about too. It doesn't say "the right to keep and bear arms shall be infringed in direct proportion to the number of people killed illegally with handguns."

It' says "...the right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." (emphasis added)

No mention of statistical analysis or need-based apportioning of rights at all.

Which is why your entire argument continues to be complete collectivist horseshit.