Gun Control

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Artie60438 wrote:

sparks wrote:: http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/09/09/2589881/3-year-shot-dead-yellowstone-congress-permits-guns-parks/
Another victim of the NRA's campaign to increase gun violence.
For the first time since 1978, someone has died of a gunshot wound in Yellowstone National Park. And for the first time since 1938, the victim was a child, a 3-year-old Idaho girl who shot herself with her father’s handgun this weekend, only three years after Congress legalized guns in national parks.

Sparks,Despite what misleading,propaganda spouting, loony tune gun psychos would like us to believe,that precious 3 year old child would still be alive if guns were still banned in National parks. No gun = No death.

Someone prone to unsafe gun handling could likely also be prone to disregarding laws prohibiting guns in a national park.

No matter how many "weasel words" you use, that statement is nothing more than pure speculation.

Of course it's nothing more than speculation, as is the statement to which I was responding:

Despite what misleading,propaganda spouting, loony tune gun psychos would like us to believe,that precious 3 year old child would still be alive if guns were still banned in National parks. No gun = No death.

Um, no. That's not speculation. That's undeniably true. No gun = No death is pretty definitive. If the gun wasn't taken to the park, then the child wouldn't have been killed.

Saying "Oh well. he would have brought the gun in anyway" is really a stretch, Jack.

Um, yes. That is speculation.
If the child has a parent who is irresponsible in handling his guns, the child would be every bit as likely to be killed by the gun at home as she would be to be killed by the gun in the park, and "that precious 3 year old child" would not necessarily still be alive, law or no law.
All the laws in the world cannot override the blatant stupidity and irresponsibility of a parent.

While your last statement is true, the rest is pure speculation. We know for a fact that this kid was killed by a gun in the park, period. There's no need for speculation. You're the one making a specious argument.

happy jack wrote:: (Incidentally, is a gun in a national park somehow more dangerous than a gun in a state or city park?
If so, why?)

No, It's just as dangerous. To me, that's self evident.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: While your last statement is true, the rest is pure speculation. We know for a fact that this kid was killed by a gun in the park, period. That's a fact.

The insistence that the child would still be alive had a law been on the books banning guns from national parks is also pure speculation.
That's a fact.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: While your last statement is true, the rest is pure speculation. We know for a fact that this kid was killed by a gun in the park, period. That's a fact.

The insistence that the child would still be alive had a law been on the books banning guns from national parks is also pure speculation.
That's a fact.

Sure, but you're conveniently ignoring the "No gun = No death" part.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: While your last statement is true, the rest is pure speculation. We know for a fact that this kid was killed by a gun in the park, period. That's a fact.

The insistence that the child would still be alive had a law been on the books banning guns from national parks is also pure speculation.
That's a fact.

Sure, but you're conveniently ignoring the "No gun = No death" part.

No, I'm not ignoring the "No gun = No death" part. What I've been saying from the beginning is that the fact that it happened in a national park has nothing to do with any law and has everything to do with parental responsibility or, in this case, lack thereof. Just as it has been shown that state laws allowing concealed carry have not turned law-abiding citizens into homicidal maniacs and have not turned those states into the Wild West, as had been so often hysterically claimed, a law banning guns in national parks will not turn an idiot into a responsible gun owner.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: While your last statement is true, the rest is pure speculation. We know for a fact that this kid was killed by a gun in the park, period. That's a fact.

The insistence that the child would still be alive had a law been on the books banning guns from national parks is also pure speculation.
That's a fact.

Sure, but you're conveniently ignoring the "No gun = No death" part.

No, I'm not ignoring the "No gun = No death" part.

Sure you are.

happy jack wrote:: What I've been saying from the beginning is that the fact that it happened in a national park has nothing to do with any law and has everything to do with parental responsibility or, in this case, lack thereof.

Let's try again. Guns are now allowed in National Parks. The kid was killed by a gun that was brought to a National Park. There is no evidence that the parent would have brought the gun in illegally. Absolutely none. Again... No gun = No death.

happy jack wrote:: Just as it has been shown that state laws allowing concealed carry have not turned law-abiding citizens into homicidal maniacs and have not turned those states into the Wild West, as had been so often hysterically claimed, a law banning guns in national parks will not turn an idiot into a responsible gun owner.

