Guns in parks rule reaches one-year anniversary

[hack89]

At the time, critics predicted that the new rule would frighten families away from the parks, and that the number of animals shot by gun owners in the parks would increase exponentially.

So what actually happened?

Not much at all, noted David Barna, spokesperson for the National Park Service, in an email. There was “really almost no impact,” he wrote.

One specific incident made national news last year on May 28, when a pair of hikers in Alaska’s Denali National Park drew a .45-caliber pistol and fired on a grizzly bear charging toward them from out of a thicket. The bear was wounded and later died, and after an investigation, park officials ruled that the shooting was a legitimate act of self-defense

There’s also no evidence to suggest that families avoided the parks in the seasons following the new gun rule. Visitation to national parks including Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Yosemite, Grand Canyon and Rocky Mountain—and 183 other National Park Service properties—all increased in 2010.

http://www.examiner.com/national-parks-in-national/guns-parks-rule-reaches-one-year-anniversary#ixzz1Et2dgps0

[mvccd1000]

1. Just imagine what "could" have happened!

Please don't let your facts get in the way of a good emotion-based argument! :)

:sarcasm:

[slackmaster]

3. It could have been worse than Y2K

:argh:

[speltwon]

9. lol yes. Facts mean nothing when the "it stands to reason"

crowd criticizes gun rights. Note that whomever invented the "it stands to reason" phrase I thank you. I saw it in another thread, and I am borrowing it for frequent use to refer to the syndrome where anti-RKBA's make an impassioned speculative argument from an "it stands to reason" viewpoint, that of course conflicts with hard evidence as to what actually happens in the real world vis a vis CCW, Shall Issue, Guns on Campus, etc.

[Euromutt]

39. Credit goes to Terry Pratchett

See my sig line for the original source.

[speltwon]

40. Terry Pratchett you did good! nt

[DonP]

2. Well, they were down at least a few, according to some folks here

We had people here vowing that they would stop taking their families to any parks "to expose them to a bunch of trigger happy yahoos wandering the trails with their AK-47s". (I'm editing the prose to be polite. Most of them were much more vivid in their descriptions of gun owners.)

So the total parks attendance count must be down at least 10 or 12, based on threads here alone.

[X_Digger]

4. Won't stop the next 'blood in the streets' canard.. n/t

[speltwon]

10. Wrong meme. It's "blood on the pristine hiking path" :) nt

[aikoaiko]

5. the fear mongering anti-gun crowd proven wrong again.

Not that there won't ever be a case of a wrongful use of gun in a park, but clearly worst fears didn't come true.

[spin]

19. You have to admit that they are a bunch of really paranoid people ...

I would hate to live in fear like they do.

[Spoonman]

6. Thank heavens "drunken frat parties"

don't take place in our National Parks.

If you add a text book to the equation, we all know the outcome will be very different!

:sarcasm: - Added for those whose brain cells are stuck in "low gear".

[Bold Lib]

7. I wonder how many people have denied their children seeing our wonderful

parks for no apparent reason. Maybe now they might understand that there is no problem with lawful people going armed. Think they'll admit they were wrong on the issue?

[spin]

20. Probably very few ...

Florida has had concealed carry since 1987 and residents often carry loaded firearms in their cars without a license.

Tourists still come to Florida to enjoy our attractions and beaches.

[Common Sense Party]

8. I took my gun to Yellowstone. I never needed to take it out of the backpack

but on some of the trails, it was nice knowing it was there.

[speltwon]

11. They will pry my

pic-uh-nick basket from my cold, dead hands :)

I, for one, support the RKBA in parks. There is nothing magical about a park that should force people to disarm upon entering.

[Common Sense Party]

12. Especially when it can put you face-to-face with some carnivorous

parts of nature in some rare instances.

It just made sense to have it. Bug spray, flashlight, camera, gun, water bottles.

[speltwon]

13. I go a step farther and carry basic first aid

stuff, so I can even do sutures on the fly. That's a trick I picked up from a trip I made to Central America. Came in handy. When I got back to the states, my Dr. gave me a B on my sutures technique. I also carry water filtration stuff.

[RSillsbee]

25. Do you have a license to practice medicine

to go w/ your mad suturing skillz? Or are you a lawsuit looking for a place to happen?

