How Effing Demented ARE These People!?

[filkertom]

The federal government is considering a proposal to allow visitors to carry loaded, concealed weapons in some national parks, wildlife refuges and monuments.

I don't like guns. I don't like guns at all. I actually read the entirety of the Second Amendment, the whole sentence -- because it's only one freakin' sentence -- "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The notion of taking guns, concealed weapons, to a park or a wildlife refuge or a monument, because fate might call upon you to star in your very own Frank Miller comic.... jayzus.

If you really think there's a meth lab in Jellystone, call fuckin' Mister Ranger.

Our government is run by goddamn crazy people.

ETA: Apparently I'm on the lonely side of this one. That's okay. My take is pretty simple, perhaps simplistic: More guns lead to more people being shot by guns, especially in public places where I honestly think the first thing most people think of when considering such places has nothing to do with, "Hmm, good shootin' out there".

And I'm so glad, really, no sarcasm or snark at all, I'm so damn glad that those of you advocating guns are also in favor of extensive training, which I think is the first requirement for gun ownership. Good for you, and thank you for being conscientious. My biggest concern has to do with the rather large number of people out there who aren't conscientious, who don't care about the training, the ones who are looking for an excuse to use the heat they pack.

ETA2: Guys, you haven't convinced me. Do you want to know why you haven't convinced me? Because the grand bulk of you are going off about gun ownership in general. And you haven't addressed my original point of outrage: carrying concealed weapons into national parks, wildlife refuges and monuments.

(YES, YES, some of you have addressed it, by expressing how terribly dangerous those places are. Good to know; yet another thing to be proud of in America. We can't go to our landmarks and nature preserves because of the stalkers and rapists and meth labs out in the woods. I can't help but wonder if, rather than carrying a gun, you might try, y'know, complaining to your congresscritters. With all this documentation you all have, maybe somebody will get some symbolic patriotic outrage goin', possibly set some wheels in motion.)

I said I don't like guns and I won't use guns. I said nothing about banning guns. I invoked the Second Amendment as ratified by the states, to attempt to get around the punctuation problem, and got called on that. Let me see if I can put this in the simplest possible terms:

I DON'T LIKE GUNS.

I WON'T USE GUNS.

I AM NOT CALLING FOR THE BANNING OF GUNS.

I THINK CARRYING CONCEALED WEAPONS IN NATIONAL PARKS AND MONUMENTS IS INSANE.

IF YOU'VE GOT A PROBLEM WITH LAW ENFORCEMENT, IF SOMEPLACE IS UNSAFE THAT YOU FEEL SHOULD BE SAFER, TAKE IT UP WITH YOUR GOVERNMENT (WE THE PEOPLE, REMEMBER?) -- THAT IS THEIR JOB.

Thank you.

Comments

[bryanp.livejournal.com]

Without getting too far into it Tom, I'm just going to say:

Whackos / badguys / whatever don't pay attention to the laws. They carry what they want where they want. I, as a law abiding citizen, can't say "Pardon me, I need to go home and retrieve my personal protection that I couldn't legally bring with me." Or perhaps "Excuse me while I call the police. You'll wait until they can get here right?"

Personally, I make a point of avoiding situations where I may ever find it necessary to make the choice of whether to fire or not. Anyone who takes a proper CCW course will find a lot of instruction on how to avoid potentially dangerous situations, not how to shoot your way out of them. Every variation of instruction I've seen has emphasized "If you can leave, get the hell out. If you can run, do so. Drawing a firearm should be the absolute last resort." One of the best writeups of the proper CCW mindset I've ever read can be found here:

The Five Rules of Concealed Carry (http://xavierthoughts.blogspot.com/2008/05/five-rules-of-concealed-carry.html)

I won't try to argue the specifics of the 2nd Amendment with you. I can dissect it word by word and you're a smart guy, I suspect you can argue it back just as well. I doubt either of us is going to convince the other. I will say this to you: We're not rejects from a Frank Miller novel. Really.

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

Well, then, tell me this: What do you really anticipate needing a gun in a National Park for? Is the world so full of whackos/bad guys/whatever that You Must Be Ready constantly?

I'm actually not trying to be snarky. I'm really curious here.

[chaosdancer.livejournal.com]

Bears! Bears with guns! In the Washington Monument! Spraying paint on the walls...gang signs...I can see it. Totally.