Maybe not. But that's not what we're actually taking about, is it? The law changed, a gun was legally taken into a National Park, and a child is dead. You can't change that, no matter how hard you try.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: While your last statement is true, the rest is pure speculation. We know for a fact that this kid was killed by a gun in the park, period. That's a fact.

The insistence that the child would still be alive had a law been on the books banning guns from national parks is also pure speculation.
That's a fact.

Sure, but you're conveniently ignoring the "No gun = No death" part.

No, I'm not ignoring the "No gun = No death" part.

Sure you are.

happy jack wrote:: What I've been saying from the beginning is that the fact that it happened in a national park has nothing to do with any law and has everything to do with parental responsibility or, in this case, lack thereof.

Let's try again. Guns are now allowed in National Parks. The kid was killed by a gun that was brought to a National Park. There is no evidence that the parent would have brought the gun in illegally. Absolutely none. Again... No gun = No death.

happy jack wrote:: Just as it has been shown that state laws allowing concealed carry have not turned law-abiding citizens into homicidal maniacs and have not turned those states into the Wild West, as had been so often hysterically claimed, a law banning guns in national parks will not turn an idiot into a responsible gun owner.

Maybe not. But that's not what we're actually taking about, is it? The law changed, a gun was legally taken into a National Park, and a child is dead. You can't change that, no matter how hard you try.

Like many anti-gunners, you insist upon placing the blame for the child's death on an inanimate object - the gun - and on two abstractions - the law and the location.
How about this one time, just for yuks, you place the blame where it belongs - on the irresponsible parent?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: While your last statement is true, the rest is pure speculation. We know for a fact that this kid was killed by a gun in the park, period. That's a fact.

The insistence that the child would still be alive had a law been on the books banning guns from national parks is also pure speculation.
That's a fact.

Sure, but you're conveniently ignoring the "No gun = No death" part.

No, I'm not ignoring the "No gun = No death" part.

Sure you are.

happy jack wrote:: What I've been saying from the beginning is that the fact that it happened in a national park has nothing to do with any law and has everything to do with parental responsibility or, in this case, lack thereof.

Let's try again. Guns are now allowed in National Parks. The kid was killed by a gun that was brought to a National Park. There is no evidence that the parent would have brought the gun in illegally. Absolutely none. Again... No gun = No death.

happy jack wrote:: Just as it has been shown that state laws allowing concealed carry have not turned law-abiding citizens into homicidal maniacs and have not turned those states into the Wild West, as had been so often hysterically claimed, a law banning guns in national parks will not turn an idiot into a responsible gun owner.

Maybe not. But that's not what we're actually taking about, is it? The law changed, a gun was legally taken into a National Park, and a child is dead. You can't change that, no matter how hard you try.

Like many anti-gunners, you insist upon placing the blame for the child's death on an inanimate object - the gun - and on two abstractions - the law and the location.
How about this one time, just for yuks, you place the blame where it belongs - on the irresponsible parent?

Tell me... What color is the sky in your world?

The fact that the gun owner is "irresponsible" is so fucking self-evident that I didn't even find it worthy of discussion. But there are no "abstractions" here. The law allowed that irresponsible gun owner to bring his firearm into a National Park. It sure as hell is not a fucking "abstraction."

The whole purpose of gun laws is to protect others from "irresponsible" gun owners. If you haven't figured that out yet, then there is really nothing that I can do or say to help you.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: The fact that the gun owner is "irresponsible" is so fucking self-evident that I didn't even find it worthy of discussion. But there are no "abstractions" here. The law allowed that irresponsible gun owner to bring his firearm into a National Park. It sure as hell is not a fucking "abstraction."

The whole purpose of gun laws is to protect others from "irresponsible" gun owners. If you haven't figured that out yet, then there is really nothing that I can do or say to help you.

