UL with a gun?

"1. fire-arms are illegal in most national parks around the world. For example, you cannot take them into Australia's national parks and I understand that is also the situation in the US."

New rules in US national parks–

http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/weapons.htm

going into effect in February. It was part of the CARD Act of 2009 signed into law by President Obama.

The new law states:

(b) Protecting the Right of Individuals To Bear arms in Units of the National Park System and the National Wildlife Refuge System- The Secretary of the Interior shall not promulgate or enforce any regulation that prohibits an individual from possessing a firearm including an assembled or functional firearm in any unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System if–

(1) the individual is not otherwise prohibited by law from possessing the firearm; and

(2) the possession of the firearm is in compliance with the law of the State in which the unit of the National Park System or the National Wildlife Refuge System is located.

Designing content to increase pageloads?

>>>Designing content to increase pageloads?<<<

Ya, because that increases the value of all that advertising BPL sells…

It seems inevitable that the tacit promotion of hunting as a means of reducing packweight on backpacking trips will be seen by some as a weak premise for the taking of life. I'm reminded of the distinctions that Ed Abbey would make between the hunter and the sportsman. In the case of the former, the act is born of need, the latter of want. Now we live in an age where the line between need and want is entirely unclear, where "need" may in fact cover for "want" and where want may really be an exercise in anticipating some future need, should the world turn that way again. But our modern world is not there, now, and nor can the natural world support it given our human numbers. These moral dilemmas dog the discussion, and the lack of biological imperatives for the hunt sometimes reduce the act to the level of theater. It need not be that, and in many a high minded hunter's heart it remains a pure expression of our very humanness. But the hunter's passion is innate and does not originate with the process, nor with the equipment, and certainly not from a desire to reduce packweight on backpacking trips. To the uninitiated, the tail may seem to wag the dog here, and that dog may not hunt.

I started learning to shoot at 8 years old; first with bb guns, then .22s. I continued to shoot into adolescence as well as 4 years in the US Navy. I am 47 years old and I haven't fired a gun since I was 27 years old; not because I'm against firearms, but because my life-style changed.

I too am proud to live in a country where we have the "right to keep and bear(spelling) arms. I agree that it's more of a privelage than a right. People who abuse that "right" should not be allowed to own firearms. Case in point: the brutal slaying of 4 police officers in a Seattle diner last week.

I also sometimes ride my bike to work or take LA public transportation, but I just can't take NPR, even in small doses. LOL But, I digress.

Although I have killed animals in the past, I am NOT a hunter. However, I can appreciate Ryan's perspective.

"I reviewed the Pak-Rifle in one context: it's use
as an ultralight backpacking tool."

This web site is about lightening your load, right? With that in mind IMHO the Pak-Rifle review is absolutely as appropriate as the Tenkara fly rod. As for hunting, if one consumes what they kill, then it's alright in my book.

Just my 2 cents.

How much does Prozac weigh cause I'm think that there's a whole bunch of people out there stressing instead of hiking.

Not to get anyone mad at me but we do have sharp teeth and most of us kinda like protein and its gotta come from somewhere. If your a vegetarian and have a problem with hunting at least there is some consistency in your argument. But for all you fish, chicken and meat eaters out there getting a little blood on your hands wouldn't be the worst thing that ever happened. For meat eaters hunting at least once in your life connects you with nature and the value of life in a profound way.

Have a nice day BPL people ;0)

Bill

No matter if you are for guns, or against them, they do exist. I would rather have my children be educated, as opposed to ignorant… or worse, falsely educated by poor sources.

Children are curious creatures. They love learning new things, and gun safety is not something a child should teach itself… which would be the case, if they were never exposed to a firearm before stumbling across one on their own.

Surely, my family did not own any grizzly bears while I was growing up, but I was still purposely educated so as to respect them as potentially dangerous beings. I too, will teach my children about them, how to behave in their unexpected presence and how to minimize the risk of dangerous encounters.

For my family, I find this a better policy than simply stating, “bears are dangerous, stay away”, because this doesn’t prepare them for the unexpected bruin they may come across on the trail.

And yes, my whole family could still be eaten, because after all, bears are dangerous… but I’ll have done what I could do to lessen the chances.

