Not so on the AT.Originally Posted by nsherry61
On the AT proper only two people have been wounded in by idiots with guns (hunting accidents).
How many have been wounded by bad guys?
Also, I'm not so sure that any of us have anything close a comprehensive knowledge of how many people have been injured by guns on the AT, although deaths, being more news worthy, we might have a handle on. How many morons that shoot themselves in the foot are really going to report it to a public news source?
And, for what it's worth, in the context of this discussion, I'm not so sure that only "the AT proper" is the center of the issue.
For what it's worth, statistically, I think suicides account for more than 1/2 of all gun deaths in the US at least in some years. And, nothing makes me more sick than reading about yet another kid getting ahold of a parent's gun and killing themselves, a sibling, or a friend!! Our nation contains far more irresponsible gun owners than it does bad guys with guns.
I'm not lost. I'm exploring.
You could be right.
Last edited by rickb; 04-22-2018 at 09:30.
People who use the term "gun violence" are quite naive. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Simple.
Singto, I wonder if you could parrot any more political cliches into your overly simplified claim of my naivety, and in doing so further exhibit your own lack of imagination and thoughtfulness?
I'm not lost. I'm exploring.
As is your right.
One could argue that trading zippy one liners or boiling things down to headlines is an issue for all of us and reducing our ability to discuss ideas.
Though I do believe that there are many truths can be distilled down to one line, even when the explanation of how to apply that truth could fill a book.
PS- In lakota my name is:
sunkmanitu wakinyan hotonpi hinhan
Quite a lengthy mess that translates roughly as; way too much to quote.
Bit ironic as Bill is an abbreviated form of William and folks going by Bill are saving many letters for any who read the name.
Last edited by Just Bill; 04-22-2018 at 12:56.
Support that in bold opinion. I was listening to you up to that pt.
One of the primary involvements of law enforcement, military, hunter education classes, the NRA, AND gun manufacturers is firearm responsibility and safety. And, for Just Bill's questions of what GREAT GOOD the NRA and gun manufacturers contribute to the community the NRA site was given. Seems no one read it though. There certainly are many knee jerk emotionally driven comments.
As opinion, the NRA does more to promote gun safety than any probably any other organization. The NRA's actions factored into three separate state Hunter Education classes, gaining Gun Ownership Cards/Purchase Permits, Concealed and Open Carry Permits, obtaining gun cabinets and gun trigger locks, and several gun safety classes.
As some are focusing on "assault" type firearms, "gun violence", and school shootings:
1) The vast majority of civilian deaths from firearms in the U.S. occurs from hand guns not "assault" type weapons by about a 20 to 1 margin.
Question: If one is truly concerned about "gun violence" the rational extends that hand guns need to be banned?
Question: In the recent Parkland School shooting, which was mentioned previously several times not by myself, why has not anyone mentioned the culpability of the Police Department's armed School Resource Officer's lack of response? These armed Officers are stationed at schools to intercede just for such situations protecting those who can't adequately protect themselves...children? Armed School Resource Officers were one of the highly touted answers to preventing these types of school shootings from happening...again. What policies and specific training should School Resources Officers adhere?
As another opinion, by my estimate most gun owners would agree to mental health and criminal background checks but details on how this would be exercised and who have access to the data would have to be laid out beforehand.
Singto is right! We're asking, we require, people to be personally responsible for their behavior. Are we going to cherry pick at what times that should apply? Firearms are a tool, that can be used as a peacekeeper or weapon...just as an infinite number of other tools and behaviors to maintain peace or commit violence. Firearms aren't just tools of violence!
Surprised the number is not common knowledge— at least with respect to the AT among those who frequent this forum.
Not going down that rabbit hole however.
The larger question is whether or not one should patronize a retailer that refuses to offer such products to as Camel Backs, because their parent organization did not see fit to follow their directive regarding product that is not even sold in their stores.
