Guns in parks
Lead is the reason, they say, that guns shouldn’t be in parks. To which Les Jones says:
Park rangers carry guns, so what kind of bullets do they use and do they contain lead? I think I know the answer and I think you, do, too.
13 Responses to “Guns in parks”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 19th, 2009 at 10:36 am
I’d gladly switch completely to Barnes TSX’s or Nosler e-tip. How about a copper bullet subsidy, you know, for the environment?
February 19th, 2009 at 10:37 am
Well, at first copper bullets were a no-go since ATF wouldn’t approve them.
February 19th, 2009 at 11:52 am
I guess they won’t let cars in either if they follow that line of reasoning: wheel balance weights are made of lead — and much more likely to be left in the park than a bullet that is not supposed to be shot.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Not to mention fishing weights…
February 19th, 2009 at 12:07 pm
Electronics, especially the older ones, contain lead too.
February 19th, 2009 at 12:21 pm
The paint on a few of the buildings up at Grand Canyon NP has more lead in it then the ammo in my pistol.. Not to mention all the lead pipe used in some of those “historic” structures.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
How about places like Gettysburg battlefield? All the MILLIONS of rounds fired in the battle made the area into a lead mine. I hav’nt heard of any problems caused by lead in the last 140+ years in Gettysburg. My great, great, grandpa contributed his share of lead there. (He wore the grey)
If National Battlefields dont have any problems caused by lead then how could a FEW rounds possibly fired by people in those and other National Parks be a problem? The answer, they wont.
February 19th, 2009 at 2:28 pm
“Enviornmental muster” may mean you would, one in a million times, USE the gun, say in a bear/cougar attack. Glad the envornmentalist types have their priorities in order.
February 19th, 2009 at 3:12 pm
I wonder where lead comes from? Maybe the ground?
February 19th, 2009 at 4:12 pm
Let us carry in the parks but if we actually have to fire a round, I would not be opposed to a fine or charge of some reasonable amount. It would be almost like a littering fine. Well worth it if it came down to firing.
February 19th, 2009 at 4:42 pm
The lead ain’t gonna be an environmental problem since it would only be embedded in the body (bodies) of someone who got what they needed instead of what they wanted.
February 19th, 2009 at 7:50 pm
What lead? Don’t you carry depleted uranium loads?
Ryan; you’re saying we should be fined for protecting our lives? Please justify that. Do you think this should apply to law enforcement who fire guns in self-defense also? Should we charge soldiers for every round fired? What about hunters who fire their guns? What about using a gun in town to save your life? Wouldn’t that deposit as much lead in a town, where people, you know, live, as it would deposit in the woods?
What is a “reasonable amount” considering that there is absolutely no ill effect (except to your would-be attacker)? I could justify a reward more easily than justifying a fine. You have, after all, removed a deadly threat from the environment by stopping an attacker. People nearby should pay you.
In fact, why not impose a tax on people who refuse to own and carry guns, and use the money to build public shooting ranges? Aren’t the non owners benefiting from the crime reduction effects of an armed citizenry without contributing anything?
I mean, if we’re going to go all irrational, why not go in a direction that benefits gun owners and punishes anti gunners?
February 19th, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Lyle, I like the way you think.