David-

You are sriously misguided if you propose that teaching kids gun safety doesn't make them respect guns more. Almost any of us who grew up around guns and were taught about them will tell you that. A few demonstations with watermellons might provoke a desire to shoot watermellons in a youngster, but they are generally bright enough to get the message that the gun is a dangerous thing, too.

But to back Sarah up, I'm also tired enough of this debate- and recognize the futility of trying to change your mind- to look up studies for you. Don't be lazy. Read some research from the other side. I try to. Buth sides manipulate data in VERY underhanded ways. (But I'll admit that the left is probably more notorious for it.)

I don't want to be inflammatory, but the gun thing seems like an almost theological issue for you. You're not even willing to HEAR the other guy and acknowledge that intelligent people can differ in opinion. That comes across as rather arrogant.

The big problem is moronic gun owners (and there are a lot of them).

So…

I've stated elsewhere that I'm middle-of-the-road on guns. I did grow up around them, and own a few (I have an interest in history, and own some WWII-era rifles). I have always respected them, and knew from a VERY young age not to play with them if I ever found one.

That said, anyone who leaves a loaded weapon where a 2-year-old can find it needs to be jailed. I would intensely support better enforement of the gun laws that we already have, and ruthless prosecution of gun dealers who condone straw-purchases. I would tolerate legislationon the federal level to that effect. I have no problem with limiting the number of guns one can buy at once or in a month or whatever- though with an exception for collectors who have a C&R permit since they could reasonably go to a show or conference and want to purchase several intersting pieces at once.

I'm still internally debating gun registration. I'm a big bill of rights guy, and I find it emotionally difficult to condone such an imposition, but there are limits to EVERTHING in the bill of right, aren't there? Still thinking…

If one is not a vegetarian, I consider it high farce to oppose hunting. I DO oppose trophy-only hunting. If you (or someone else) don't eat what you kill you're a butcher, not a "sportsman." Probable exception for pest critters- if we knock their ecosystem so out of whack that a species overpopulates then we have a duty to correct it as best we can.

Crap. I just got rolling and I have to start my next case.

I'll try to convince you that I'm moderate later…

Pardon me, but I will probably do so by editing this post, to keep my thought coherent.

I like your post Kendall, you reasoned through a lot of stuff in a way that adds to the debate.
From a moral point of view if you don't like killing to eat you won't like hunting or fishing and probably won't care for guns. I respect your values if thats what you believe not everyone agrees but thats a HYOH thing.
On the other hand for the majority of people here who don't seem to be vegitarians I don't see how potting a grouse is morally different than grabbing a burger on the way home. Something died either way its more of a personal preferance whether you can stomach doing the dirty work yourself.

Oh no… not again.

I think the mere sight of this thread just triggered H1N1 in my body. I am not feeling well now. :)

There is no resolution to the debate, so why would we undertake a task that we know we cannot resolve or win?

I think you're right Nick I've said my peice and I'll probably leave this particular D.B. although last time I did learn some new stuff, we'll see how it plays out.

Ryan and the BPL team –

Just wanted to say thank you for all your good work and for continually introducing such a wide range of backpacking related topics. As this one has proven, some topics are sure to get members fired up, but that's just life.

Unfortunately some people do not have it in them to "agree to disagree" in a polite manner. For those members who are so upset with this topic…LEAVE. If you are so upset with BPL for one review, then go start your own website and write about exactly what you want.

As far as I'm concerned, BPL does a great job of bringing us interesting and helpful topics and positively connecting with the vast majority of it's members.

Keep it up BPL.

Josh

"You are sriously misguided if you propose that teaching kids gun safety doesn't make them respect guns more. Almost any of us who grew up around guns and were taught about them will tell you that. A few demonstations with watermellons might provoke a desire to shoot watermellons in a youngster, but they are generally bright enough to get the message that the gun is a dangerous thing, too."

Here is a revelation Dean. I never grew up around guns. Perhaps most Americans did but the rest of the Western Democratic nations didn't. So no, I am not misguided. I don't like guns. Period.

