Recommended Posts
QuoteQuoteThere are bears in national parks, right? Do you support the right to arm bears?
Here is a great example of ironic BS along a road I travel on my bicycle.
Read the yellow sign, then note the sign directly below it.
http://www.dim.com/~ryoder/Flagstaff-Road/080611_083824-signs.jpg
"Yes, we know it is dangerous here, but you are not allowed to defend yourself."![]()
If you don't like the rules of a PARK, you don't have to go there. Humans have left precious little land in an unspoiled state as it is. If you want to see animals in a controlled environment, go to the zoo.
Quote
If you don't like the rules of a PARK, you don't have to go there. Humans have left precious little land in an unspoiled state as it is. If you want to see animals in a controlled environment, go to the zoo.
The ban on guns in the park is not for the protection of animals. Note the part of the sign that says "Fight back."
QuoteQuote
If you don't like the rules of a PARK, you don't have to go there. Humans have left precious little land in an unspoiled state as it is. If you want to see animals in a controlled environment, go to the zoo.
The ban on guns in the park is not for the protection of animals. Note the part of the sign that says "Fight back."
Quote
"Yes, we know it is dangerous here, but you are not allowed to defend yourself."
If you don't like the rules of a PARK, you don't have to go there. If you're concerned about an encounter with a wild animal, stay the fuck away from ITS home.
wmw999 2,644
The only problem I have with it is the number of people who might decide they had to defend themselves because they had a gun. Right now animal attacks, while not unheard of, aren't a huge problem. I have a feeling that the numbers would go up. The penalty for illegally killing an animal would have to be large, and the chance of being caught high.QuoteYes, we know it is dangerous here, but you are not allowed to defend yourself
Wendy W.
ryoder 1,590
Quote
If you don't like the rules of a PARK, you don't have to go there. Humans have left precious little land in an unspoiled state as it is. If you want to see animals in a controlled environment, go to the zoo.
Explain that to the people who own homes in the area of the former Walker Ranch West of Boulder, They have no choice but to travel a road through a designated park to get to/from their homes.
I only use the road, not the park, but you are in the park even if you never leave the road.
Blues,
Dave
(drink Mountain Dew)
QuoteQuoteQuote
If you don't like the rules of a PARK, you don't have to go there. Humans have left precious little land in an unspoiled state as it is. If you want to see animals in a controlled environment, go to the zoo.
The ban on guns in the park is not for the protection of animals. Note the part of the sign that says "Fight back."Quote(quote is from someone else, not me)
"Yes, we know it is dangerous here, but you are not allowed to defend yourself."
If you don't like the rules of a PARK, you don't have to go there. If you're concerned about an encounter with a wild animal, stay the fuck away from ITS home.
The rules of the park says you can fight back. It doesn't say you have to agree to become a dinner selection when you visit. (I do in fact dive in regions where that is a fact of entry)
If a ranger came along, or if a mountain lion kills someone and is found later, guns will be used on the animal.
TomAiello 26
QuoteI'd say the only way to stop corruption, influence peddling, etc. is to make people stop behaving like human beings. Whether government is making decisions, or the free and open market is making decisions, human frailty and vice will always play a role.
When it's done with private money, I don't have to pay for it.
When it's done with government money, I am forced to pay the bill.
That's a HUGE difference.
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
JohnMitchell 16
Why should someone render themselves a helpless victim just to enjoy the outdoors? When seconds count the park rangers will be there in hours.QuoteIf you don't like the rules of a PARK, you don't have to go there. Humans have left precious little land in an unspoiled state as it is. If you want to see animals in a controlled environment, go to the zoo.
By your argument, people who live in high crime areas should just stay locked inside or move away. They shouldn't have the right to self defense.
TomAiello 26
QuoteIf you don't like the rules of a PARK, you don't have to go there. Humans have left precious little land in an unspoiled state as it is. If you want to see animals in a controlled environment, go to the zoo.
If you think National Park's are unspoiled, I have to ask--have you visited any recently?
Further, since it's OUR park, WE ought to be able to exercise our rights there.
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
billvon 3,173
They shouldn't! Fortunately, there are plenty of places you can go where you can carry weapons if such weapons make you feel less vulnerable.
>By your argument, people who live in high crime areas should just stay
>locked inside or move away.