As supplier to the US armed forces and countless police, forest fighting and similar organizations, that slap in the face to Camel Back is simply unacceptable, IMHO.
Happily, as it is just my opinion based on my own experience.
Before I answer further, let me clarify one thing: I know a number of gun enthusiasts that are also NRA members that take their guns and their shooting seriously. I have no problems with that . . . other than I think the NRA's politics are poison even as their educational efforts are laudable. I respect pretty much all the gun enthusiast/NRA members I know. They shoot regularly. They know their weapons. They use, carry, and store their weapons responsibly.
The bigger issue I have is all the people I know (more than the NRA gun enthusiasts that I know) that carry a handgun for person protection or keep guns in their house for whatever reason they choose to keep them, BUT, they don't have adequate training to use their gun responsibly in a critical situation and/or they don't shoot regularly, know their weapons, or use, carry and store their weapons in a safe manner. Thus, I call these people irresponsible gun owners.
I don't personally know anyone I would consider a bad guy with a gun.
Thus, my previously stated opinion.
P.S. For what it's worth, I have a locked closet full of guns, most of which I don't shoot and I know little about. They are mostly family heirlooms. I took an NRA safety class to be able to maintain possession of them in Massachusetts. There are no young children living in my house. The guns (other than the nerf guns) are stored in a locked closet separate from their ammo and are not loaded. I have no beef with guns or responsible gun owners. I have a big beef with irresponsible gun owners and the NRA's extreme views on any attempts to responsibly address gun violence in our country.
I'm not lost. I'm exploring.
In our state, simple failure to store their guns safely would also make the criminals:
https://malegislature.gov/Laws/Gener...40/Section131L
We clearly travel in different circles.
I still stand by what I said earlier, but would like to clarify that I do feel sorrow for the victims and their familys of these senseless school shootings. Some schools are hiring armed security and or arming their teachers, which in my opinion is a smart move on their part, while very sad they have to resort to such actions. There are situations that arise where the schools and individuals can't wait for law enforcement to arrive to take action. Throwing out hunting accidents and other "accidents", the rest of the people were wounded or killed by bad guys.
I am fortunate to live in a state that has passed a stand your ground law, which states I don't have to retreat from someone trying to do me or my family harm. What Singto said is correct if you break down the wording to common sense. Lay a gun on a table and there is absolutely no way that gun will harm or kill anyone, until it's pick up by a human being and then they have to conscientiously manipulate that gun so it will fire. They can do the same thing with a knife, machete, axe, chain saw...... You see where I am going with this. They are all tools until touch by a human being. Are the anti-gun people going to have a large protest asking congress to banned anything that can be used to kill someone? I don't think so and if they did we would be back in the stone age, without clubs because they can kill as well. One thing about it though, we would all be healthy vegetarians, until a wild animal ate us because we can't defend ourselves. They also need to ask themselves that given a choice of shooting someone who is causing harm to them or their family members what would they choose? I'll give you three guesses and the first two don't count.
To Rickb, I am in total agreement with you about REI's stance on this topic. As a business owner myself, no one or other business is going to tell me how to conduct my business. It's called free enterprise.
Blackheart
No doubt. If you run in NRA circles, you probably know a lot more people that are responsible gun owners than you know that are irresponsible gun owners. . . even if they are political leadites. ;-)
I only interact with a few gun enthusiasts on a regular basis and I have a fair number of stupid paranoid relatives. That being said, I would suggest that you probably still know more irresponsible gun owners than bad guys with guns, unless you hang out in some really questionable crowds.
Yes. And I strongly disagree. We don't allow people to carry swords in public in post places. We don't allow bombs or seriously dangerous drugs to be available to people even though they aren't doing any harm until someone picks them up. Your argument is as hollow as, well, the extremists on either side of the gun debate.
I am not making and never intend on making a case for taking away your guns or mine. I would like to make a case to reduce the availability of guns (and other dangerous weapons) to people that are not likely to use them in a responsible manner. As a personal safety advocate (which I am assuming you are from your writing) I would assume you want the same thing.
