# Concealed guns in national parks? Loaded weapons in wildlife refuges? Whaaa? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 22, 2009, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301 "2009-05-22T15:50:55Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 19
**Author:** ![SenorBeef](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/senorbeef/32/2220_2.png) [@SenorBeef](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SenorBeef)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/361 "2009-05-26T16:35:27Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > Target shooting? That always gets cited as the non-lethal purpose of handguns. I’ve always found that a little hard to swallow. It’s a bit like saying that tennis balls have two functions - playing tennis and juggling. A bit of a reach, I think. It’s \*possible \*to do something else with them, but that’s not why they were created, and generally not why they’re manufactured. I’d guessing that there are at least 50,000 rounds fired recreationally or as practice for every 1 round fired in anger. It’s hard to say it’s some obscure use. > [@](#): > > At any rate, if that’s the “other” function of a handgun, then keep them permanently chained up at the firing range. Here’s the thing. “Guns are made for killing people!” is a simplistic argument made to register on emotion. In most cases, it’s true - but it doesn’t carry an inherent value judgement in it. Police shooting a criminal who’s about to shoot at them is good. An old lady taking out a burglar who wouldn’t hesistate to harm her is good. “IT’S ONLY GOOD FOR KILLING PEOPLE!” is meant to provoke an emotional reaction but it’s not an argument in itself. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/362 "2009-05-26T16:51:07Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, you can always “interpret” the Constitution so it doesn’t mean what it says. Using this same line of argument, Congress could restrict freedom of the press because the modern machine-operated print press didn’t exist in 1787. > > And, of course, there is no indication that the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to apply only to muskets. If you have any evidence that they did, by all means let’s see it. > > Regards, > Shodan Thank you. Your answer is a great reply to those who will argue that our current technology didn’t exist and then imply that since it didn’t, it is not covered. There are a lot of things that didn’t exist back then, and yet we take them for granted. ---
**Author:** ![DrDeth](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/b487fb/32.png) [@DrDeth](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DrDeth)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/363 "2009-05-26T18:01:03Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > Insufficient. Let’s go with original intent - you can have a musket. > > . Sure then, your Freedom of the Press only applies to things printed on a real 18th Century press. No computers. ---
**Author:** ![PatriotGrrrl](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/9dc877/32.png) [@PatriotGrrrl](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PatriotGrrrl)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/364 "2009-05-26T18:24:58Z")
Are baseball bats made for playing baseball, or for assaulting people? What makes you think bats are made for playing baseball? That you see people on TV using them to play baseball? That there are people in your local parks using them to play baseball? That they are advertised with pictures of people playing baseball, and in magazines that are all about playing baseball? That famous baseball players endorse certain brands? That they are sold in sporting goods stores? That there are summer camps you can go to where they teach you to use them to play baseball? All these things are also true - and common - with respect to handguns and the shooting sports. ---
**Author:** ![Argent\_Towers](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/e8c25b/32.png) [@Argent\_Towers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Argent_Towers)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 6:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/365 "2009-05-26T18:54:01Z")
“The shooting sports?” As if any of these anti gun people even know what those are. They just see “gun” and think OMG OMG OMG. They don’t target shoot, they don’t hunt - I have never met a SINGLE hunter who was opposed to concealed carry. By and large the only experience that the anti gun crowd has to firearms is what they see on the boob toob. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/366 "2009-05-26T19:00:37Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > Person A always has a loaded gun with him. Won’t leave home without it. > Person B will go almost anywhere in the world without a gun. Person Z (that’s me) doesn’t have any feelings on either of these people, having known courageous and fearful people in both categories. Keeping a gun (or car keys, or pocketknife, or boot knife, or cell phone) doesn’t really say much at all about your personality. –Z (gun owner, Democrat, hunter, concealed-carry-permit holder who doesn’t even own a pistol right now) ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 9:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/367 "2009-05-26T21:36:54Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > **EarlyOut** , it seems that you disappear long enough for posts that challenge you to end up buried under new posts. > > So backtracking, did you follow the link to the Susan Hupp story? Can you honestly say that she should not have had the power to save her family? First, you can’t schedule my time. Sorry, but it just doesn’t work that way. Second, anecdote != data. Is a handgun never useful for self-defense? Of course not. Do the self-defense uses outweigh the cost to society of having vast numbers of handguns in private hands? _That’s_ a question that can be debated, and discussed. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/368 "2009-05-26T21:38:11Z")
> [@DrDeth](#): > > Sure then, your Freedom of the Press only applies to things printed on a real 18th Century press. No computers. I believe that “original intent” is nonsense, if that wasn’t already clear. If the Constitution can’t be interpreted to account for changed conditions, we might as well toss in the dumpster. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 9:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/369 "2009-05-26T21:42:43Z")
You continually avoid my questions, **EarlyOut**. Do you really believe that Susan Hupp shouldn’t have had a chance to save her parents from death? You speak of rare occassions not being enough to establish policy. How are you going to know who might need a gun for self defense? Go ahead, ignore this question too. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 9:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/370 "2009-05-26T21:48:12Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > I believe that “original intent” is nonsense, if that wasn’t already clear. If the Constitution can’t be interpreted to account for changed conditions, we might as well toss in the dumpster. If your Constitution can be reinterpreted under whatever raison de jour you care to name, then it isn’t worth the paper it’s written on. The amendment process was put in for a reason. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/371 "2009-05-26T21:50:55Z")