Where someone lives is inherently different than where someone goes to have fun.
Quote
>By your argument, people who live in high crime areas should just stay
>locked inside or move away.
Where someone lives is inherently different than where someone goes to have fun.
Ryoder gave an example where both are in play.
Andy9o8 3
QuoteNote the part of the sign that says "Fight back."
That was addressed to the animals.
Oh, wait, I forgot, there is no humor in gun threads. Never mind.
billvon 3,173
If someone lives (i.e. has a permanent address) in a national park then I would support their right to have a gun in their house. Once they're in the park outside their home, they have to follow the park's rules on guns, fires, cars, bicycles etc etc.
ryoder 1,590
Quote>Ryoder gave an example where both are in play.
If someone lives (i.e. has a permanent address) in a national park then I would support their right to have a gun in their house. Once they're in the park outside their home, they have to follow the park's rules on guns, fires, cars, bicycles etc etc.
See link. Note that the light gray area in the middle in all private property, but there are no roads out of that area that do not transit the parks. So how does someone living in that area exercise their right-to-carry if the only way out is across the forbidden parks??? (And BTW in CO no permit is required to carry in a car.)
http://www.dim.com/~ryoder/Screenshot-Firefox.png
billvon 3,173
>if the only way out is across the forbidden parks?
By putting it in their trunk until they leave the park.
nerdgirl 0
QuoteQuoteThe only way to stop that shit, outside a pipe dream, is to take that power out of the hands of government. Limiting governments reach is really the _only_ option for stopping corruption, influence peddling, or whatever you want to call it.
it's funny how that statement is pretty much what everybody says - unless they are a fanatic, or serving in one of 2 or 3 branches of government
It does seem pretty regularly true that folks will perceive reality to reflect their beliefs & preferences. Now if we’re talking about whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better … or RW versus freefly, those are subjective.
Otoh, lots of things a lot of people believed lots of correlations that have been shown to be false.
Most corrupt US State (per capita corruption convictions): North Dakota. Next Louisiana, then Alaska, followed by Mississippi, Montana, Kentucky, Alabama, and South Dakota.
Now that’s an imperfect measure, of course. Of course, one might suggest those states are just better at detecting and prosecuting corruption. Might be the case. If you have a better meaure, please suggest.
Compare that with “Freest” States, which is largely measured by lack of government influence both economically and personally: New Hampshire, Colorado, South Dakota, and North Dakota. On “personal freedoms”: Alaska. Does that mean lack of government influence correlates positively with corruption in US States? Maybe. I doubt it … but it might. I suspect they are largely independent variables. (And correlation does not necessarily mean causation.)
Does anyone have evidence to suggest otherwise? Or to support a negative correlation between corruption and power vested in transparent government?
Moving from US States to nation-states, does anyone want to argue that there’s less corruption in Somalia (failed state – almost no government power) compared to say Denmark or Norway (more power in hands of government than US and least corrupt)? 2008 Corruption Index. One also observes toletarian, military-ruled Myanmar (nee Burma) at the bottom of the corruption list (i.e, 2nd most corrupt nation-state), which suggests that there is not a direct correlation between corruption and amount of government control.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
Fuckin fuck a law. Just pack and be discreet.QuoteI was going to enjoy being a legal hiker this Summer because of this legislation. Looks like the whiny little gun haters are going into extra innings on this one. They sure must love criminals.
http://www.nraila.org/Legislation/Federal/Read.aspx?id=4634

I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.
TomAiello 26
QuoteMost corrupt US State (per capita corruption convictions):...
You've chosen an interesting measure that seems to support your contention.
Why didn't you choose something like "dollar value of corruption total" or even "dollar value of corruption per capita." I don't think that a $20 nod on a parking ticket is as "bad" (noting that it's all pretty bad) as a $20 million construction contract.
QuoteOf course, one might suggest those states are just better at detecting and prosecuting corruption.
In which case, you're actually seeing something approximating a list of the states with the least corruption. In other words, the statistics there might suggest exactly the opposite of your implied conclusion.
QuoteOr to support a negative correlation between corruption and power vested in transparent government?
Sure. The statistics you presented could be read that way. What was it Mark Twain said about statistics?
QuoteMoving from US States to nation-states, does anyone want to argue that there’s less corruption in Somalia...
