Decisions, Decisions (Updated)

Whether to totally destroy this crap, which I found via Unc, who found it via Dave, or to go to the referenced letter and address it.

Seeing as the former is an anti-gun blogger with a really bad perspective on life and the latter is from the You Nork Times, I'm opting for the latter.

Before I get started, though, I have to say; Aaron Wilson, you're a frickin' moron.

There, got that out of the way, now to this Times piece on concealed carry in our national parks.

Here are some comments from those opposing concealed carry in parks:

“A gun will give people a false sense of security that they can approach a bear or a bison,” said Doug Morris

You have got to be kidding me. Approach a bear? A bison? Just because I'm carrying a pistol? That's one of the most ridiculous statements I've ever heard. Ever. I can see it now: "Look, Marge, a bison! I've got my Kel-Tec on me, let's go pet it."

“A person with a gun will pull out that weapon and fire away if they feel threatened, even if that fear is illogical.”

I'm not sure what to make of this one. What standard do we use to determine what fear is logical or illogical? Who makes the call?

Seven former National Park Service directors have written a letter saying the new rule addresses a nonexistent problem. “There is no evidence,” the letter states, “that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”

Assuming that sentance means what I think it means ... what does it mean, anyway?

“There is no evidence that any potential problems that one can imagine arising from the existing regulations might overwhelm the good they are known to do.”

Do you mean to tell me that there is no evidence your present gun ban is harmful? While this might not qualify as "proof", stories like this, this, this, and this would indicate danger, Will Robinson. Danger from druggies, illegals, and various other two-legged critters.

Of course, why let silly things like facts enter in to a conversation about guns?

I especially like the way the last two commenters are treated:

Among fans of the proposed rule was Steve Klein of Fort Worth, Tex., who was camped near Yellowstone’s park headquarters near Mammoth. “I think it’s a good idea,” Mr. Klein said. “If everybody has it you don’t worry about protecting yourself. I’m not worried about the wildlife though, that’s not the reason.”

Good, sound thinking there.

Another visitor, Curtis Bergquist, a recent college graduate from Portland, Ore., was concerned about the rule’s potential effect on animals. “It’s a bad idea,” Mr. Bergquist said. “It’s more tempting to use it if you have it, on wildlife. They’ll think they’re far enough away no one will hear it and they can get away with it.”

Why are anti-gunners so violent?

Maybe I'm picking nits, but why do we need to know what Mr. Bergquist recently graduated from college? What has Mr. Klein done recently, besides live in Texas?

Thanks for my daily fix of media bias, Jim Robbins.

Update: Looks like I made the right decision. The blog I first linked to is no longer available. Thanks to Unc for the pointer.

.