# 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:** 22
**Author:** ![Shodan](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9f8e36/32.png) [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/421 "2009-05-27T17:39:11Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > For the sake of convenience, start with the definition in the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. OK, then could you briefly describe how this definition establishes that a weapon is more dangerous than a weapon which does not fit this definition? For instance, suppose I have two shot guns. One has a pistol grip and a folding stock; the other does not. Why is shot gun A more dangerous than shot gun B? Regards, Shodan ---
**Author:** ![BlakeTyner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@BlakeTyner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlakeTyner)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/422 "2009-05-27T17:46:24Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > Well-put, and probably best left there. > > There’s just one thought I can’t shake loose: the U.S. has one of the highest rates of private gun ownership in the world. It also has one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths in the developed world (though we don’t hold a candle to some places in the developing world like South Africa, Guatemala, or Columbia, thankfully). I can’t believe that this is just a coincidence, or that the solution is to \*reduce \*the restrictions on gun ownership. Well, think of it this way: African-Americans are more likely to be convicted of a crime and more likely to be murdered (black males, especially.) Some people (generally not on the Dope, thankfully) chalk that up to racial inferiority, but I’m relatively sure we all realize that being black doesn’t “mean” anything vis-a-vis crime. When we really dig into it, we find ourselves in social and economical issues. It’s not the being black; it’s the circumstances. Maybe it’s the same concept with America. I’m not really sure, but I’d be willing to bet that we also have a higher rate of non-gun violent crime versus the rest of the world, too. And, I may be wrong about this, but don’t we have a higher rate of serial killers than other developed countries? Our circumstances make us unique in time and place, in a lot of ways. Regardless, I appreciate the conversation, and regardless of my tenets on guns, I’m glad you are doing your best to help society in the manner in which you see fit. With apathy so common, I must say I value the contributions of someone willing to at least try to understand/discuss/change things. ---
**Author:** ![Johnny\_L.A](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/johnny_l.a/32/1084_2.png) [@Johnny\_L.A](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Johnny_L.A)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/423 "2009-05-27T17:46:50Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > There’s just one thought I can’t shake loose: the U.S. has one of the highest rates of private gun ownership in the world. It also has one of the highest rates of gun-related deaths in the developed world (though we don’t hold a candle to some places in the developing world like South Africa, Guatemala, or Columbia, thankfully). I can’t believe that this is just a coincidence, or that the solution is to \*reduce \*the restrictions on gun ownership. It’s not the guns. I don’t have the numbers available, but I think that 99% of the guns in the U.S. are not used in any sort of crime. Of those that are (according to cites I looked up 25 years ago, and I have no reason to believe it’s changed), many are only included in the crime incidentally (for example, a gun might be at a location but never touched) or they are used as a threat and not fired. Really, your solution punishes people who have never committed a crime and little or nothing to punish the bad guys. IMO the problem is our society and the way we’ve grown as a country. I think the solution is to provide better education so that people can better themselves without resorting to crime. We need to reduce poverty. For example, Universal Health Care would allow people to get treatment without having to decide between it and food or rent. And healthier people are more employable and productive, so there would be less incentive to make money illicitly. We need to have a saner approach when it comes to drugs and alcohol. A lot of this is education. Another big part is treatment – treatment that would be covered under UHC. My ex-fiancée says that Dickens said it well in _A Christmas Carol_; that the majority of our problems come from Ignorance and Want. If we reduce ignorance by providing a proper education, fewer people will want. Those that are still in need can be helped. But in the end, people need to hope. Instilling hope, showing people that they can improve their lives and helping them do it, is hard and expensive. It’s much easier to pass do-nothing laws that only hurt the people who are not a problem. ---