"But to back Sarah up, I'm also tired enough of this debate- and recognize the futility of trying to change your mind- to look up studies for you. Don't be lazy. Read some research from the other side. I try to. Buth sides manipulate data in VERY underhanded ways. (But I'll admit that the left is probably more notorious for it.)"

Not lazy – I have done research on the 'other side.' Now that US state parks permit guns I will have to make a mental note to pack some heat on my next visit. Left, Right, really makes no difference to me but as a normal course of discussion this gradually leaks into a political discussion.

And on that note – I am outta here.

All right, all this posts needs now to be complete is Dave T to swing by and complain about how off track it is while simultaneously tossing several Molotov cocktails into the works…! :-)

Okay, sorry, but I couldn't keep this entirely focused on the gun given some of the comments that have been made.

If you eat meat and oppose hunting, then I think your stance is quite hypocritical. If you eat meat, someone had to slaughter and butcher an animal. They cut up the parcels of flesh into tidy bundles so that you don’t experience much discomfort in associating the meat with a living creature. How easy is it for people to buy a foam platter of 20 chicken wings? How many of you think about the fact that your 20 wings required the death and butchery of 10 chickens? Furthermore, if you’re buying meat from the local market it was most likely factory farmed, in what many would argue are less than humane conditions. Crammed in cages, surrounded by fecal matter and noise, unable to move, pumped full of food and drugs. Eating this meat is good, but hunting is bad?!

I was a vegetarian for many years because of the huge disconnect between meat products and consumer. Then I discovered the joy and, yes, the more spiritual connection with food as a hunter. There was no more disconnect with the food. I became much more conscious about my consumption of meat, and what that food consumption meant. When I take the life of an animal, I feel it. I thank it for its life in what I guess you could call a mini-prayer. (Yes, really, and sincerely.) I am intimately connected to the taking of life and the process of procuring the meat of the animal. Personally, it makes me think much more seriously about my consumption of meat, what it means. Other benefits? Wild game is as free-range as you can get. It’s also as organic as you’ll find. It doesn’t require nation-side shipping. I don’t use trays or plastics of any kind. So let’s see, sustainably harvested, free-range, organic, local meat with minimal to no packaging. Sounds like a very expensive cut of meat from Whole Foods or your local co-op. And yup, it sounds like a “liberal” thing. Don’t think you could possibly eat meat and find a more “liberal” way to approach it.

If you're not comfortable with the thought of someone killing and butchering an animal, perhaps you should be a vegetarian. Personally, I welcome this little .22 into the world and applaud its creation.

Talking about guns on forums is madness.

Madness:

Doing the same thing over and over again,
Expecting a different result

I'll kill to eat if I have to (and have done), love trout fishing, but don't need to bring a gun into the backcountry when I can just as well hike in food and let the critters that are trying to survive in our diminishing wilderness live in peace. As humans, we've done enough to them already.

Shoot away if you want, I'm the one in the RED shirt.

cheers,
fred

Wow, this is such a fascinating debate for me…

I'm a Brit living in the US, and unlike most Brits, I was brought up with firearms from an early age. I got my first 410 when I was 9, graduated in high school to target shooting with .22 target rifles, owned a beautiful side-by-side 12-bore by the time I was 15, and ultimately became a competitive target shooter in the Army Cadets and Officer Training Corps using .303 and 7.62mm snipers' rifles. I've fired everything from handguns, assault rifles, sub-, general purpose and heavy machine guns, rocket launchers, … I even got to shoot the main gun on Chieftain tank once. ;-)

Despite all of my hands on experience, I've come to believe that the *right* to bear arms in the US makes my adopted country a much more dangerous place than my nation of birth.

Until you've had a teenager pull a handgun on you in your own back yard, you just don't know what you're dealing with here… all I did was ask him to turn his music down a bit so I could hear my TV. Of course, I backed down right away, didn't make any sudden movements, diffused the situation etc – let me tell you, I've never been so terrified for my life and my family's life OR thankful for the local cops than that afternoon.