[speltwon]

30. You don't need a license to suture YOURSELF.

I am reasonably confident I am not going to sue myself. It would create a conflict of interest. Furthermore, the only place I have had to suture myself was in Nicaragua. No US court would have jurisdiction, even IF I decided to sue myself.

That's the first point. I sutured myself. Here's a hint. You do NOT need a license (in Nicaragua I might add), to suture oneself at an isolated beach.

Please show me examples of people being criminally charged for "practicing medicine w/o a license" for applying emergency first aid to themselves, let alone in foreign jurisdictions.

Do you think the Aron Ralston, who had to amputate his own arm after it got stuck while he was hiking (see: 127 hrs) was "practicing medicine w/o a license?" . I would also note that amputation is a MUCH more radical procedure than simple stitches. When you are in the wild, you often have to do what you have to do. I am pretty sure if I am bleeding profusely, I am going to suture myself or anybody who asks if it means saving a life. There are NUMEROUS stories in our history of "boy scouts" (literal and figurative) applying emergency medical procedures, to include tourniquets (note tourniquets are much less accepted now than they were 30+ yrs ago but I digrees), makeshift splints, etc.

It's a good question as to whether *if* I had sutured somebody else, given that we were AT LEAST 6+ hrs from the nearest hospital (and that's being generous) considering the "necessity defense" if I would have suffered any civil liability. Also note that a person would generally not have jurisdiction to sue me in a US court for an act I committed in Nicaragua.

I never held myself out as a physician, and would certainly never take compensation for suturing somebody else (which I never did anyway), would never claim to be a physician or to have a medical license, either.

[RSillsbee]

32. You stated that you knew how to suture

A normal person would assume you meant on other people. Also we were talking about American National parks not Nicaraguan so a normal person assume that American law prevails.

Waaaaay back in the dark ages when I was in the Army they had a class called 'Combat Lifesaver" basically it was a glorified first aid merit badge. They didn't even teach CPR but they did teach IV therapy. I used to go on calls in Colorado Springs and run into some idiot would been to combat life saver school wanting to know if he could start an IV on the PT. Your scenario sounded similar.

Final thought, unless you wish to incure more liability than the will ever pay off I would strongly encourage you to never even think about suturing another human being in the United States ever

[speltwon]

33. No, a normal person wouldn't assume that

Knowing how to suture is a skill. A person who is not a physician can know how to suture. I said I knew HOW to do it, and I have done it on myself. It's not frigging rocket science. Ask any physician. The skills you know are tangential to whether you are licensed to practice them as a profession. Do you understand the difference? There is a very good reason we require licensure (even graduation from medical school does not LICENSE one as a physician and note also that those who are not licensed as physicians can do sutures, as long as it is under the supervision of a MD or PA or nurse practitioner in many states, just as a rule 9 intern can practice law in my state even though they are still law students, as long as supervised by an attorney) but licensure is not required to perform a procedure like that on oneself, ESPECIALLY if medical care from a professional is not available.

I know how to invest. I do not hold a series 7 license, and thus cannot offer investment advice for compensation. That's a licensing issue, not a skill set.

I will always lean towards saving a life vs. worrying about liability, and I say that as a former beach lifeguard and firefighter. When acting as a firefighter/EMT I *always* acted within the standard of care I was authorized to provide (provide oxygen, splint, etc.) however, when in an isolated location if it's a matter of life or death, I will do what is necessary to save a life.

The sutures I did on myself were not to protect against an immediately life threatening condition, however by suturing (after thorough disinfection for a nasty reef laceration, I helped protect myself against excessive blood loss, closed an open wound, etc.

I am sorry if it SEEMED that I implied that I carried sutures to practice on OTHERS. I would not suture anybody unless it was necessary for a life threatening issue, and that's rarely the case with sutures. Sometimes, an invasive method IS necessary in the field. A venomous bite for example can be countered by invasive methods (but not suturing)

There are damn good reasons why we require people to have medical licenses. It ENSURES (although not really - see iatrogenic deaths) a minimum standard of knowledge and accountability for those who hold themselves out as physicians etc. As you know, licensure is seperate from holding a medical degree, just as having a degree doesn't make one a psychologist w.o the required license.

Regardless, when one is traveling to a locale where medical care is going to be hours away (if that) one does what one has to do. The laws that hold in civilized society where licensed medical care is an OPTION do not apply (necessity defense) when one is unable to seek medical care from a licensed professional.