Otherwise it's just gonna be an excuse to "accidentally" go big-game hunting. Or maybe once every gazillion years, someone might have to defend themselves against a meth lab keeper or a grizzly. But that's gonna be incredibly rare.

[ericthemage.livejournal.com]

It's better to have it and not need it, than it is to need it and not have it.

[rmeidaking.livejournal.com]

I used to be ambivalent about gun ownership, until the breakup of Yugoslavia happened. Yugoslavia had very strong gun control: Only the military had guns. When the breakdown came, this meant that a few people had all of the guns, and it got nasty really fast. At that point, I developed a "If the cops get to have guns, *I* get to have guns" attitude. It will never happen here? They said that in Yugoslavia, too. They'd just hosted the Olympics. They'd had peace for a generation.

I guess part of this is insecurity on my part: I don't trust that I will be in the In Crowd when the government breaks down.

As to having guns in some National Parks, I certainly do hope that one is allowed to have them in Alaska and Montana, and even the UP of Michigan. Moose and bears are not cuddly, and you want to have a gun nearby.

[loosecanon.livejournal.com]

as few rangers as there are, there's a mindset in the parks and amongst adventure-minded people of being prepared for what contingencies may occur.
I would not assume that a cell phone works in much of our national parks system.
I would not assume that a visitor in trouble would easily be able to identify their location.

Rangers have vanished in these woods as well. It's not a tame lion. I would never approach the thought of entering without a very clear plan of live exit, and unfortunately, sometimes that plan calls for the strongest possible methods of defense. ( mace doesn't work on truly angry dogs. Ask me how I know. )

[devospice.livejournal.com]

So THAT's why they're so vehemently pro-life. More abortions = less people to shoot with your guns.

That makes perfect sense.

[rsmit212.livejournal.com]

bryanp has covered the reasons I support this perfectly. The only thing I would add is, of the original 10 Amendments, you're argument is 9 are for protection of individual rights and 1 protects States? The phrasing is giving *a* reason, not the *only* reason. In their later papers, it's clear the framers of the constitution never considered the need to define personal protection as a reason for carry. It was too ingrained in their lives, even as well to do gentlemen.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Well-to-do gentlemen need a lot of protection.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

The federal government is considering the removal of a restriction that nobody has shown to be necessary. Not seeing the problem here.

[liddle-oldman.livejournal.com]

I have a great deal of sympathy. And, yet, the number of (usually) young women who dissapear in national parks and are found raped and dead a week, a year, five years later seems to be increasing.

I kind of think that every woman has to be able and ready to kill any man if it turns out that she has to.

Don't like them? Don't have them. It's OK.

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

You've left out a couple of commas in the Second. It actually reads:

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Those commas give modern linguists and legal eagles all kinds of hell, because we're not quite so punctuation-happy as the Founding Fathers were. And it doesn't help that, according to Wikipedia, what got sent to the states for ratification is what you did post, although there is no citation given for it (and this is, in fact, the first time I've ever seen it that way - I know the National Archives version with the two extra commas, which I gave). And if you read down further on the Wiki page:

"The Bill of Rights that Madison introduced on June 8 was not composed of numbered amendments intended to be added at the end of the Constitution. The Rights instead were to be inserted into the existing Constitution. The right to keep and bear arms was not to be inserted in Article I, Section 8 that specifies Congress's power over the militia. The sentence that later became the Second Amendment was to be inserted in the Article I, Section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, following the prohibitions on suspension of habeas corpus, bills of attainder, and ex post facto laws, all individual civil rights asserted by individuals as a defense against government action." (Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 1st Congress, 1st Session, p. 451, emphasis mine.)

Rarely do I disagree with you, Tom. And I will admit that I am ambivalent about allowing concealed carry in our National Parks. OTOH, when I look at a website like the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence (http://www.stategunlaws.org/), scroll down, and look at their little map of High-Profile Shootings Since 1997 (near the bottom on the right), there's one thing that I notice - most of those shootings took place where there are restrictive gun laws. Not all, but most - a definite majority. So I'm afraid I do disagree with you on this subject.

Should those wishing to own guns (concealed carry permit or not) have training? Emphatically, YES! Just like drivers should. People without training in either are a great danger to themselves and others. I've had a Hunter Safety Course when I was 13, I've had training from the Army, and I will still be getting such handgun training, *then* acquiring a gun down here in Georgia.

