[pct-l] Mtned's missive

[mark v]

The response below was addressed to me.  In my post, i made no mention of legal restrictions on carrying a gun in the wilderness, just like i have never made mention of thru-hiking the PCT with a 80-lb. pack needing to be made a felony.  Individuals surely have to make individual choices.  The one applicable difference though is that nobody ever accidentally killed someone else by carrying an 80-lb. pack.  People who do not carry guns however, do regularly get killed by people who do carry them.  I know there are many fine points to whether the quantity of accidental deaths merit illegalization, further restrictions, or no action whatsoever.  I'm not wanting to even begin discussing that, since legality of carrying a gun on the PCT is NOT the issue at hand (unless this came up in one of the many posts i didn't read).  I merely wanted to point out that the pros and cons, weighed by someone with actual facts instead of gut feelings and singular
 experiences, is going to stastically highlight that guns do not save people from attacks in the wilderness on any regular basis, while they do cause a multitude of accidental injuries (and worse), and they do weigh a lot (extra weight, in the end being proven to lead to injuries or worse).


--- On Thu, 5/21/09, Josh <559josh at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Josh <559josh at gmail.com>
> Subject: RE: [pct-l] Mtned's missive
> To: "'mark v'" <allemande6 at yahoo.com>
> Cc: "'PCT'" <pct-l at backcountry.net>
> Date: Thursday, May 21, 2009, 6:04 PM
> 
> The weighing pros & cons should be done by individuals
> on an individual
> basis as it applies to the specific situation, not by some
> beurocrat in
> Sacramento or DC who has never, and will never, set foot in
> the backcountry
> of ANY National Park.  That's the issue if there is to
> be any issue since
> the original question was answered rather eloquently.
> 
> I don't much appreciate having laws passed restricting my
> rights based on
> paranoia or political pandering by politicians or the media
> hype of the
> moment.  This is America and if a Non-Felon who can
> legally own a firearm
> chooses to bring it into the woods, whether out of
> necessity, paranoia, or
> just because he damn well pleases, he should be able to do
> so.
> 
> I've hiked solo for many thousands of miles in many states
> & several
> countries...there's no way I would plan a long distance,
> SOLO hike and not
> bring some form of protection.  Depending on where I
> was hiking, that may
> have been a machete, pepper spray, or a gun.  I've had
> close encounters
> (under 10') with bears on multiple occasions (in
> NON-Hunting
> situations)...and just because I had a gun on my hip, I
> didn't feel the need
> to shoot the bear.  But I'm a levelheaded &
> responsible adult as I feel that
> most people who venture into our National Parks are...but I
> have run across
> individuals and groups of men who were hunting in the
> National Forests who,
> in my opinion, should have had their guns confiscated and
> been thrown into
> jail based on their disrespectful belligerence and overall
> combative
> demeanor.  But I know that this is NOT how the
> majority of outdoorsman
> behave but I would associate that behavior with those who
> Ned was warned
> about back in '79 (or whenever).
> 
> Bottom line (IMO) legal gun possession in the wilderness
> should be an option
> left up to the individual.
> 
> Josh
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net
> [mailto:pct-l-bounces at backcountry.net]
> On Behalf Of mark v
> Sent: Thursday, May 21, 2009 2:27 PM
> To: pct-l at backcountry.net
> Subject: Re: [pct-l] Mtned's missive
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The issue isn't preparedness.  The issue is being able
> to weigh, as
> accurately as can be expected, the pros and cons.  In
> the case of your
> beloved gun, with any statistical knowledge at all, it's
> pretty easy to see
> that the chances of misuse or the extra weight affecting an
> injury in the
> long term outweigh the chances of useful protection by a
> zillion to one.
> It's really not a love/hate debate about guns or mountain
> lions or bears or
> anything.  And it's not limited to outdoor
> pursuits.  Incidents of guns used
> to actually stave off a bear or lion (or intruder) attacks
> are statistically
> few compared to negative consequences.   I
> say this with no passion or
> liberal fervor.   
> 
> Last time i provided stats to back a statement, i got
> chastised for it.  I
> think this time the burden is on someone else to prove me
> wrong.
> 
> 
>       
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Pct-l mailing list
> Pct-l at backcountry.net
> http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.36/2125 - Release
> Date: 05/21/09
> 06:22:00
> 
>