Rule Change Would Permit Weapons in National Parks

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

PS. August - you might give the Americans a bit of a break.
I hear that America is so big that it is difficult too see outside. Everything seams so far
away over there so they have a hard time relating to other countries. And so they
patronise them. Can't imagine why!?

I have been to your country. I have lived in Europe. I have literally hundreds of European relatives. I am not being patronizing, i am just speaking from personal experience.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by August

I have been to your country. I have lived in Europe. I have literally hundreds of European relatives. I am not being patronizing, i am just speaking from personal experience.

No, no, I was implying that Subman was being patroniseing, not you.

"They don't understand the 'open' areas over here." and all that.

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

No, no, I was implying that Subman was being patroniseing, not you.

"They don't understand the 'open' areas over here." and all that.

Ah, i see, the thing is though in this case he is right. Most Europeans, at least the ones i have met, DON'T fully fathom the size of the wilderness areas we have over here. IMO it's completely understandable and nothing to be ashamed about. There are aspects of your cultures that we don't comprehend either.

Viva la difference I say...

[Letum]

Originally Posted by August

Ah, i see, the thing is though in this case he is right. Most Europeans, at least the ones i have met, DON'T fully fathom the size of the wilderness areas we have over here. IMO it's completely understandable and nothing to be ashamed about. There are aspects of your cultures that we don't comprehend either.

Viva la difference I say...

you do your countrymen a dis-service. There are plenty of Americans that understand
my culture just as there are plenty of Europeans that understand what a wilderness is.

Even if many do not, it is still not justified to say "They don't understand the 'open' areas over here."
in such a broad, sweeping generalization.

[SUBMAN1]

Originally Posted by Letum

you do your countrymen a dis-service. There are plenty of Americans that understand
my culture just as there are plenty of Europeans that understand what a wilderness is.

Even if many do not, it is still not justified to say "They don't understand the 'open' areas over here."
in such a broad, sweeping generalization.

None of this is true exept for Europeans that have been here. Deal with people coming from Europe all the time, and I have yet to meet one that fully understands the openess and that no one actually owns some large areas of land over here.

I'm sure many have a bit of a clue, but most really don't.

-S

PS. And August is right by the way.

[August]

To give an example I recently gave a couple acres of my property up in Maine to my favorite German cousin. She now owns more land than any other member of that side of the family have EVER owned. It kind of freaks her out.

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Letum

It makes it impossible to stop poaching. You will never catch someone in the act in such
a vast area, and even if you do you have to wait until after they fire to prove it.

Yes, this is called presumption of innocence and it used to be quite the trendy thing in the "old" USA. Over here a citizen is presumed innocent until there is evidence that he or she is guilty of committing a crime.

Ya see, back in the old days, a person actually had to commit (or actively attempt to commit) a crime first before law enforcement could take action.

This was way before the concept of preemptive strikes on citizens became in vogue.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Platapus

Yes, this is called presumption of innocence and it used to be quite the trendy thing in the "old" USA. Over here a citizen is presumed innocent until there is evidence that he or she is guilty of committing a crime.

Ya see, back in the old days, a person actually had to commit (or actively attempt to commit) a crime first before law enforcement could take action.

This was way before the concept of preemptive strikes on citizens became in vogue.

Well, exactly.

That's why it is useful to have a law against guns in the park.

Then you can prevent poaching with out making preemptive strikes because
everyone who has a gun knows they are breaking the law.

If there is a law against guns, then only criminals have guns, if you will excuse the
tautology. Then you can arrest the criminals.

If there is no law against guns, it is impossible to arrest the criminals unless you
stand by and watch them shoot a black rhino, etc. (assuming you can find
and follow with out them seeing you!)

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by Letum

The problem I can see is thus:

1) Endangered animals are illegally poached by men with hunting rifles.

2) Park ranger finds group of men with hunting rifles.

3) Men with hunting rifles aren't doing anything illegal now, so they sit and laugh at
park warden and wait till he leaves.

4) GOTO: 1

It makes it impossible to stop poaching. You will never catch someone in the act in such
a vast area, and even if you do you have to wait until after they fire to prove it.
There are species that can't afford to wait until after they are shot.


If this is the case, I'm changing my mind on this one...it will render the authorities toothless.

We have hunting seasons (vary by state) for big game, small game and fowl-hunting. If the game warden catches you with a rifle out of season, you're screwed. The warden has more power than a county sheriff and can seize your house, vehicle, and your rifle for poaching. Hell, he doesn't even need a carcass to "prove" that you're a poacher! It's your word against his so what are you gonna do?

[Letum]

Same here, all be it with smaller game.

They have a harder time in many parts of Africa tho.

[Yahoshua]

Originally Posted by Letum

That's why it is useful to have a law against guns in the park.

Then you can prevent poaching with out making preemptive strikes because
everyone who has a gun knows they are breaking the law.

If there is a law against guns, then only criminals have guns, if you will excuse the
tautology. Then you can arrest the criminals.

If there is no law against guns, it is impossible to arrest the criminals unless you
stand by and watch them shoot a black rhino, etc. (assuming you can find
and follow with out them seeing you!)

Aside from the fact that there are no indigenous rhino to North America, let me get this straight:

Law-abiding citizens should be banned from having guns in the national parks because criminals might mix in with the law-abiding citizens. Therefore, disarming the law-abiding citizen so LEOs' can arrest the criminals in the national parks is the logical conclusion you have come to?

Stop and think for a minute.

Law-abiding = Obeys the law, not a danger to the animals. These people must be disarmed so we can better hunt down the criminals.

Criminals = Does NOT obey the law, IS a danger to the animals. We pass a law that is meaningless to these people because they break the law anyway.


How does disarming me (the law-abiding citizen) help underfunded, understaffed, and undertrained park officials hunt down criminals better?

[August]

Originally Posted by Letum

That's why it is useful to have a law against guns in the park.

Then you can prevent poaching with out making preemptive strikes because
everyone who has a gun knows they are breaking the law.

If there is a law against guns, then only criminals have guns, if you will excuse the
tautology. Then you can arrest the criminals.

If there is no law against guns, it is impossible to arrest the criminals unless you
stand by and watch them shoot a black rhino, etc. (assuming you can find
and follow with out them seeing you!)

Well by that reasoning they could totally ban unsupervised visits to national parks, that way a persons mere presence in the park, outside of a guarded, er i mean supervised tour, could be considered evidence of poaching.

[Letum]

Good points Yahos!
I'm switching back to my first stance!

Originally Posted by ME!

Those who know my stance on firearms to some degree may be surprised, but I don't
think they should be banned in national parks. Not because any member of the public
needs a firearm in a national park, but just because I don't see what a ban in some
wide open areas, but not other wide open areas, controlled only by a line on the map,
archives.

Unless there is a serious environmental issue at steak then the parks should be open
to guns.

I still think the law would be very useful for gamekeepers trying to stop people
shooting things, but I don't think the game keepers need such a law in America.

I could be wrong, if someone gives me a convincing argument for the need for strict
conservation laws I will change my position again.

Excuse the flip-flopping. I'm still doing thinking and decision making and staying open
minded on this one.
Let no one say I am stubborn.

[Von Tonner]

I see I am thinking like a South African. When I read 'National Parks' I immediately thought of what we call national parks which are more akin to game reserves and for very obvious reasons one is not allowed to carry firemarms in them. Hell, in Kruger National, you are not even allowed to wind down the windows of your car let alone get out of it. Our game parks are the last place on earth you would want to have a meth plant unless you were suicidal. That is why I at first could not understand why anyone would want to carry a firearm.

But to compare apples with apples, here in SA we have what we call nature reserves more on flora and fauna than wild life per se. Here of course there are no restrictions on the carrying of firearms.

[SUBMAN1]

A National Park Ranger seem to be a dangerous job. Too bad he can't rely on the help of nearby civilians.

..."National Park Service officers are 12 times more likely to be killed or injured as a result of an assault than FBI agents," the group Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility reported....

-S