Re: Don't like them? Don't have them. It's OK.

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

Another thing I decided to look at on that Brady Campaign website, the little poster they have below the High-Profile Shootings map tells some interesting numbers. It gives the number of people murdered by guns in 2004. Six countries listed, four of them with numbers under 100, the fifth (Canada) with 184 - and the US with 11,344. An alarming number, to be sure. Until you run percentages compared with country populations. I took the population data from here (http://www.immigration-usa.com/wfb2004/rankings/population/population_2004_0.html), and they cite the 2004 CIA Data Factbook for the data presented.

US population in 2004 is given as 293,027,571. 11,344 murders by gun is .0000387% of the population. Almost four hundred-thousandth of one percent. Now I will also admit that the other five countries dropped into the millionths of a percent category - the actual numbers are:

United Kingdom: 60,270,708 population (includes Scotland and N. Ireland), 73 killed (in England and Wales only), .0000012%. (This one makes for bad statistics.)
Canada: 32,507,874 population, 184 killed, .0000056%.
Australia: 19,913,144, 56, .0000028%.
Sweden: 8,986,400, 37, .0000041%.
New Zealand: 3,993,817, 3, .0000007%.

The US has a larger population than those other five combined - their total is 125,671,943. We're over double that. I grant you that their combined murder rate doubled would still be under 1,000.

But looking at those percentages? I still like the odds. And I'd rather have it, as a last resort, than not. But that's me. YMMV. And obviously does. And that's OK, I respect that.

[jcw-da-dmg.livejournal.com]

I don't like guns either. I also don't like rap. Or strict serialist music. Or eggplant. Or liver. Or heroin. Or having to restrict my enjoyment of peanuts around those to whom they may be deadly.

We live in a nation which is dedicated at least to the IDEA that we need to protect the rights of ALL the people whether we personally like them or not. How well does that work in reality? How well does ANYTHING? As well as we are willing to take responsibility for it.

[marahsk.livejournal.com]

Except that you're not likely to accidentally be killed by a drive-by eggplant parmesan.

[trebor1415.livejournal.com]

Tom, with all due respect, please do some research on the actual crime rates in the various National Parks and National Forests before you assume they are idyllic, safe, places. There is more crime then you would suspect, especially in certain parks. There was a list floating around awhile back on the most dangerous parks based on reported crimes. It was eye opening, to say the least.

Right now it is legal to carry concealed in most National Forests, but not National Parks. That is because the Forest Service and the Park Service have different institutional thoughts on handguns.

As a practical matter, this rule change will only apply to those states that currently allow private citizens to carry a concealed pistol. Right now, people can carry concealed on state land (if state law allows), but if they take one step onto a National Park, they are commiting a crime. What makes Federal Land so special that I should have to give up my right to self defense just because I stepped foot on it?

As to "not likeing guns" the issue goes deeper then that. I don't like violence, especially against the innocent or defenseless. Guns are a tool that a weaker person, say a women, can use to protect herselagainst a larger, stronger, attacker. I like that very much.

Yes, guns, like any tool, can be misued. There is nothing magical about a gun though that makes a person violent or a criminal. The evil, if it exists, is in the heart of man, not in the inaminate object.

[solarbird]

Also, the "read the whole second amendment, you contemptible fools" approach is deeply insulting to those of us who are apparently on the other side of the debate, in its assertion that we don't, and that further, that we've never done any research into this on our own, or, say, read the Federalist papers, or have studied the context of any of the debates on the matter at the time by the people who wrote and debated it.

Which, of course, many of us do and have done. Which is why, when I actually did support gun control laws, my first priourity was repealing the second amendment, because it was very clear to me without doing that, all such laws were unconstitutional. I just thought the second amendment was a bad idea in a modern context. I have since changed my opinion on that latter part.

Of course, at this point, there is no law and there certainly is no Constitution, so all of this is rather moot anyway.

[emiofbrie.livejournal.com]

SALUT!!