Geez, in four minutes he manages to bop off somewhere! ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/372 "2009-05-26T21:51:36Z")
> [@BlakeTyner](#): > > I’m curious about the “huge” number of people killed by handguns each year. If we take the DOJ statistics, then roughly 11000 people are killed (not suicides) in America annually. That translates to about 30 a day. And of those 30, some are justified defense shooting. Of the rest, some die by handguns, some by rifles, and some by shotguns. > > So we should punish the millions of gun owners for the benefit of what, maybe 15 innocent lives per day? > > We could do much better in aggregate numbers by banning cars. We could save more (actual) children by banning swimming pools. But for whatever reason, cars and swimming pools are not scary like the concept of guns has become. First, why are you discounting suicides? “They’d find some other way to kill themselves.” Well maybe - but maybe not. When it comes to other things that cause deaths, like cars, swimming pools, etc., you’re overlooking the fact that the primary purpose of a car or swimming pool is not to kill people. The deaths are an unfortunate side-effect, and we do everything we can to alleviate that problem. We don’t ban them outright because the benefits to society of having cars and swimming pools outweigh, at least in our current judgment, the cost in lost lives. I propose that the same rationale be applied to handguns. We can examine the benefits to society and the costs, and decide where the balance lies. My own conclusion is that the costs are greater than the benefits, so we should do everything possible to get rid of the handguns. Your conclusion may be the opposite. But that’s what legislative hearings are for - to help lawmakers decide what makes sense, and what doesn’t. We apply the same calculus to all sorts of things. It’s a big benefit to industry to be able to dump toxic sludge into our rivers. It’s a big detriment to society to have toxic sludge dumped into our rivers. So we decide that the costs outweigh the benefits, and that you can’t dump toxic sludge in the river any longer. It’s not a theological debate, and it doesn’t rest on the notion that handguns are somehow “scary.” It’s a simple balancing act between cost and benefit. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 9:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/373 "2009-05-26T21:52:40Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > Geez, in four minutes he manages to bop off somewhere! Please get off this “you must respond before my countdown clock reaches zero” kick. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 9:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/374 "2009-05-26T21:58:48Z")
Don’t let it get to ya. Gee, it seems like you’re avoiding questions again. Is this how you “debate and discuss”? ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/375 "2009-05-26T22:00:25Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Well, you can always “interpret” the Constitution so it doesn’t mean what it says. Using this same line of argument, Congress could restrict freedom of the press because the modern machine-operated print press didn’t exist in 1787. Only if they fell prey to the “original intent” nonsense. As I’ve said in another post, I think that approach to the Constitution would lead to the death of the document. If it can’t be interpreted in light of current conditions, it’s useless. > [@](#): > > And, of course, there is no indication that the Founding Fathers intended the Second Amendment to apply only to muskets. If you have any evidence that they did, by all means let’s see it. No, there isn’t, but if you embrace “original intent,” it’s tough to argue that the FF meant to protect something they didn’t even know about. We’ve made the rational decision that the FF would not have extended the protection to all “arms,” either. All we’re arguing about now is what “arms” are protected, and what “arms” aren’t. The Amendment doesn’t say, “the right to keep and bear a Taurus ACP.” If it did, that would make things very simple. The FF left it vague - we have to decide how far they would have gone, if they had known what kinds of “arms” would be floating around today. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/376 "2009-05-26T22:01:28Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > Don’t let it get to ya. > > Gee, it seems like you’re avoiding questions again. Is this how you “debate and discuss”? I prefer to think about my responses a bit, and try to avoid one-liner drive-bys. You may approach things differently. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/377 "2009-05-26T22:02:37Z")
> [@jimpatro](#): > > You continually avoid my questions, **EarlyOut** Upon reflection, I think that’s what I’ll do. Your insistence is just too irritating, and I won’t put up with it. ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/378 "2009-05-26T22:03:46Z")
Should Susan Hupp have been able to defend her mother and father from the man who eventually killed them? ---
**Author:** ![jimpatro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/b9e5f3/32.png) [@jimpatro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jimpatro)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/379 "2009-05-26T22:04:47Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > Upon reflection, I think that’s what I’ll do. Your insistence is just too irritating, and I won’t put up with it. Heh, heh. Figures. ---
**Author:** ![Early\_Out](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Early\_Out](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Early_Out)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2009, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/380 "2009-05-26T22:10:08Z")
To all of the “what about target pistols” folks. OK, pistols are great for target shooting. But handguns were invented for shooting at people. If they hadn’t been, does anyone seriously believe that the target pistol would have arisen independently? So, we’ve found another use for the basic device. That’s fine. When we craft our “no handguns” law, we’ll find a way to accommodate that use. Some kind of non-lethal ammo, perhaps? (No, I don’t know how that could be done, but you get the idea.) Tight restrictions on where the pistols can be kept, like locked up at a firing range? These are all just logistical problems. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301.md?page=18) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301.md?page=20)