Opinion

Biking and guns

Wednesday, June 03, 2009

By Matthew Irwin

The demographic of Jackson Hole is changing, and it wants a more commuter-oriented, centralized infrastructure, which also fits the Comp Plan’s stated No. 1 goal, to protect wildlife habitat.

Being Bike Week (See www.friendsofpathways.org for event details) – now is the time to discuss the bike as the symbol of this new demographic.
Most days, I walk to work. I enjoy crossing town in the morning as it wakes up, taking my time to see things, mentally preparing for the day (i.e. wake up), maybe listening to music.

With summer nearly here, I take the alleys to avoid traffic, to let my dog run off his leash.

Other days, when in a hurry, I skateboard or bike, which isn’t as satisfying for me. Nonetheless, it’s a luxury that makes me appreciate Jackson Hole.

But it’s also a trend taking root in big cities – Boston, New York, San Francisco, Chicago and San Diego. People my age do not want to rely on cars, they don’t want to be tied to cars.

Critical mass bike rides, still fledgling in JH, are some indication of this trend, but I also see many young people looking to live and work within city (town, as it were) boundaries.

Even growing up in suburban Ohio, bike rides were a regular family recreation, the town paths being full on weekends, but otherwise inconveniently located for commuting.  We made fun of and worried about the bikers on our four-lane Central Ave., even as they passed us, stopped by traffic jams.

A couple weeks back, I went to the Rotary Wine Fest with some friends, then we biked to dinner at Trio and followed some other friends to masses of bikes outside the Silver Dollar, the Cowboy Bar and the Cadillac, never making it in because of the crowds, but we biked home satisfied that so many folks were out, on their bikes.

Many people my age prefer alternative transit, if not because the bike is more economical, hip and green, then perhaps because the car seems somewhat outdated, cumbersome and maybe egocentric.

What we want is a town with four stories, community parks and a regular bus system to get us out into the wild.

I speak of course for people in my immediate circle, perhaps a ring or two out – folks who don’t have the resources to waste, who like doing the work themselves and who appreciate many aesthetics, whether city or country. To keep their countries wild and their commutes short, these people are moving back into towns, and I’m of the age when a number of them have kids.

Some landowners in the county aren’t going to like what this means, but if folks want this to be a real town that tourists visit rather than a tourist town occupied by second homes, deals will have to be made. I suggest a wildlife habitat buy-back program, wherein landowners get the cost of their property plus inflation.
Please hurl manure . . . now – I could use it for my first vegetable garden.

                                            •

Here’s another crowd pleaser: I don’t care if you keep a gun. Keep 10 or 20, hell, but keep them in your effen house. Fine, bring them out for hunting season, but otherwise, I am not impressed.

Jefferey Wunsch didn’t have a permit, but he still brought out his Ruger, waved it around, fired it and threatened people. And he “has never been in anything violent before,” according to his lawyer in the June 9, Jackson Hole Daily.
And I’m supposed to feel safe with guns in the national parks?

I have to rely on gun-owners not to freak out during wildlife encounters?
People feed bears in GTNP, and how long has it been promulgated to not feed the bears?

The irony of relying on people’s good gun sense is if they had any sense, they wouldn’t bring a gun to a peaceful and public place, especially if the law prohibits it.

And now we want to invite them to bring their guns? JHW
PERMALINK:
Biking and guns | Planet JH News Article: Editorial

Reader Comments

I'll not fling feces on this day. I agree whole-heartedly with your gun comments. The self-defense argument for carrying guns within the park is as weak as it is outside the park. The odds of your handgun being used to shoot a friend or relative, accidentally or intentionally, are much higher than the odds of it being used to protect yourself from a criminal. Regarding bears (no other mega-fauna poses a risk around here), you'd better be packing a large shotgun because a handgun is more likely to make a bear angrier than stop in its tracks. Let's face it - allowing guns in the parks has very little to do with enhancing "safety" and lots to do with politics and powerful lobbies.
Reality Bias

Reality Bias: Do you have a fire extinguisher in your house? Do you think people who do protect their homes from fire, given that the chances of your house burning down are slim, are foolish and should therefore not have fire protection? Your argument against carrying a concealed weapon is faulty. As for guns in national parks, it should never have been illegal in the first place.
little saganaga

Also, please cite your source about the odds ("much higher") of accidental or intentional shootings of friends or relatives vs. self-defense - that sounds like something you pulled out of your hat. Many things carry some risk - from automobiles to steak knives. That doesn't mean they should be banned. There is a concerted effort among those who would rule us for a general disarmament of their subjects, and they have a powerful influence over the present Zeitgeist concerning guns.
little saganaga

And your comparison to fire extinguishers is even more laughable. If fire extinguishers were used in the deaths of more than 30000 people in the US each year, than it might actually make sense. And might also make an excellent reason to not keep one in your house. Gun death statistics originate from the CDC but here is a site that has some good info focused on children's deaths (http://www.neahin.org/programs/schoolsafety/gunsafety/statistics.htm#america). Now please tell me how having a gun in the Tetons is going to make you safer and not make everyone else less safe.
Reality Bias

Reality Bias: You make the argument in your original post that the self-defense argument for carrying a gun is weak because the odds of having to use it are slim (less than an accidental shooting you say) - is that correct? If so, then the fire extinguisher analogy is pertinent. As for accidental shootings, that's another issue. Accidents happen all the time. As safe as we try to be, they happen. Pointing your finger at accidents surrounding guns is illogical. Why not condemn automobiles? How many children die in car accidents each year? How many accidentaly drink something poisonous? etc. etc. Is your argument, "Guns are made to kill people (or animals, I guess), so accidents involving them are more dispicable."? What exactly is your argument? Do you think denying law abiding citizens the right to carry a gun will result in a decrease in violent crime?
little saganaga



Leave a Comment


Write a Letter to the Editor
Please limit your letter to 300 words, sign it and give us the name of your town.

Tuesday, February 07
TODAY'S EVENTS
Music
Reggae Night DJ
9:00 PM
at Jackson's Hole Bar & Grill.
Music
One Ton Pig
7:30 PM to 11:00 PM
at the Silver Dollar Bar.
Music
Steam Powered Airplane
9:30 PM
at Town Square Tavern.
Sports & Recreation
Special Olympics-Opening Ceremonies.
9:00 AM to 3:00 PM
at Jackson Hoe Mountain Resort.
Outdoors
Raptor Basics
5:00 PM to 8:00 PM
at Teton Raptor Center at Old Hardeman Barns.
Music
The Miller Sisters
5:00 PM to 8:00 PM
in the Lobby Lounge of Four Seasons Resort.
Community
Sit n' Knit
6:00 PM
Knit on Pearl in Jackson
View All Events
planet polls
JH Weekly Poll
Who do you think should pay for the health care of Aaron Wallis?



Total of voters : 66