For more information on the Founders' views on weapons:
http://emiofbrie.livejournal.com/240937.html

And yes, all the sources on that page are cited :)

Wandering slightly offtopic

[giza.livejournal.com]

...and looking at the bigger issue of gun use/misuse in general, I would love to see basic firearm education taught in public schools, especially at younger ages when kids are impressionable and can learn this stuff before getting into any trouble. Stuff like how to handle a firearm safely, just what happens to someone who is shot by one (bullet may exit the back, leaving a big bloody mess), etc., an explanation of the penalties for carrying without a permit, murdering someone with a firearm, etc. I think this could go a long way in having a preventative effect on gun violence.

We can teach kids to stop, drop, and roll. Why can't we teach them basic gun safety?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

I'm totally with you on this, Tom.

I've camped and hiked for years, never needed a gun, never expect to. Sure, there's some crime in National Parks--mostly people breaking into cars at trailheads hoping you left your wallet there so you wouldn't lose it in the park. Not the kind of thing anybody needs a gun for. Your garden variety whacko who hunts people goes where there are lots of people. The wilderness? That's like hunting deer at the mall. Theoretically possible, but damned unlikely.

A gun is just a hazard to others. A temptation to shoot things that frighten me, whom I should just leave alone.

And you have to know where your gun is every minute; if you lose track of your gun, it can end up hurting innocent people. Like the kid who found a gun at his uncle's house, took it to school for show and tell, and ended up shooting one of his classmates. Two kids badly hurt with a gun that wasn't properly babysat. Like the acquaintance of mine who lost his loaded revolver at a Girl Scout Camp. What the heck did he imagine he needed a gun for at a Girl Scout Camp? They went over the whole place with a metal detector and didn't find it. It's still out there, somewhere. It will turn up, sometime. Hopefully none of the girls will get shot in the process.

We don't need any of that in National Parks.

[stevemb.livejournal.com]

"Your garden variety whacko who hunts people goes where there are lots of people. The wilderness? That's like hunting deer at the mall. Theoretically possible, but damned unlikely."

Your garden variety whacko (assuming he's rational in a strictly tactical sense and not intent on suicide, either directly or by-cop) goes where he can find a victim, and nobody else.

When somebody goes deer hunting, the other deer don't try to protect the target or organize a manhunt (deer-hunt?) for the shooter afterwards.

[smallship1.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm with you, Tom, from my relatively safe and gun-free haven on the other side of the ocean, where "bearing arms" means having a painting of a shield over the mantelpiece. Which should surprise nobody who reads my stuff. My take, for those who don't, is this: a gun is not a defensive weapon. It is a weapon for vengeance, or for pre-emptive strike. It is a weapon of attack, for hurting or killing someone else. That is its only function, or the only function that could not be just as well performed by a convincingly made model. And that is why I am against the general possession and use of guns.

To the other commenters: not arguing with any of the points you make. You live in a country where everybody needs to carry a gun to be safe, apparently. There are countries where this is not the case. Might be worth thinking about why that is, and what the government you're going to elect this year, or your state's legislature, or your city council, or whoever is responsible for maintaining the public safety, might be able to do about it.

As for every woman having to be able and ready to kill any man if it turns out that she has to...well. I can't think of anything to say to that. Except to consider some of the values of "has to" that men use to justify their actions, and also that neither gender has a monopoly on sanity, insanity, greed, selfishness, self-delusion or just plain being mistaken. How many deaths does it take?

[rsmit212.livejournal.com]

There are countries where this is not the case.

There are countries in the world where there is no violent crime, no assaults/murders/rapes/"hot" burglaries (burglaries that happen while the people are at home)? Or where the police respond within the 30 seconds that a violent crime occurs, no matter where it occurs? Prove it. Else it's nonsensical propaganda.

[rochndil]

In general, Tom, I like your ideas and attitude, but here I have to disagree vehemently. As an American, I believe in freedom, FREE from the excessive regulation of our government. This law (which I support and actively lobbied for), is a very small step towards maintaining and equalizing the freedoms of our law-abiding citizens. As mentioned by previous posters, the effective change of this new law is quite small, but has the potential to save lives.

If you truly believe that the police can PREVENT crime, then I am sorry to say that I cannot disagree more. In most cases, the police PUNISH crime, instead of preventing it. There are far too few police to catch more than a tiny fraction of all criminals in the act, though they generally do a decent job of catching them afterwards. Don't get me wrong; I have the highest respect for anyone insane enough to be a police officer. It's a crappy job, with low pay, and little respect...and any one of them may one day take a bullet for someone who probably never gave them a second thought before.