So… it really isn't the use of guns by trained responsible people who have a purpose for using their weapons (farming, hunting, law enforcement, military etc) that is the issue. It is the fact that ANYONE can own a gun and everyone is supposed to think that gun ownership is just a NORMAL part of life. I suspect that most of the folks posting here fall into my "trained responsible" category, and *should* consider themselves unusual and privaleged to own guns…

Just my $0.02. +1 on gun owning being a privalege that you get to EARN as an individual.

Very intersting perspective James. Glad you made it out of that situation okay. I would hope that young man who pulled a gun on you went to jail.
Your military story brings up an interesting point. In America and Europe we have tens of millions of military personal and military veterans, all of whom have been trained to kill. But these guys don't all become nutjobs, most of them are perfectly normal people. Whatever a persons views on gun laws the fact is exposure to guns won't necessarily make you violent.

"tens of millions of military personal and military veterans, all of whom have been trained to kill."

This is a bit of an overstatement. Perhaps more than a bit. Nowhere near tens of millions. And while combat arms troops are perhaps 'trained to kill' the vast majority of military personnel are in a support role. They are trained to shoot. They are given basic combat skills training. But I don't know that I'd say they're 'trained to kill.' Depends, I guess, on your interpretation of that phrase.

"Until you've had a teenager pull a handgun on you in your own back yard, you just don't know what you're dealing with here…"

Do you suppose his Dad took him to the range when he was younger?

"Do you suppose his Dad took him to the range when he was younger?"

:-)

Trained to kill refered to using guns as weapons not target shooting, I know only a few soldiers really focus on true combat shooting. The main point was if you include all the people who are alive and have served in the military in the US/Europe thats a lot of guys getting very familiar with guns as weapons(I was guessing millions because we have plenty of guys who served 40 ago still with us). The point was they didn't all go nuts after that.

"There is no resolution to the debate, so why would we undertake a task that we know we cannot resolve or win?"

A toxic brew of sheer human orneriness and religious fervor.

"If you (or someone else) don't eat what you kill you're a butcher, not a "sportsman." Probable exception for pest critters- if we knock their ecosystem so out of whack that a species overpopulates then we have a duty to correct it as best we can."

Amen, but as far as I can tell ALL of the hunting that goes on in NZ just happens to kill pest critters. So what does that make hunters/rifle ownership here?

"If you eat meat and oppose hunting, then I think your stance is quite hypocritical. If you eat meat, someone had to slaughter and butcher an animal."

Also agree with this. I was a vegan for over 20 years due to many factors, including my disgust at 'modern' farming and slaughtering methods. I would much sooner eat something wild I had killed myself than most of the stuff that ends up at the grocery store.

The gun debate, well it is obviously futile to debate the topic. I grew up with guns…used to get paid $1 for every bird I killed in my grandfather's orchard, using a BB gun. My parents had a handgun in the house. That was in the USA. I am soooo relieved now to live in a country where handguns are legally restricted to military/police, and rifles must be locked up at all times, with ammo separate, except when hunting or range shooting. Like Dean said, leaving a gun lying around loaded for a child to stumble across should be a very serious crime IMHO. Of course, that doesn't stop someone from stabbing me with a knife, of using their rifle illegally to shoot at me, or using a bow + arrow, etc…But the death-by-shooting stats in the US clearly show that letting anyone own and carry a loaded gun leads to significantly more deaths by gunshot. That is the trade of allowing the "right" to bear arms (which is clearly a privilege as it can be revoked for many reasons).

What does this have to do with the Pak-Rifle? Well I think it would be a great tool for pest control of small game in this country (possum down anyone??). I think the review was clear that it was in no way a political statement, merely a review of a UL piece of hunting gear, which to me is entirely fitting with this site's mission. To come down hard on the review while letting the Tenkara review go without controversy seems hypocrisy to me. We also talk all the time about UL knives and other potentially deadly tools. Personally I would like to know how light is the lightest Taser if I were in bear country…!

For those of you with redneck roots and a liberal adulthood,
who don't mind reading works written in a ranting blogger
style, you might enjoy 'Deer Hunting with Jesus'.

http://www.amazon.com/Deer-Hunting-Jesus-Dispatches-Americas/dp/0307339378/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1259886448&sr=8-1

It has an excellent chapter on Guns and why people value
them so much in parts of US society.