I'm not lost. I'm exploring.
You say you strongly disagree, but you you said exactly what I said: Yes. And I strongly disagree. We don't allow people to carry swords in public in post places. We don't allow bombs or seriously dangerous drugs to be available to people even though they aren't doing any harm until someone picks them up. Sounds like your argument is hollow to me. What's it going to be? I never mentioned bombs or drugs, but again they are safe until some one picks it up.
[COLOR=inherit !important]
[/COLOR]
Blackheart
Someone wrote this recently on WB, "People who use the term "gun violence" are quite naive. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. Simple."
Correct and that's why countries that have very strong gun laws don't have their citizens kill each other the way Americans do. Simple. And yes, I'm a firearm owner and I have a conceal carry permit in my state as well. The data trumps anyone's opinion.
REI has every right to impose whatever policy and opinion they like (within the limits of the law of course), and if you personally don't like it, shop elsewhere. Simple. REI has been IMO a great company to a member of. They give back to numerous environmental causes, which benefit all of us. With the current anti-National Park, Conservation and EPA Administration in power now, REI is a much needed company.
Last edited by double d; 04-23-2018 at 06:58.
"I told my Ma's and Pa's I was coming to them mountains and they acted as if they was gutshot. Ma, I sez's, them mountains is the marrow of the world and by God, I was right". Del Gue
I looked at yer link. But didn't change the point I was making any.
I agree that many organizations teach owner responsibility and safety. This includes the NRA. Fer me, it was boy scouts and shooting with my father and his friends. For some it's 4H.
When I sold firearms I had little or no interaction with the NRA beyond a little stack of pamphlets mailed to be placed on the gun counter, basically encouraging folks to join up.
Nothing was required of me when I got my Illinois FOID card. In Indiana I don't have to do a thing, it's harder to get my drivers license, vehicle plate, or emissions test.
The NRA doesn't run the concealed carry courses in either state. One blue, one red... neither with much NRA involvement.
Hunter safety courses are primarily local- with three of fifty states shown covered here; https://nra.yourlearningportal.com/c...nter-education
It's debatable if the work the NRA does is constructive, but there is no doubt it is the primary group working to protect the second amendment. As your link pointed out, this was not the founding function of the NRA but a reasonable direction for them to have moved into. NRA tv is much more volatile than any action REI has taken in my opinion, but that's not that important.
REI offers responsibility and safety courses as well. Teaching LNT, ten essentials, map and compass and dozens of other classes for free or a deep discount. That has expanded over the years to everything from talks in store to classes and trips. Really nothing different than what the NRA does.
We both strongly agree in what Patagonia has done and don't need to rehash that.
Selling a product and offering some product education is something.The point was not that the gun industry didn't do anything, but that they could do more.
The question I was asking is where is the Patagonia of the gun industry?
REI is following in Patagonia's footsteps. Not perfectly, but they are making the choice to go above and beyond.
The NRA is not a retailer or manufacturer. So let's just drop them from the conversation for a second.
Smith and Wesson is not S&W any longer: http://www.aob.com/ Though that appears to be a branding/PR move to avoid stock swings more than anything.
Colt is constantly bankrupt and Savage is Vista. Many companies get murky fast or are owned by questionable folks. Many companies are European or international.
It's not super clear who owns who any more but after a century or more now there are not many USA gun companies that don't fall into the corporation/conglomerate bucket.
As I said earlier...
I think we all agree that the term 'gun violence' is misleading with little or no basis in reality.
The CDC has been granted permission to study gun violence in the recent omnibus budget (the aforementioned Dickey Ammendment.)
Rather than going above and beyond to promote and perhaps prove the various 'tool' arguments, the NRA has blocked any and all study that might prove such things.
If gang activity, suicide, police shootings, and other 'bad guy' deaths are real contributes to bad science, why not perform the research independently rather than invest in lobbying to prevent or suppress it?