**Author:** ![Zeriel](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/58956e/32.png) [@Zeriel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zeriel)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 5:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/424 "2009-05-27T17:57:09Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > Truth be told, I don’t, either. I don’t think I’ve ever even handled anything other than a BB gun (and that, probably 45 years ago). But if someone handed me a pistol, I’d ask politely whether it was loaded, and ask to be shown where the safety is, and then I’d be perfectly willing to try it out. I’ve just never known anyone who even owned one. > > I suppose that’s why I have so much trouble getting into the heads of the pro-gun crowd. I’ve gone through several decades of life, knowing large numbers of people, yet have never encountered any gun owners, not in my family, among my friends, among co-workers, or among neighbors\*. None of them has ever been the victim of a crime that would have been prevented by a gun, and none has ever been the victim of an accidental shooting (no surprise, there). I suppose that’s sort of an “anti-anecdote,” but at a certain point, it begins to become “data.” I am going to say this with complete and utter honesty. If you are anywhere within driving distance of central Pennsylvania, send me a PM. There’s a firing range less than 15 minutes from where I live, we’ll go buy a few boxes of target-shooting shells for my Mossberg shotgun and some iced tea, and bullshit about politics while killing a few dozen bright-orange bits of clay. About half of the people I know are gun owners. Every gun owner I know in real life is laid-back, respectful of their weapons and the potential dangers thereof, and I think they’d have the same reaction as you do to the nut you describe with the fence. And really, I appreciate your honesty in admitting you don’t have a lot of practical experience with either firearms or firearm owners. – Zeriel (flag-flying, gun-owning, Democrat-leaning average guy) P.S. all you pro-gun guys reading this are invited too–none of my in-town buddies are clay shooters and I never have anyone to go with these days. =P ---
**Author:** ![BlakeTyner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/50afbb/32.png) [@BlakeTyner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BlakeTyner)\ **Post date:** [May 27, 2009, 6:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/425 "2009-05-27T18:01:24Z")
I second **Zeriel’s** invitation. I’d be happy to char some beef flesh with any of y’all and at least give you the opportunity to look at/hold/ and/or shoot any of my guns. So, if you’re ever in northeast Texas, feel free to send me a PM. ---
**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 27, 2009, 6:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/426 "2009-05-27T18:16:45Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > For the sake of convenience, start with the definition in the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban. > > But it’s like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall, alas. Every time someone comes up with a definition, the manufacturers wriggle around the definition, and produce something that’s arguably not covered, But if they could come up with a meaningful, functional definition, it wouldn’t be easy to get around it, would it? If their definition was “any weapon capable of fully automatic fire” is banned, then manufacturers couldn’t get around it without changing the fundamental functionality of the weapon. But that’s not what’s at stake here - it’s more like “you cannot have both a pistol grip and a bayonette lug” - solution? saw off the bayonette lug. Without the ability to mount a bayonette, the rifle goes from SUPER DANGEROUS ASSAULT RIFLE to… rifle. > [@](#): > > but is just as unsuitable for home possession - not really useful for any sporting use (going out and playing with a .50-caliber is not a sport), and wildly excessive for any conceivable self-defense application. Ridiculous on both counts. First, no .50 caliber rifle that I’m aware of has ever fallen under an assault weapons ban. Secondly, these rifles are at the extreme end of marksmanship - how in the world can they not have a sporting purpose? People buy them (for thousands of dollars, and over a dollar per each round) to fire them at very distant targets to test their skills. > [@](#): > > How about, “any weapon whose only conceivable utility is to enable some whacko to gun down large numbers of people in a short period of time, simply because he thinks the world has been picking on him?” Sounds like anything beyond black powder firearms to me. So really - that’s your definition? Legally? A standard under which just about any gun falls? > [@](#): > > Or how about, “any weapon that allows a couple of bank robbers to hold off dozens of police officers for almost an hour?” Assuming you’re referring to the north hollywood shooting, those weren’t “assault weapons”. That may sound silly, but they wouldn’t have fallen under the federal assault weapons ban. Why? Because they were actual assault rifles, illegally