[Glassunion]

14. Who would have thought?

You could take down a grizzly with a .45?

Personally I carry Bear Mace for just such an occasion when I hike.

[Callisto32]

15. Depends on the .45.

:evilgrin:

[Glassunion]

17. Good point...

I doubt that a 165gr .45 would pack the same punch.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

31. Hollow Point...

;)

[AtheistCrusader]

16. It can be done.

You're not going to penetrate the skull, most likely, but put enough into it's chest, and you'll probably penetrate to the heart and other vitals. Sounds like the bear fled after being shot, or perhaps they climbed a tree, and the bear bled out. (Adult grizzlies can't climb trees)

[DonP]

18. Considering the layers of fat on a bear FMJ instead of HP?

[Glassunion]

22. I've never hunted bear, but in a pinch...

I would rather use the mace, if I don't have any of that, then def a FMJ .308 or better. Better yet a grenade would be handy or a Daisy Cutter.

[Glassunion]

21. I think luck would play a big part...

I remember a story about two bow hunters(father and son) running into a bear. The son was over a rise away from the father. The father heard his son scream, then about 5 seconds later he came running back over the rise with a grizzly following. The father quickly fired(with his bow) at the bear. The arrow flew a few inches to the left of his son. The son later recalled that he felt the breeze from it as it passed. Problem was the bear did not go down, and the father was unsure if he even hit the bear.

His son ran past his father and down the rise out of sight, with the bear following. The father ran after, and when he caught up both his son and the bear were lying on the ground. The bear was dead, and the son was in bad shape. Apparently the arrow completely entered the bear's chest and tore a hole in its heart. It just took a few moments for the bear to bleed out. As I recall from the show that I saw this on, the son got a pretty slick tattoo of a bear claw ripping into his back, right over the scar the bear left in him.

Luck can always play a part. What's the old saying? I'd rather be lucky than good any day of the week?

[AtheistCrusader]

26. IIRC indigenous people's hunting parties would normally include 3 for a grizzly

and three would not always come home. And these were people well attuned to living off the land, and dealing with outdoor life's dangers.

Luck probably played a huge role in it. When I go that deep into the woods, I carry a .45-70 Government.

[Glassunion]

27. The two were hunting moose if I recall correctly.

[spin]

23. I think I would rather carry a .357 or .44 mag ...

or a S&W 500.

[Glassunion]

24. Howitzer? Some bears are really whacked out...

[spin]

28. Actually a 12 gauge shotgun or a .300 mag rifle is a good choice of weapon ..

to stop a bear. But often people really don't expect to have an encounter with a bear and just carry a handgun for defense just in case.

I had a friend who had been stationed at a remote radar site when he was in Alaska. If anyone left the site to go fishing or hiking, they had to carry at a minimum, a .357 magnum. He bought a beautiful nickel plated Colt Python.

Bears and You

Nothing will guarantee your safety in bear country, but knowledge of bears and proper behavior greatly reduce your risk. For years people have believed that the one thing predictable about bear behavior is that it’s unpredictable. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologists disagree. "Bears have reasons for doing things. It’s only from our lack of understanding that their behavior seems unpredictable," says John Hechtel, a biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. He has 18 years’ experience studying bear and human encounters.

***snip***

Nothing will guarantee your safety in bear country, but knowledge of bears and proper behavior greatly reduce your risk. For years people have believed that the one thing predictable about bear behavior is that it’s unpredictable. The Alaska Department of Fish and Game biologists disagree. "Bears have reasons for doing things. It’s only from our lack of understanding that their behavior seems unpredictable," says John Hechtel, a biologist with the Alaska Department of Fish and Game. He has 18 years’ experience studying bear and human encounters.

Protection
Most people who hike in Alaska’s wilderness don’t carry a weapon. They know that the best defense is common sense. Traveling and camping carefully are all that they need. If you feel the need for additional protection, consider carrying "pepper spray", a bear deterrent made from the juice of red-hot peppers. This incapacitating spray teaches bears a lesson without permanently maiming them. It’s available at local sporting goods stores and at visitor centers. Be familiar with the characteristics of the brand you choose and its warnings.