You claim that there is no evidence that the parent would have brought the gun in illegally, and I don't dispute that, but conversely, there is no guarantee that the parent wouldn't have brought the gun in illegally. You've acknowledged that the gun owner is irresponsible and, by their very nature, irresponsible people have little use or respect for laws. If a person is so irresponsible as to break a basic law of common sense by giving a 3 year-old access to a loaded gun, why do you feel that some silly little statute would suddenly make that person immune from his own irresponsibility and stupidity? Do you maintain that this was the type of person who normally kept his gun safely away from his child while he was at home, yet woke up on the day that the law was passed and said to himself, "Hot damn! Now I can take my daughter to Yellowstone and let her play with my gun!"? I highly doubt that is the case.
This was a tragedy waiting to happen, and the fact that it happened in a national park is no more than a coincidence. The kid never had a chance to begin with.

Posts : 9728

Scorpion wrote:: Tell me... What color is the sky in your world?

You mean on the planet of Gunnuttia?

Scorpion wrote:: The fact that the gun owner is "irresponsible" is so fucking self-evident that I didn't even find it worthy of discussion. But there are no "abstractions" here. The law allowed that irresponsible gun owner to bring his firearm into a National Park. It sure as hell is not a fucking "abstraction."

The whole purpose of gun laws is to protect others from "irresponsible" gun owners. If you haven't figured that out yet, then there is really nothing that I can do or say to help you.

You know the whole debate of Responsible vs irresponsible gun owners is nothing more than NRA hogwash. For all we know the guy in the park could have been a so-called "responsible gun owner" right up until the time the child got a hold of the gun and ended up dead.

These so-called "responsible gun owners" and our resident troll hold them selves up as some sort of Supermen when it comes to gun safety,yet as we all know accidents happen all the time. I guess in the twisted world of these psychos they've never spilled a vessel of liquid,slipped on a patch of ice, burned themselves with a hot pan or suffered any type of wound. Surely their children have never suffered a cut or a bruise because Super gunman would have been there to prevent it.

The fact is that no matter how many times these nitwits try to deny it, if a gun is not present than no one can get shot. Similarly you can't run over a pedestrian in a car if you don't have one. I don't care how careful and knowledgeable they claim to be,the fact remains that having a gun around presents a risk.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:: [
The fact is that no matter how many times these nitwits try to deny it, if a gun is not present than no one can get shot. Similarly you can't run over a pedestrian in a car if you don't have one. I don't care how careful and knowledgeable they claim to be,the fact remains that having a gun around presents a risk.

Odd.
Whenever I make the analogy between irresponsible gun handling and irresponsible driving, I am invariably accused of using a straw man argument.
Go figure.
I guess the folks on this forum have one set of rules for themselves and a different set for everyone else.
(Still can't work up the guts to address me directly, can you, Artie?
But why bother, as long as Scorpion is more than willing to serve as your 'proxy'.)

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: The fact that the gun owner is "irresponsible" is so fucking self-evident that I didn't even find it worthy of discussion. But there are no "abstractions" here. The law allowed that irresponsible gun owner to bring his firearm into a National Park. It sure as hell is not a fucking "abstraction."

The whole purpose of gun laws is to protect others from "irresponsible" gun owners. If you haven't figured that out yet, then there is really nothing that I can do or say to help you.

You claim that there is no evidence that the parent would have brought the gun in illegally, and I don't dispute that, but conversely, there is no guarantee that the parent wouldn't have brought the gun in illegally.

Are you fucking kidding me? Now you're resorting to asking me to consider trying to disprove a negative? That's pathetic, Jack. Apparently arguing with Artie all the time has seriously eroded any debating abilities you may have once had...

Your entire argument is based upon "sand." Like I said at the beginning, it doesn't matter how many "weasel words" you use. It's just pure speculation on your part.

"Oh, it's just a coincidence." "The kid was doomed from the beginning." None of the crap that you're posting is remotely relevant.

As I said earlier...

Scorpion wrote:: The whole purpose of gun laws is to protect others from "irresponsible" gun owners.

You really need to step back and think about what that statement means, Jack.