smuggled in from mexico. Actual assault rifles don’t fall under the assault weapons ban, because the ban doesn’t attempt to regulate anything with select-fire, just the non-functional characteristics of semi-automatic weapons. You started the thread about how handguns as a group were too harmful for people to be allowed to own. A few posts ago you said “there’s no actual need for individuals to possess” rifles. It’s sort of deceptive to argue about how handguns are particularly dangerous as a type of gun, but actually seemingly advocate banning all guns. It seems like an attempt to give you a false sense of unbiased credibility - by being opposed to handguns specifically and maybe not the other stuff, you give the impression that you don’t want all guns banned, just the particularly dangerous ones. ---
**Author:** ![enipla](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/54ee81/32.png) [@enipla](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/enipla)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/427 "2009-05-28T01:02:41Z")
> [@SenorBeef](#): > > Ridiculous on both counts. First, no .50 caliber rifle that I’m aware of has ever fallen under an assault weapons ban. Secondly, these rifles are at the extreme end of marksmanship - how in the world can they not have a sporting purpose? People buy them (for thousands of dollars, and over a dollar per each round) to fire them at very distant targets to test their skills. And California has outlawed the .50 BMG. Even though it has never been used in a crime. As to locking up guns in at shooting ranges. What about folks like myself that shoot on their own private property? Or others that share shooting ranges with LEOs where the only ‘facility’ is a dirt berm? I shoot a number of different guns. I won’t mention different types of calibers and styles because that information seems to be useless to those that oppose firearm ownership. I will say this though. The anti gunners are right. Any target pistol or revolver, any hunting rifle. Any plinker, any skeet gun, any goose gun, any varmit rifle, any so called ‘assault weapon’ or assault rifle can kill a person. That the anti gun folks want to draw a distinction between them just shows how little they know about firearms. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/428 "2009-05-28T01:28:22Z")
> [@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 Newspapers don’t kill people, _people_ use newspapers to kill people. Honest, Your Honor. I was cleaning my newspaper and it just went off! mangeorge ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/429 "2009-05-28T01:35:17Z")
> [@Johnny\_L.A](#): > > Yes. By my distinction area weapons are excluded. > My definition of ‘arm’ is a firearm, sword, knife, and such. What ‘arms’ are you saying are ‘appalling’? You better add axes and hammers too. Any medieval knight would tell us (if he could) that such weapons are devastating. ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/430 "2009-05-28T01:37:12Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > Could you give a definition of what constitutes an “assault weapon”? > > Regards, > Shodan You beat me to it. That’s starting to be a pattern. Watch it, mister 😃 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 1:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/431 "2009-05-28T01:48:37Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > Well… You see where this is going, don’t you? You’re not going to like it, I suspect. > > If there’s no way to categorize or control access to firearms in a way that keeps them out of the hands of people who will use them to commit mayhem, maybe we have to decide that hunting doesn’t provide any particular benefit to society, that’s it’s just a luxury, a hobby for one group of people. There’s no actual \*need \*for private individuals to possess rifles. > > I’m not actually proposing this, but every time the pro-gun folks throw up another roadblock to reducing the proliferation of lethal weapons, they push the opposition further and further to the other end of the spectrum. Make it impossible for anyone to propose a reasonable compromise, and that’s the result. That would be a hell of a precedent. _We can’t define what this new law will be prohibiting in any intelligible way. We can’t put words to what we want. or even describe what it is we want to outlaw, because we don’t know what we are talking about and can’t be bothered to find out, so let’s just make a BIGGER LAW that outlaws all of it._ This is going to sound belligerant. Sorry about that (not really). But I don’t need “you” deciding what I need or don’t need. I bet “you” don’t want me making those decisions, because I guaranteed I could come up with one hell of a long list, if it’s only about need. If “you” get to decide I can only have or do the things I absolutely need, then let’s just flush the constitution, the law, and any notion of freedom/rights down the toilet right now. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/432 "2009-05-28T02:20:59Z")