But when a nutcase hopped up on who-knows-what breaks into your house and threatens your wife's life (happened down the street from my mom), and the police are a MINIMUM of 8 minutes away, tragedy could readily occur before they could intervene (fortunately, in this case, the couple got off lucky).

I genuinely hope that I never need to point one of my firearms at anything living. But, as a realist, I know that the distinct possibility exists that I may one day have to do so - to protect my own life, or the lives of my family. Should that dark day come, I intend to be ready, instead of another statistic. It is a tremendous responsibility, but, I believe, part of my duty as a citizen.

Rochndil, GOA member and concealed-carry permit holder.

[jmthane.livejournal.com]

I'm sure I could Google this, but...

GOA?

[unclelumpy.livejournal.com]

My biggest concern has to do with the rather large number of people out there who aren't conscientious, who don't care about the training, the ones who are looking for an excuse to use the heat they pack.

Alas, that is the price of liberty. For it to truly be liberty, it must pertain to all people, even those who would abuse it.

It wouldn't do to outlaw abortion just because there are indeed some who view it as a means of birth control, would it?

[fredhuggins.livejournal.com]

I've never owned a gun and I never want to, but I don't support any law that might BAN gun ownership. First of all, it wouldn't work (dangerous criminals would get guns anyway, the same way they do most things, by BREAKING THE FUCKING LAW). Plus, if they take away THAT amendment, what's to stop them from taking away the first one we all love so much?

[catsittingstill.livejournal.com]

Nobody's proposing banning gun ownership. They're just arguing over whether people should be allowed to take the guns they own into National Parks.

[tigertoy.livejournal.com]

I haven't read the other comments, but most of what I would say has probably been covered already, so I'll try to stick to what other people wouldn't say.

I have personal experience with wanting to do something that only a tiny minority of people could do responsibly that makes most of the country react with a visceral "that's crazy dangerous, the government should ban that!" I want tigers of my own, but even if I had the resources to meet my own standards of responsibility, I would have a very difficult time legally. (Given enough money, I could find a place where it would be legal today, but as the laws tighten up, it's likely that it wouldn't be legal anywhere in the USA by the end of the life expectancy of a tiger.) That experience makes me very suspicious of any other claims that something that some people want to do needs to be banned, and I definitely apply that principle to carrying a gun. In the case of a tiger, there's a world of difference between saying that you must get a permit, and to get the permit you have to demonstrate that you're ready, and just saying "that's illegal" without recourse. I feel the same way about carrying a gun in public.

When it comes to carrying guns in parks, if it's legal to carry on city streets and other public places, then public safety can't justify it being less legal. The biggest reason I'm in favor of restricting guns in parks is to protect the wildlife from illegal hunting. I think that part of the push for allowing guns in parks really comes from people who want to hunt there, who know that the big parks are too sparely patrolled to catch them actually using their guns. But I think the right solution to that is to have the skulls of a couple of poachers on pikes at the park entrances, and say "carry anything you want, but if we catch you using it this is what happens to you". (Consider that hyperbole if you prefer, but killing a wolf in Yellowstone should certainly get you a harsher punishment than dealing 100g of crack.)

[admnaismith.livejournal.com]

My liberal interpretation of the Second Amendment is, if we choose to interpret "the right of the people" (not "right of the militia") and "shall not be infringed" to mean "the right of the people...shall be infringed when the government concludes that it is reasonable to do so"....then what are you going to say when the Bush League and the Scalia Supreme Court goes after all those other nice Amendments?

"Freedom of Speech"? Well, only so long as such speech does not conflict with "community standards". And the prohibition only applies to legislative bodies; the rest of the government can jail you for disagreeing with them.

"Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure"? Sure, but we'll let the neoconservatives determine what constitutes "unreasonable".

"Cruel and unusual punishment"? Heck, if they can drag out the case for a couple of years, they can recreate Third Reich conditions and keep them in place until a neocon judge can declare them established and therefore not "unusual".

Do you want to go down that road? Seems to me, far better to acknowledge that the Second Amendment means what it says, and expect broadly protective readings of the entire bill of rights.