Posts : 2214

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: The fact that the gun owner is "irresponsible" is so fucking self-evident that I didn't even find it worthy of discussion. But there are no "abstractions" here. The law allowed that irresponsible gun owner to bring his firearm into a National Park. It sure as hell is not a fucking "abstraction."

The whole purpose of gun laws is to protect others from "irresponsible" gun owners. If you haven't figured that out yet, then there is really nothing that I can do or say to help you.

You claim that there is no evidence that the parent would have brought the gun in illegally, and I don't dispute that, but conversely, there is no guarantee that the parent wouldn't have brought the gun in illegally.

Are you fucking kidding me? Now you're resorting to asking me to consider trying to disprove a negative? That's pathetic, Jack. Apparently arguing with Artie all the time has seriously eroded any debating abilities you may have once had...

Your entire argument is based upon "sand." Like I said at the beginning, it doesn't matter how many "weasel words" you use. It's just pure speculation on your part.

"Oh, it's just a coincidence." "The kid was doomed from the beginning." None of the crap that you're posting is remotely relevant.

As I said earlier...

Scorpion wrote:: The whole purpose of gun laws is to protect others from "irresponsible" gun owners.

You really need to step back and think about what that statement means, Jack.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Happy Jack to understand how harmful gun violence is to our way of life.

Posts : 9728

Scorpion wrote:: Are you fucking kidding me? Now you're resorting to asking me to consider trying to disprove a negative? That's pathetic, Jack. Apparently arguing with Artie all the time has seriously eroded any debating abilities you may have once had...

Mission Accomplished! cheers

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: It's just pure speculation on your part.

No more speculation than you are engaging in by accepting as Gospel that an irresponsible gun owner (your description) will bother to obey penny-ante gun laws.

Scorpion wrote:

As I said earlier...

Scorpion wrote:: The whole purpose of gun laws is to protect others from "irresponsible" gun owners.

You really need to step back and think about what that statement means, Jack.

I know full well what that statement means.
See above.

Posts : 6988

Artie60438 wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Apparently arguing with Artie all the time has seriously eroded any debating abilities you may have once had...

Mission Accomplished! cheers

You seem to be taking that as a compliment.
Talk about clueless.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: It's just pure speculation on your part.

No more speculation than you are engaging in by accepting as Gospel that an irresponsible gun owner (your description) will bother to obey penny-ante gun laws.

Nonsense. I never said anything about accepting anything as "gospel."

Again, I don't have to speculate at all. For the last time, it's now legal to carry a gun in a National Park. An innocent is now dead. and the gun that killed her was legally carried into a National Park. That's where the tragedy happened. It didn't happen at home. It happened in a National Park.

The kid is dead. It's a bit too late for "What ifs?"

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: It's just pure speculation on your part.

No more speculation than you are engaging in by accepting as Gospel that an irresponsible gun owner (your description) will bother to obey penny-ante gun laws.

Nonsense. I never said anything about accepting anything as "gospel."

Again, I don't have to speculate at all. For the last time, it's now legal to carry a gun in a National Park. An innocent is now dead. and the gun that killed her was legally carried into a National Park. That's where the tragedy happened. It didn't happen at home. It happened in a National Park.

The kid is dead. It's a bit too late for "What ifs?"

Yes, the child is dead, and it's too late for anything - we both agree on that.
Where we differ, however, is that you seem to believe she is dead because of a law, while I believe she is dead due to her father's negligence and irresponsibility.
You are blaming a concept, one which may or may not have been a factor in her death.
I am blaming a person who was, without a doubt, a factor in her death.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: It's just pure speculation on your part.

No more speculation than you are engaging in by accepting as Gospel that an irresponsible gun owner (your description) will bother to obey penny-ante gun laws.

Nonsense. I never said anything about accepting anything as "gospel."

Again, I don't have to speculate at all. For the last time, it's now legal to carry a gun in a National Park. An innocent is now dead. and the gun that killed her was legally carried into a National Park. That's where the tragedy happened. It didn't happen at home. It happened in a National Park.

The kid is dead. It's a bit too late for "What ifs?"