Will this thread ever return to the initial issue of bringing the national park gun rules in line with the local state laws? Because that was the original question posted. ---
**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 28, 2009, 2:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/433 "2009-05-28T02:26:51Z")
> [@ghardester](#): > > Will this thread ever return to the initial issue of bringing the national park gun rules in line with the local state laws? > > Because that was the original question posted. Yes, we really should end the hijack. So, take a position and defend it! Drag this thread, kicking and sreaming if necessary, back on topic. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![SteveG1](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@SteveG1](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SteveG1)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/434 "2009-05-28T02:32:07Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > Yes, we really should end the hijack. > > So, take a position and defend it! Drag this thread, kicking and sreaming if necessary, back on topic. 🙂 Yes. Let’s do that. ---
**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 28, 2009, 2:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/435 "2009-05-28T02:35:57Z")
> [@SteveG1](#): > > You better add axes and hammers too. Any medieval knight would tell us (if he could) that such weapons are devastating. See foreground [here.](http://www.richard111.com/Battle%20of%20Tewkesbury.JPG) Given the choice between being on the receiving end of that thing, and being shot, I’ll take the bullet, PLEASE. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 2:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/436 "2009-05-28T02:36:48Z")
On topic gun threads live in the realm of unicorns. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/437 "2009-05-28T03:13:16Z")
So… Pistols. You know, despite what people have said in the past, during the Revolutionary War, pistols were essential arms. The French gave us thousands of pistols. Mostly Model 1777s, if I remember right. I’m pretty sure they’re covered by the Second Amendment. Specifically. ---
**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 28, 2009, 3:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/438 "2009-05-28T03:33:36Z")
> [@mangeorge](#): > > On topic gun threads live in the realm of unicorns. How many Great Debate threads are ever really 100 percent on topic? I think the vast majority of debate threads on this forum go “off topic” at some point. ---
**Author:** ![mangeorge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d78d45/32.png) [@mangeorge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mangeorge)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 4:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/439 "2009-05-28T04:06:26Z")
> [@Argent\_Towers](#): > > How many Great Debate threads are ever really 100 percent on topic? > > I think the vast majority of debate threads on this forum go “off topic” at some point. Don’t get me wrong, I think it’s a good thing. Otherwise some threads get to be like an old “Pong” game. For the [unponged](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPkUvfL8T1I) among you. Yep, that’s the whole game. And yes, people used to actually play it. For hours on end. ---
**Author:** ![Dallas\_Jones](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/dallas_jones/32/3277_2.png) [@Dallas\_Jones](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Dallas_Jones)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2009, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301/440 "2009-05-28T17:13:07Z")
> [@Early\_Out](#): > > Yes, we really should end the hijack. > > So, take a position and defend it! Drag this thread, kicking and sreaming if necessary, back on topic. 🙂 Ok then. As I pointed out way back in post #145 this new rule is merely an adjustment that aligns the gun laws of the national park system with the gun laws of the state the park is in. And why is this a reason foor concern? Out here in Oregon there is one area only that this law applies to; Crater Lake National Park. It’s in the center of southern Oregon. To reach this enclave of gun safety you have to subject yourself to the gun laws of Oregon while driving through the state. If you are an outdoors type of person you might wish to visit the Mt Hood National Forest, Siuslaw National Forest, or one of the 38 designated wilderness areas. Or umteen state parks. Or you might want to have a beer or coffee in downtown Portland. In all of these areas the gun laws, including concealed permits, of the state of Oregon apply. I believe that the laws of Oregon should apply within Crater Lake National Park too. So do our representatives who voted for the change, including Peter Defazio (Dem), one of the most liberal reps in the House. So explain to me why this is not a reasonable change instead of this huge cause for alarm?? [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301.md?page=21) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/concealed-guns-in-national-parks-loaded-weapons-in-wildlife-refuges-whaaa/497301.md?page=23)