Besides, I tend to fear the police and the army at least as much as I fear some random badass with a gun. When Big Brother comes to get you for thoughtcrime, using your song lyrics as evidence of your treason, wouldn't you like to at least take a couple of their goons down with you?

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

I have trouble finding someone who supports the Second Amendment who is not also so enamoured of guns that it makes me uncomfortable.

This does not give me any reason to change my stance on said Amendment; I think it's outdated and being used in ways it was never intended.

And anyone who thinks concealed weapons in national parks is a good idea is batty. I spend enormous amounts of time at Yellowstone; the last thing the place needs is guns.

[emiofbrie.livejournal.com]

If it helps, I am 100% in favor of the Second Amendment. However, my only experience with handling firearms is at the range.

I am far from "enamored" with guns, but in today's (at least American) society, I respect that they are a necessity for self-defense. The crooks in most cases *will* have guns, ban or not, and it helps to have a counter-attack defense of at least comparable ability.

[emiofbrie.livejournal.com]

My biggest concern has to do with the rather large number of people out there who aren't conscientious, who don't care about the training, the ones who are looking for an excuse to use the heat they pack.

The majority of which would be carrying illegally anyway, as they wouldn't have the required training that comes with legal concealed carry. They would find a way to carry their weaponry anyway ban or not.

[vesta-aurelia.livejournal.com]

I had an interesting conversation with a coworker, about the trip she and her (then) 16-year-old daughter had to Paris, France, two or three years ago.

She remarked that the oddest thing about her visit was that, for the first time in her life, she did not feel afraid as a woman. She was not in fear of walking down the street, even at 2 a.m. to go to a dessert shoppe (which the two of them did) -- and that was completely foreign to her feelings walking down the street of the American cities she had lived, worked and played in over the years. (She's in her mid 40s, and had lived in NYC, SF, LA and Seattle.)

The American culture is radically different from the European culture(s).
I guess the determiner is whether we like the difference, and want to keep it, or whether we don't and want to change it.

--------------------------------------

In the American culture we currently have?
I think private citizens who carry concealed weapons (with permits) are likely more civilized than the private citizens who don't. And the majority are more evenly tempered.
Many of those who oppose firearms are carrying around much more deadly and cruel weapon:
Their tongues.

I always think of school shootings when firearms issues come up. And I wonder: which is more destructive?
The child with the firearm
or
The child with the hateful words

From my own experiences?
The kid with the cruel mouth. The kid with the gun can only kill you.
The kid with the cruel mouth will get you to kill yourself, either at one stroke, or daily in a thousand little cuts.

[judifilksign.livejournal.com]

In college, while I was living off campus, there was a rapist whose MO was to wait for one roomate to leave early in the morning then to enter the apartment and rape and beat the remaining woman. His attacks were escalating in violence with each incident. The community was terrified. Possession of guns went up.

One morning, I heard my roommate leave our 2nd story apartment. Minutes later, I heard heavy footsteps outside the door, our door opening, and heavy footsteps banging around my kitchen. I was terrified, convinced I was about to be the next victim.

Still dressed in my flannel nightgown, I got my crossbow (made in woodshop)and loaded an arrow. The *only* way out was past the kitchen, and the phone was beyond in the living room. I sidled out of my room, carrying my loaded weapon, and came into view of a huge man in my kitchen, kneeling by my sink. He took one look at me, raised his hands and cried "IT'S THE PLUMBER! I'VE COME TO FIX THE SINK!" Embarrassment city.

My roommate had let him in, but not bothered to let me know, and had left to go on to class.

Now, my crossbow could've done damage, but the trigger was *extrememly* hard to pull, so it did not go "off" accidentally. I sometimes have bad dreams about what if it'd been a gun with a trigger easy to pull. Would I, in my heightened sense of fear, have wounded or killed an innocent man?

I agree with the notion of training, training, training for gun owners. I also agree with Cat that keeping track of weaponry in the forest is exceedingly important. Thieves rummage through camp areas all the time for valuables, and a gun is *not* something to let loose on the world.

[dan-ad-nauseam.livejournal.com]

This incident says almost everything I wanted to say.

Almost because it didn't address hot-blooded arguments and domestic violence situations that are less likely to be fatal if deadlier weapons are not present.

[kayshapero]

Oh joy. The species I most worry about running into out in the woods is already my own; this is NOT going to help.