You are allowed to carry a gun for protection in state parks. Remember, though, that more people are hurt by the guns they carry than are hurt by bears. Select a gun that will stop a bear (12-gauge shotgun or .300 mag rifle) and practice firing it at a rifle range. Any bear shot in self defense must be salvaged and turned over to the Alaska Department of Fish and Game.
http://dnr.alaska.gov/parks/safety/bears.htm

[Euromutt]

42. When a friend of mine was younger, he and his dad would hunt deer on the Olympic Peninsula

Along with their deer rifles, they'd carry a pump-action 20-gauge loaded with slugs in case they ran into an aggressive (black) bear. The idea being that you fire at the bear's front legs in an effort to immobilize it by shattering the bones.

Nevertheless, there is at least one study (http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/RegionalNews/dh-bear%20spray.pdf) that suggests that bear spray is actually more effective at halting bear attacks than firearms are.

[speltwon]

34. The minimum handgun caliber I'd recommend for a bear is .454 Casull

Not saying you can't be successful with a less gnarly round, it's just that I do NOT want to just piss the thing off. I want a round bad-ass enough to give me a fighting chance. Granted, the .454 kicks like you wouldn't believe.

[spin]

38. I've never fired a .454 Casull but I have seen them on the range ...

the recoil look impressive.

I've had people tell me that the recoil on the S&W 500 is manageable and similar to a .44 mag. That could be possible as the 500 is an ENORMOUS hand gun.

[Euromutt]

41. I've fired .44 Mag and .500 S&W Mag, and they do not equate

A few summers ago, I was at an outdoor range south of Olympia, WA and an off-duty MP out of Fort Lewis stopped by with some buddies. He was mainly there to practice for his M4 qualifier, using his privately owned AR carbine, but he'd also brought a S&W Model 500, which he offered to let me fire. He instructed me to use a two-handed grip, because with a one-handed grip, the recoil may cause the muzzle to rise rather far, and first-time shooters (with that particular gun) often grip it tighter to bring it under control, causing them to inadvertently squeeze off a second shot. And you obviously do not want to do that while the muzzle's pointing at the sky.

But even with a two-handed grip, after five rounds (a full cylinder) my arms were quite sore. Putting a dozen handicap target loads through my 12-gauge Benelli Supernova was less punishing.

I've also fired my range buddy's Ruger Super Redhawk, which she (yes, she; she's a fairly small lesbian from Wyoming) feeds handloads made by her dad, and I've found that to a far more controllable and comfortable gun to shoot.

[spin]

44. The last time a police officer and I went shooting ...

he brought his Ruger Redhawk. I felt it had less recoil than my S&W Model 629. He was using reloads and didn't know whether they were mid range or full power. Still the recoil was very easy to handle. I have also fired a .Taurus 44 Magnum with full power loads and was impressed with how easy it was to handle the recoil.

This could be because the Smith is the lightest of the three weapons at 45oz, the Redhawk weighs 54 oz and the Raging Bull 53 oz. The S&W 500 with a 6.5" barrel weighs 60.7 oz.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

36. Desert Eagle... point five-oh

Still wish I had mine. What a fun gun it was.
7+1 capacity of fifty caliber mayhem. MMMmmmm
A 300gr jacketed Gold Dot hollowpoint is mighty nasty @ 1550fps.

A Desert Eagle shooting a 440 Corbon would be nasty too... 260gr @ 1700fps.
440 corbon is a .50ae necked down to accept .44 bullets. Basically a short fat .454 casull. :smoke:

[Euromutt]

43. There is evidence that OC spray may be more effective than firearms

The was a study published about three years ago in the Journal of Wildlife Management which tallied use of OC spray and firearms to defend against grizzly attacks in Alaska, and it found that OC spray did a better job of halting the attack.

You can read the study here: http://gf.state.wy.us/downloads/pdf/RegionalNews/dh-bear%20spray.pdf

In addition, I'd greatly prefer to avoid killing wildlife if I can help it. If the less-lethal approach is also more effective, that suits me just fine.

[Katya Mullethov]

29. How much is “really almost no impact,”

Is that weasel for a " small positive impact" ?

[ileus]

35. Of course nothing happened....as always when rights are expanded

[armueller2001]

37. Sounds like all that bitching and moaning was for nothing.

YUP

Now, campus carry is sweeping across the country and what's going to happen in a year? Nothing.

YUP