Why not do what Patagonia did with dams and fund your own studies to shine light on the problem in society, then lobby for your cause once you have firm footing to stand on.
If mental health is the issue, where is the fund established?
Patagonia created in house child care, flex schedules, and other programs to ensure the happiness of it's workers and has been consulted by many companies.
Is there a firearms company hosting a suicide prevention hotline, donating to one, or attempting to reduce gun suicide?
Is there a reason not to focus on pharmaceuticals? It's brought up often by gun rights advocates, why not invest in that research?
Or is it too problematic to deal with as there are multiple levels of political and membership conflicts... from the senator paid by a drug company to the NRA member who also takes that drug?
How do you deal with a hard problem like cotton making your employees sick and destroying the land when you sell cotton t-shirts for a living?
That's almost as suicidal as telling people not to use piton's anymore ever when the only product you sell is Pitons.
Are many of these issues societal and beyond the reach of any individual company? Absolutely.
Did that stop Patagonia? Absolutely not.
Have hundreds of companies followed Patagonia's example, initiatives, and work? Yes.
So again, who is the gun industry equivalent, or even pale comparison?
For the most part (I'm sure there is other charitable giving) it appears that the primary 'greater good' performed is to write checks to the NRA.
Much like 'project RED' is used in other industries there are often specific guns manufactured with the express purpose of raising money for the NRA.
Since you mentioned trigger locks... I believe you are old enough to remember when the NRA nearly put Smith and Wesson out of business for working with the Clinton administration on some simple and practical gun policy reform and safety measures?
That was the closest you ever saw to a gun manufacturer attempting to police themselves, make things safer, and take greater responsibility.
And the closest our country came to meaningful discussion.
Speaking of triggered snowflakes and emotional kneejerks... the NRA boycotted S&W and nearly crushed them.
So it's not hard for me to answer my own question... Where is the Patagonia of the gun industry?
The NRA won't allow anyone to go rogue.
So no... some gun safety classes and '1/10th of 1% of sales' going to a few basic services leftover from a bygone era don't really impress me.
I'm open to hearing of the 'good guy with a gun' in the corporate world.
I KNOW that there are millions of good and responsible gun owners. I also accept the idiots bound to arrive in any free society and have no issue with them either.
I am still pointing out that I support gun ownership and gun owner's rights. I fully agree with the tool argument.
I am not anti-gun, though I understand why some gun reform is needed, especially if the topic of conversation that must take place before we can move on to actual issues relevant to mass shootings.
I'd prefer nobody had to discuss this issue at all. Unfortunately, like all rights... you have the right to do nearly anything you want as long as it does not impact another's rights.
The right to defend yourself with a gun is just as valid as the right to defend yourself from a gun. Like it or not, some folks are not moving past that.
We are all citizens of the USA, we all work within that group identity to fix the greater society we belong to.
I think a large issue is that we conflate our support of a group with our personal identity, and take personal offense when discussing ideas that pertain to that group.
We can criticize a group AND still be a member of it.
Some of us just live here, some of us participate.
I do not see any good corporate citizens in our society from this group, no greater good being done.
It is their right to simply produce a product and sell it on the open market. To simply exchange funds for goods...
Do they have a responsibility to prevent misuse of their product or owe society anything at all? Absolutely not.
Would the world be a better place if more corporations behaved like Patagonia?
Absolutely.
A good many posters here who are aware of site rules yet have been breaking them anyway. No politics, no arguing gun control. But when given the opening, people keep taking it. How is that responsible?
We do not allow gun control threads. If REI wants to have that discussion, contact REI.
Thread closed.
"Sleepy alligator in the noonday sun
Sleepin by the river just like he usually done
Call for his whisky
He can call for his tea
Call all he wanta but he can't call me..."
Robert Hunter & Ron McKernan
Whiteblaze.net User Agreement.
Posting Permissions