Can you clarify your definition of corruption?
In my mind, if it's not government action, it's not corruption. It might be a lot of other things, but without the visible hand backing it up, it's not corruption.
QuoteI suspect they are largely independent variables. (And correlation does not necessarily mean causation.
If they are independent variables, then _still_ the best way to reduce the dollar value of corruption is to reduce the total dollar value of government action. In fact, you could argue that if you cannot locate a correlating cause, then the _only_ way to reduce corruption with certainty is to reduce the size of government. Without having a handle on causation, you can't really address the issue any other way.
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
nerdgirl 0
QuoteQuoteMost corrupt US State (per capita corruption convictions):...
You've chosen an interesting measure that seems to support your contention.
I chose data that I knew was available. You are free to put forward others.
Do you have any data to support yours? Otherwise you're speculating. Your speculation might be correct; so might [DanG] on nature of individuals in roles &/or robots. Less likely on the latter but at this point we have just as much evidence. So far no one's been able to put forth anything supporting either.
QuoteWhy didn't you choose something like "dollar value of corruption total" or even "dollar value of corruption per capita." I don't think that a $20 nod on a parking ticket is as "bad" (noting that it's all pretty bad) as a $20 million construction contract.
If you have that, please bring it forward. It's probably out there somewhere.
QuoteQuoteMoving from US States to nation-states, does anyone want to argue that there’s less corruption in Somalia...
Can you clarify your definition of corruption?
Implicitly used the one used by Corruption Index. See methods section there.
/Marg
Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying
TomAiello 26
QuoteCan you clarify your definition of corruption?
Implicitly used the one used by Corruption Index. See methods section there.
The definition they give is "misuse of entrusted power for private gain."
Do you happen to know how they measure that, specifically in Somalia? I fail to see how "entrusted power" can exist to be abused in a place with no real government. There's no "entrusting" going on there--just "seizing."
The implicit contention (from TI, not you) then appears to be "seized power is equivalent to entrusted power," and, further "privately held power is equivalent to entrusted government power." Once you make those leaps, it's easy to characterize any exercise of power (even disposal or use of private property) as "corruption"--you simply have to decide that this or that private actor is large or scary or bad enough to be called a government.
In societies lacking the public "entrusting" I think it's useless to discuss "corruption." The "government" there either isn't really a government (anarchy--perhaps Somalia, though I'm not familiar enough with conditions there to say for certain) in which case there is no real corruption, or it is a non "entrusted" entity (China, Singapore, Zimbabwe) in which case corruption could be viewed as absolute.
Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com
SnakeRiverBASE.com
JohnRich 4
QuoteQuoteYes, we know it is dangerous here, but you are not allowed to defend yourself
The only problem I have with it is the number of people who might decide they had to defend themselves because they had a gun.
Nerdgal has hijacked this thread... Trying to get back it back on track here.
Thinking like yours, Wendy, mystifies me. Those people are already carrying guns all over America, in 46 states that allow concealed carry, and they aren't causing any problems just "because they had a gun". They were law-abiding responsible people before gun-carry, and they remain law-abiding responsible people while carrying a gun. Just adding a gun to the equation doesn't magically turn them into criminal irresponsible trigger-happy zombies. The record of concealed carry across this country proves your fears to be unjustified.
And yet, you somehow think that a law-abiding responsible person with a gun will suddenly abandon that lifetime record of good behavior because he sees a moose, and be possessed by some kind of uncontrollable voodoo spirit, whip out his gun, and start shooting. That's simply amazing thinking...
And since concealed carry is working just fine everywhere it's implemented, that means that you believe there's something different about National Parks, compared to everywhere else. Guns in State Parks are okay. Guns in public are okay. But in National Parks - look out! Where does this idea come from? Is there some kind of voodoo force field blanketing National Parks that turns people into violent felons when they enter that zone?
You're theory is not supported by decades of real world experience. But it's one that the gun-o-phobes like the Brady bunch keep trotting out whenever they can. Apparently some people just never learn the truth.
Here is a great example of ironic BS along a road I travel on my bicycle.
Read the yellow sign, then note the sign directly below it.
http://www.dim.com/~ryoder/Flagstaff-Road/080611_083824-signs.jpg
"Yes, we know it is dangerous here, but you are not allowed to defend yourself."
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites