From: eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: [l/m 4/15/92] summary of one past topic Not Distilled wisdom (6/28) XYZ
Followup-To: poster
Organization: NAS Program, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 93 12:20:19 GMT
Reply-To: eugene@amelia.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)

Panel 6

THIS IS NOT A DISTILLED WISDOM FILE.  It is a running summary
of one topic discussed in this news group since inception.
Most readers have opinions pro and con, we do not attempt to summarize
all these here.

<OUTLINE TO GO HERE>

The following is a summary of points made in five separate rounds of
discussion: points and counter-points.  Additions, corrections, etc.
are welcome and encouraged so long as they add to the main points of
discussion.  First person accounts are not added to simply get the facts
(points).  Material which can be simply inserted is preferred.

This file was created to summarize an issue which frequently muscles
its way into discussion in MANY newsgroups including sci.environment,
(as well as talk.environment and ca.environment), rec.misc,
ba.general, ca.general, ba.transportation, ca.driving, *.politics.*,
ca.earthquakes, ba.mountain-folk, rec.skiing, etc.
[if you have a specific group at add, send it.]

Topic: Backcountry Fire-arms

The discussion seems to always start with the perceived need for self-defense
from animal threats.

In all cases, it is assumed that a gun user is knowledgeable about the use
and maintenance of fire-arms and "deadly force."  It is noted that a
"small-minority" of indeterminant size is responsible for trouble.
Obviously the reader is not in this minority (1/2 8^).  The NRA and
other organizations teach fire-arms safety classes.

Responsible use of fire-arms is occasionally touched.
This issue is acknowledged by all.  This part of the issue ends.
The specific thread continues on the issue of potential human threats
(irresponsible use).  It is noted that existing law-enforcement personnel
are either come under this threat or are not around (absent,
the "Where is a cop when you need him?" argument).

Inevitably, the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights to the Constitution
is invoked.  In keeping with the spirit of this discussion the text is offered
herein:
  "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
  State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
  infringed."
There, that's out of the way 8^).

Interest in militia is noted to sci.military, soc.history,
soc.culture.arms-d and similar groups.  Recreation discussion of fire-arms
is notes to rec.guns (including ranges and targets), political argument
(civil liberties) to talk.politics.guns (although argument here seems
to be one sided [preaching to the chorus]).  A new moderated rec.hunting
(to include archery or bow hunting, not just fire-arms).
You can walk into an argument on guns and control in practially any
unmoderated newsgroup. [Reminds me of punji traps.]

Hunting and Stalking (Pursuit)
On occasion, posters have mentioned the "thrill of the hunt."
These threads have not take off.  Those clearly against hunting
have tended to jump on those comments rather quickly.  Non-hunt stalking
has occured.  An issue of the wastefulness of certain types of hunts
notes that more primitive people make full utilization of the prey:
foods, skins, bones, etc.  Limited small bore (pistol) hunting was also
covered (not much depth).

It is generally acknowledged that hunting with a bow and arrow (modern
compound bows, not TV-Indian, etc.) requires more skill than just
fire-arms.  The hunting season in CA is extended for these skilled
people (without attracting a lot of new interest).

Also separate from the issue is the use of historic, ball and musket
methods of shooting.  No one debates that.

Pistols Rifles
The discussion forks at this point between rifles and high powered pistols:
(e.g., .357 and .44 magmum).  Clearly, pistols are a questionable
defense against large charging animals, and as noted, a wounded animal
is frequently more dangerous.

The discussion on the use of hand-guns is therefore clearly one of personal
safety against two-legged threats (or sport, but this issue is rarely
discussed in r.b.; more appearing in rec.guns).

Also not discussed are such topics as loading of ammunition, static targets
(remember to check your backstop, and the possibility of unseen innocents,
etc.).  I shot a bullet in the air, where it fell I didn't care....

Bears Black Grizzlies Polar Bears.
Alaska
Lions
Africa
When the discussion on self-defense toward the beginning of r.b.,
an interesting transition tooks place.  The first discussion resolved
that prevention and avoidance were key, even in places with grizzly bears
like Alaska.  The second discussion tended to technological defense.
It is admitted that grizzly and polar bears are real threats, but in a
short span of a year net opinion changed.
Not that this was a enlighened opinion, but more because of the unknown.
A test question was asked about the need to carry firearms for self
defense in Africa against lions.  All respondents admitted they were
not familiar with the hazards of Africa.  It is the unknown which both
draws and carries hazards in this terrain.  Despite the popularity
of books and films by the work of the Adamsons, real knowledge of the
area remains steeped in popular accounts of "Deepest, Darkest Africa."

Many accounts of animal attacks by grizzly bears have proven to be hearsay
and are largely unsubstantiated.  Actual accounts of attacks are documented
by such authors as Aliston Chase in Playing God in Yellowstone (1989?).
Checking Chase's references, or finding the literature by the Craigheads,
Peacock, and other authors.

Specific laws governing the use of fire-arms vary according to land-use area.
Fire-arms of any type are forbidden in National Parks (US Department of the
Interior), EVEN in event of "self-defense."  Transport varies from
absolutely forbidden to acceptable if the arms are "broken down."
National Forests and USFS Wilderness Areas (Dept. of Agriculture) vary
depending on the specific area.  Areas closer to high density population
areas will tend to prohibit fire-arms.  "Wilderness" is used in the
legal sense of a roadless areas greater than 5,000 acres.  Some areas
have specific hunting seasons, and some of these areas allow greater time
for bow hunting.  But the discussion of bow hunting has never taken off
(perhaps in rec.hunting).  Bottom-line: check BEFORE entry.  The same goes
for BLM and Primitive Areas.

Note the Parks, Wilderness areas, and Forests are set aside specifically
for the long-term presevation and use.  The Parks are FOR the animal and plant
inhabitants.  It is Government intent that the existing
generation of users do not have rights above and beyond future users.
This places the USNPS, USFS, Environment Canada, and other Agencies
in a position balancing preservation and use.

Anti-hunting
It is the position of some people that hunting (not just fire-arms),
trapping, and even fishing constitute "cruel punishment."  Such people
are frequently attacked as "tree-huggers," "Bambi-lovers," etc.
Similar retorts are 'fired back' and forth further escalating
the emotional content of the issue.  Both sides have differing sets of
values.

Non-fire-arm defense -- Another slight diversion from fire-arms
First: it is important to understand what threats exist.  Tigers
don't live in the Americas or Africa.  Being aware
at all times of the threat is important.  Never cut off a mother from its
cubs.  Never corner animals, even small animals can put up a fight.
Never wound: do not throw rocks, use pointed sticks only as a last resort,
use Mace or similar chemical agent (incapacitant: CN|CS).

The Joke goes:
	Two hikers come upon a grizzly bear.  One stops to put on running
	shoes.  The other says, "What are you doing? You can't out run
	a bear!"
	The other replies: "I don't have to out the bear  I only
	have to out run you."
Morbid hiker humor but a grain of truth to it.
Another joke is how to do you tell the difference between a black bear
and a grizzly?  The black (brown) bear will follow you up the tree,
the grizzly will just knock it over.  It doesn't have to be a grizzly;
readers go to Africa and the threats are different.  Remember
that wild-er-ness is a place where the animals can eat you.  Think about that
for a moment.

Avoidance and prevention
The "anti-gun" position is one of avoidance and prevention.
Noises from things such as pots, bear-proof containers (ABS, Kevlar, etc.
in Alaska).

During the tenure of the fire-arms discussion the current tenor of
defense measures has changed from -- keeping on the thread of bears,
the curent National Park Service recommendations FOR BROWN/BLACK BEARS
(not grizzlies) is to make noise, beat pots, etc.  The previous	policy
recommendation was based on avoidance: bear bagging or containing food,
bear hangs (10 ft away on a weak limb, from the ground and main tree,
assert territory: pee in the area, etc.).  Current policy attempts to
take a more active role with posturing.

IF IN EVENT OF ATTACK the standard recommended action is "playing
possum."  Running may not be advised.  Neither insures survival, but
the opinions of these people holds that getting eaten is a part of wilderness:
it is a potential and a 'natural' process.  If you don't want the
threat, don't go into the area.  This is the bear's (lion's) habitate,
humans are just visitors. Ponder this carefully.

IF IN DOUBT ABOUT POLICICES OR RECOMMENDATION ACTIONS: ask a Park
or Forest Ranger, or obtain local information (e.g., County Sheriff).
This information is particularly fluid.

Two-legged threats
There is no denying that a criminal or psychopathic element exists in
the human species.  This author was asked to help collect information
on a "wanton murder" in Yosemite Valley (near the Awanhnee Hotel).
[In fact, if you have information or an awareness of this, contact
the author immediately.  Anonmity is assured.]
It is the the counter position that such actions are NOT the norm.
The question is always asked: "Yes, but how frequently does this happen?"
to which always comes the answer "Enough."  'Enough' is never defined
but people's values are 'respected' at the price of ambiguity.

Accidental Discharge of Weapons
Accidental discharge is an issue skirted in discussion.
The topic appears to have aspects similar to the topic of accidental
nuclear war.  No kidding.  Escalation is a property of this, issue.
One un-named, for obvious reasons, poster admitted the mistake
he had committed.  Accidental discharge has included dropping a fire-arm
(many gun enthusiasts noting that safeties attempt to prevent this,
next paragraph), targeting improper objects [e.g., domestic cows], etc.
The problem with this topic are the limited set of scenarios
which can be covered in discussion.  'What-if' discussion tends to
diverge fairly quickly.  Readiness is a separate issue borders on
paranoia.  A weapon disassembled and stored has limited defense value, but
walking around with weapons drawn and ready are tantimount to declarations
of war orthe actions fo a SWAT Team.
Note, too, that 'concealed' weapons are illegal in some states.

On the issue of accidental discharge due to dropping the gun, most
guns have safeties which reliabilty prevent this.  The issue which is not
determinable is the outcome if a round has been chambered, this is gun
dependent, but the question always then asked, is why that round has
been chambered in the first place.

The Argument of "Culling"
Some hunting groups justify their position about the need to cull
over-populated herds of animals.  Animals 'requiring' culling include
mule deer, Bison, elephants, water buffalo, et al.  No argument exists
about the over-population of these species.  The issue/problem isn't
one strictly of quantity.  The position is that predator-prey
relations have been tipped by Man in favor.  Never has there been a
discussion on the lottery system used by Montana Fish and Game to
select marksmen (this is not hunting as stalking is not involved).
One popular film is based on the writings of Farley Mowat (Never Cry Wolf).
The research on predator-prey relations is based on studies decades back in
such areas as Isle Royale National Park.  The balance there being dynamic
rather than static.  These "natural" processes are what preservationists
seek to maintain for both long-term study (observation) and 'enjoyment.'

One semi-meaningful/semi-useless spin-off thread has been to question
what constitutes a 'natural' process.  This writer has not been present
for the start of all these discussions, but the written literature on
wilderness is replete with articles and books on this subject.
Back to the issue of fire-arms.

Extinction is a very real possibility.  California's state animal was the
California Grizzly Bear: ironic that the animal is extinct.  Guns caused
their demise (as well as urban encroachment).  It serves as a warning to man
and other species.  Some have argued that man's extinction of some species
[it's always some, not all] might be destined.  This theory, part of a
larger theory called Pleistocine-Mammalian Extinction, has some followers,
but no biologist seriously says mankind should eliminate species.
This holds for other species such as wolves, coyotes, regarded as once
as hazards now as "pests."  Does manifest destiny extend to animal species?
Do the rights of a few animals extend over those of people?  This latter
will depend on individual values (of which there exist at least four
basic positions, beyond the scope of fire arms).  Killing one more member of
an endangered species, even for purposes of 'self-defense,' hinges on those
values independent of weapons.

Additionally, a physical weapon can be turned against the owner/user.
Many vs. one fire fights have also been discussed to no conclusion.

Added info:

United States Code (USC)

TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Section 311. Militia:  composition and classes

(a)  The militia of the United States consists of all able-
bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in 
section 313 of title 32 [TITLE 32--NATIONAL GUARD, Appointments
and enlistments: age limitations], under 45 years of age who are, or who 
have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the 
United States and of female citizens of the United States who are 
commissioned officers of the National Guard.
(b)  The classes of the militia are--
(1)  the organized militia, which consists of the National 
Guard and the Naval Militia; and
2)  the unorganized militia, which consists of the members 
of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the 
Naval Militia.


Eugene, the following information is taken from "(Your Guide to) 
FEDERAL FIREARMS REGULATION 1988-1989"  This is published by the 
BATF and is available free just by calling them.  I recommend 
getting a copy; there is a lot of information in it.  
Additionally, the BATF will give you a booklet that contains a 
summary of State laws if you ask.


Public Law 99-308

An Act to amend chapter 44 (relating to firearms) of title 18, 
United States Code, and for other purposes.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND CONGRESSIONAL FINDINGS.
(a) Short Title.- This Act may be cited as the "Firearms Owners' 
Protection Act".  [FOPA to those who discuss it frequently]

CHAPTER 44--FIREARMS

Sec.
921. Definitions.
922. Unlawful acts.
923. Licensing.
924. Penalties.
925. Exceptions:  Relief from disabilities.
926. Rules and regulations.
926A. Interstate transportation of firearms.
927. Effect on State law.
928. Separability clause.
929. Use of restricted ammunition.

[skipped a bunch of stuff]

Sec. 926A. Interstate transportation of firearms.

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or 
regulation of a State or ***any political subdivision*** [emphasis 
mine; this seems to include the National and State parks since 
they are political subdivisions]  thereof, any person who is not 
otherwise prohibited by the chapter from transporting, shipping, 
or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm 
for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully 
possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may 
lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such 
transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm 
nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is 
directly accessible for the passenger compartment of such 
transporting vehicle: 
Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment 
separate from the driver's compartment the firearm or ammunition 
shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove 
compartment or console.

Hope this helps!

Re: "Militia" definition.

The Federal amendments to the Federal Constitution were born on a pattern
that had been seen in the several colonies. Immediately after the Declaration
of Independence, the 13 colonies set to the business of figuring out how
to govern themselves as states. 8 colonies  created both Constitutions 
and Bills of Rights.  Virginia had set the precedent for elegance and 
completeness fairly early. Other colonies which adopted a BOR emulated
the Virginia model with minor modifications based upon their particular
regional concerns (Baptists vs. Anglicans etc).

James Madison, a Virginian, the man Congress picked to draft the Federal BOR, 
relied heavily upon the Virginia BOR. He had been part of the 
original Virginia committee  which  drafted the Virginia BOR.

================
Here is the relevent text: (From the Virginia Declaration of Rights;
June 12, 1776)

Article 13: That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the 
people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of
a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided,
as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be
under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
=====================

Here is the Federal 2nd Amendment: (December 15, 1791)

Article II: A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of
a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be
infringed.
======================

Flame wars.
Disclaimer: we have left out some people's specific stories and concentrated
on the points made by many different opinions (pro, con and in-between).
This is a summary of the major points made.  Contribution to the above:
refinements of language, clarification or addition of points is encouraged,
BUT please make suggestions which are simply edited or appended.
You would be surprised how many people refuse to make life a bit easier.
Anonmity guaranteed.

"In the end,there were no simple answers.  No heros.  No villains.
Only silence.  But it began the moment that I first saw the wolf.
By the act of watching, with the eyes of a man, I had pointed the way
for those who followed."
"The pack returned for the cubs as there are no orphans among the wolves.
Eventually, the losses of that autumn became a distant memory.
I believe the wolves went off to a wild and distant place some where,
although I don't really know, because I turned away and didn't watch them go."
		--Tyler (Farley Mowat), Never Cry Wolf

	A. Chase
	J. Craighead
	D. Peacock

TABLE OF CONTENTS of this chain:

6/ Non-wisdom: fire-arms topic circular discussion	<* THIS PANEL *>
7/ Phone / address lists
8/ Fletcher's Law of Inverse Appreciation and advice
9/ Water Filter wisdom
10/ Words from Rachel Carson
11/ Snake bite
12/ Netiquette
13/ Questions on conditions and travel
14/ Dedication to Aldo Leopold
15/ Leopold's lot.
16/ Morbid backcountry/memorial
17/ Information about bears
18/ Poison ivy, frequently ask, under question
19/ Lyme disease, frequently ask, under question
20/ "Telling questions" backcountry Turing test
21/ AMS
22/ Words from Foreman and Hayduke
23/ A bit of song (like camp songs)
24/ What is natural?
25/ A romantic notion of high-tech employment
26/ Other news groups of related interest, networking
27/ Films/cinema references
28/ References (written)
1/ DISCLAIMER
2/ Ethics
3/ Learning I
4/ learning II (lists, "Ten Essentials," Chouinard comments)
5/ Summary of past topics

Date: Tue, 9 Jun 92 12:03:46 +1200
From: derek%fivegl.co.nz@mercury.gen.nz
Subject: Firearms and Africa.

You write:

[Lots of stuff about firearms and mention of Africa Lions etc. deleted].

>A test question was asked about the need to carry firearms for self
>defense in Africa against lions.  All respondents admitted they were
>not familiar with the hazards of Africa.  

I am familiar - too a small degree - with the hazards of Africa.  At least
as they apply to someone travelling Overland in that continent.  

The overwhelming opinion, drawn from many books about African travel,
talking to many travellers and from personal experience is:  Don't take
firearms with you when travelling in Africa.  They will cause you more 
problems than they are worth.  If you attempt to cross a border with
firearms you will probably end up in a lot of trouble.  There are many 
situations where you come up against the average belligerent drunk border 
guard with an AK47.  In these situations diplomacy is they key and armed
traveller with a "You have no right to do this to me attitude" is likely
to end up in lots of trouble.  

These situations will be far more common that encounters with wild animals.

Outside the parks there are pityfully few game animals of any kind.

If you are entering a game park you will be expressly forbidden to carry
any firearms.  If you have an official guide and will spend some time
outside a vehicle he will most likely be armed.  I always assumed much of 
this was to create a 'mystique' of danger rather than due to a real threat.

In most parks you need a vehicle to even get in ( apart from Mana Pools in
Zimbabwe where people regularly get eaten ).  We did in fact get very close 
to some lions ( 2 feet from the open car window ).  They were dining on 
Wildebeast and therefore not interested in stringy humans.


If you were to spend a lot of time in a park filming or doing research then
perhaps a weapon may be useful.  Something to scare the animals away
would be far preferable as all the dangerous animals are all protected.

>Non-fire-arm defense -- Another slight diversion from fire-arms
>First: it is important to understand what threats exist.  Tigers
>don't live in the Americas or Africa.  

This is a good point.  The most dangerous animal in Africa in terms of human
death and injury is the hippo.  Seeing as most Hippo fatalities occur either
at night or when driving a boat over a submerged Hippo a firearm is not 
much use.

>[some] readers go to Africa and the threats are different.  Remember
>that wild-er-ness is a place where the animals can eat you.  Think about that
>for a moment.

Like I said - unless you are in a park there is remarkably little game 
around.  

>Two-legged threats
>There is no denying that a criminal or psychopathic element exists in
>the human species.  

In Africa - where life is cheap and any traveller is unimaginably wealthy -
the two legged threats are definately the ones to watch.  

>The Argument of "Culling"
>Some hunting groups justify their position about the need to cull
>over-populated herds of animals.  Animals 'requiring' culling include
>mule deer, Bison, elephants, water buffalo, et al.  No argument exists
>about the over-population of these species.  The issue/problem isn't
>one strictly of quantity.  The position is that predator-prey
>relations have been tipped by Man in favor.  

In Zimbabwe and Botwswana there are _lots_ of Elephant.  Far to many for 
the tiny parks they have to live in.  Hwange park in Zimbabwe for example
is obviously over populated with Elephant.  Whether culling is the answer
I don't know but some management is required before there is nothing left 
to eat in the park.  As an aside,  at Hwange park, they have been cutting
the horns off the Rhino to make them worthless to poachers. If this 
experiment works - and doesn't affect Rhino's too much - they will do this
to all their Rhino's.


My conclusion is that firearms have limited use in Africa and it should be
highly recommended that no one takes them with them.  If you are going to
be in a specific situation where firearms may be necessary ( note I don't
think there are many of these ) you should go through the local channels
to arrange this.  Taking your own gun into almost any of these African 
countries is a potential nightmare.

Hope this clarifies some things.

Derek Tearne
-- 
Derek Tearne      derek@fivegl.co.nz 
VirusBlat Version 1:
.sig virus detected and removed from file: /home/users/derek/.signature 

Newsgroups: rec.backcountry