Yes, the child is dead, and it's too late for anything - we both agree on that.
Where we differ, however, is that you seem to believe she is dead because of a law, while I believe she is dead due to her father's negligence and irresponsibility.
You are blaming a concept, one which may or may not have been a factor in her death.
I am blaming a person who was, without a doubt, a factor in her death.

Let me ask you this... Why should we allow "negligent and irresponsible" gun owners to carry guns in a National Park? Why should we allow guns in our National Parks at all? Do you really need a gun on you in order to fully enjoy "Old Faithful?"

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Let me ask you this... Why should we allow "negligent and irresponsible" gun owners to carry guns in a National Park?

I don't think we should allow individuals who have proven themselves to be "negligent or irresponsible" to carry guns anywhere, quite frankly, much as we should revoke the driver's licenses of those who have proven themselves to be "negligent and irresponsible" in the operation of a motor vehicle. Unfortunately, we have no way of predetermining which individuals are "negligent and irresponsible" until one of those individuals commits a "negligent and irresponsible" act.

Scorpion wrote:: Why should we allow guns in our National Parks at all?

For protection from predators, both two-legged and four-legged.

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Why should we allow guns in our National Parks at all?

For protection from predators, both two-legged and four-legged.

Yeah, well I wasn't aware that our National Parks were so dangerous. Are you really saying that (before the law changed) it wasn't safe to be in a National Park without a gun?

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:: Are you really saying that (before the law changed) it wasn't safe to be in a National Park without a gun?

I'm saying that if an individual is legally able to carry a weapon on the city streets, I see no reason why that person should not also be legally able to carry a weapon in a national park. Do you think that such a person turns instantly homicidal as soon as he passes under the archway of the entrance to a national park?

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Are you really saying that (before the law changed) it wasn't safe to be in a National Park without a gun?

I'm saying that if an individual is legally able to carry a weapon on the city streets, I see no reason why that person should not also be legally able to carry a weapon in a national park. Do you think that such a person turns instantly homicidal as soon as he passes under the archway of the entrance to a national park?

I see. So now you're changing your rationale...

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Why should we allow guns in our National Parks at all?

For protection from predators, both two-legged and four-legged.

As you can see, you specifically said that we should allow guns in our National Parks for "protection" from "predators." All I was asking was if it was unsafe to be in a National Park (before the law changed) without a gun?

You should stick to the questions that I'm asking you, Jack. It's the Path to Wisdom and Enlightenment.

Posts : 6988

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Are you really saying that (before the law changed) it wasn't safe to be in a National Park without a gun?

I'm saying that if an individual is legally able to carry a weapon on the city streets, I see no reason why that person should not also be legally able to carry a weapon in a national park. Do you think that such a person turns instantly homicidal as soon as he passes under the archway of the entrance to a national park?

I see. So now you're changing your rationale...

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Why should we allow guns in our National Parks at all?

For protection from predators, both two-legged and four-legged.

As you can see, you specifically said that we should allow guns in our National Parks for "protection" from "predators." All I was asking was if it was unsafe to be in a National Park (before the law changed) without a gun?

You should stick to the questions that I'm asking you, Jack. It's the Path to Wisdom and Enlightenment.

I don't think national parks are either inherently safer or inherently more unsafe than anywhere else at any given time. You might as well ask me if it is unsafe to be, for example, at the intersection of Florence and Normandie in Los Angeles. Ordinarily, I would say no, but on April 29th, 1992, it was very unsafe for one Reginald Denny.
Violence, almost without fail, occurs randomly and unexpectedly. I can't speak for everyone who carries a gun, but I would bet most of them don't carry it because they think that they are walking into an unsafe situation; they carry it because they understand that a seemingly safe situation could become unsafe very quickly. Such is the nature of violence.

http://miami.cbslocal.com/2013/09/13/arrest-made-in-opa-locka-parking-lot-murder/

17-Year-Old Arrested For Murder Of Man Captured On Surveillance Tape

MIAMI (CBSMiami) – An Opa-Locka teenager is being held without bond after a court hearing and after Miami-Dade Police arrested him for shooting and killing a 71-year-old man.

.........

The chilling crime was captured on surveillance tape at 4 p.m. on August 21st outside the Top Value Supermarket in Opa-Locka.

Tell me, Scorpion: is it unsafe to be outside the Top Value Supermarket in Opa-Locka?

Posts : 9728

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder

Quote :: The largest study of gun violence in the United States, released Thursday afternoon, confirms a point that should be obvious: widespread American gun ownership is fueling America’s gun violence epidemic.

The study, by Professor Michael Siegel at Boston University and two coauthors, has been peer-reviewed and is forthcoming in the American Journal of Public Health. Siegel and his colleagues compiled data on firearm homicides from all 50 states from 1981-2010, the longest stretch of time ever studied in this fashion, and set about seeing whether they could find any relationship between changes in gun ownership and murder using guns over time.

Since we know that violent crime rates overall declined during that period of time, the authors used something called “fixed effect regression” to account for any national trend other than changes in gun ownership. They also employed the largest-ever number of statistical controls for other variables in this kind of gun study: “age, gender, race/ethnicity, urbanization, poverty, unemployment, income, education, income inequality, divorce rate, alcohol use, violent crime rate, nonviolent crime rate, hate crime rate, number of hunting licenses, age-adjusted nonfirearm homicide rate, incarceration rate, and suicide rate” were all accounted for.

No good data on national rates of gun ownership exist (partly because of the NRA’s stranglehold on Congress), so the authors used the percentage of suicides that involve a firearm (FS/S) as a proxy. The theory, backed up by a wealth of data, is that the more guns there are any in any one place, the higher the percentage of people who commit suicide with guns as opposed to other mechanisms will be.

With all this preliminary work in hand, the authors ran a series of regressions to see what effect the overall national decline in firearm ownership from 1981 to 2010 had on gun homicides. The result was staggering: “for each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership,” Siegel et al. found, “firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9″ percent. A one standard deviation change in firearm ownership shifted gun murders by a staggering 12.9 percent.

To put this in perspective, take the state of Mississippi. “All other factors being equal,” the authors write, “our model would predict that if the FS/S in Mississippi were 57.7% (the average for all states) instead of 76.8% (the highest of all states), its firearm homicide rate would be 17% lower.” Since 475 people were murdered with a gun in Mississippi in 2010, that drop in gun ownership would translate to 80 lives saved in that year alone.

Of course, the authors don’t find that rates of gun ownership explain all of America’s gun violence epidemic: race, economic inequality and generally violent areas all contribute to an area’s propensity for gun deaths, suggesting that broader social inequality, not gun ownership alone, contributes to the gun violence epidemic. Nevertheless, the fact that gun ownership mattered even when race and poverty were accounted for suggests that we can’t avoid talking about America’s fascination with guns when debating what to do about the roughly 11,000 Americans who are yearly murdered by gunfire.

Gun deaths in perspective

Posts : 2141

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Are you really saying that (before the law changed) it wasn't safe to be in a National Park without a gun?

I'm saying that if an individual is legally able to carry a weapon on the city streets, I see no reason why that person should not also be legally able to carry a weapon in a national park. Do you think that such a person turns instantly homicidal as soon as he passes under the archway of the entrance to a national park?

I see. So now you're changing your rationale...

happy jack wrote:

Scorpion wrote:

Scorpion wrote:: Why should we allow guns in our National Parks at all?

For protection from predators, both two-legged and four-legged.

As you can see, you specifically said that we should allow guns in our National Parks for "protection" from "predators." All I was asking was if it was unsafe to be in a National Park (before the law changed) without a gun?

You should stick to the questions that I'm asking you, Jack. It's the Path to Wisdom and Enlightenment.

I don't think national parks are either inherently safer or inherently more unsafe than anywhere else at any given time. You might as well ask me if it is unsafe to be, for example, at the intersection of Florence and Normandie in Los Angeles....

Man. You really have problems staying focused, don't you? We're talking about National Parks. If you wanted to cite examples of violence in National Parks, then that might be relevant to our discussion... but what you have posted here is not.

» Gun Control
» Why is the Gun Control thread locked?
» White House Control of the Internet
» Time for Hammond Animal Control to be Euthanized