Guns in the Parks: A Bad Idea

Submitted by Kurt Repanshek on November 17, 2006 - 1:43pm

Senator George Allen of Virginia, you might say, is leaving Congress with his guns a-blazing.
The Republican, who was ousted by Democrat Jim Webb, evidently has introduced legislation that would allow gun owners to bring their weapons into national parks, as long as the states the parks are located in don't prohibit the practice.
Mike Kinsey, writing for Ohioans For Concealed Carry, says, "The arbitrary prohibition of your right to self-defense in a National Park needs to end."
"Your life is not worth less while visiting one of our country’s beautiful parks than it is anywhere else you may be," argues Kinsey. "Personally, I believe that lonely wilderness trails may be one of the places that I would most want to have my self-defense firearm."
Great. That's all we need, a backcountry full of pistol-packing hikers ready to take you on. This guy seems a little over the edge to me.
"...any location that is known to be frequented by tourists would probably be very attractive to criminals," he goes on. "Tourists are generally carrying a lot of money and are unfamiliar with their surroundings. I am certainly not a criminal mastermind. If I can see that this environment makes one more vulnerable to violent attack, I am certain those with less scruples have realized it as well."
Gee, Mike, we seem to have made it into the 21st Century without a spate of backcountry holdups (although there were a handful of stagecoach holdups back in the early 1900s in Yellowstone).
Do we really want to legalize toting guns around in national parks? Frankly, I'd feel safer in the backcountry knowing that guns are prohibited rather than worrying that the next person I encounter might be packing heat.

Comments

Submitted by Steve Sergeant (not verified) on November 17, 2006 - 2:23pm.

I'd love to read Ranger Gord's take on this one.

Submitted by Fred Miller (not verified) on November 17, 2006 - 8:50pm.

In a PERFECT world, the most dangerous thing being carried in a National Park would be a pair of binoculars. Sadly, we do NOT live in a perfect world. There are already a number of people carrying firearms in National Parks. "THAT CAN'T BE!!", you say. "It's illegal to carry firearms in National Parks!!" Yes, it is. That's the whole point here. The law-BREAKING bad guy has his gun WITH HIM!! The law-ABIDING good guy has his gun locked up in the TRUNK OF HIS CAR!! Senator Allen proposes only that law-ABIDING citizens be allowed to carry they're legally-licensed weapons to facilitate their own defense.

Submitted by kath (not verified) on November 17, 2006 - 8:57pm.

Unfortunately, human and drug smugglers are carrying weapons in Organ Pipe and Big Bend. And the drug cartels defend their pot patches in Sequoia and Redwood N. P. with automatic weapons.

Submitted by K. Fry (not verified) on November 19, 2006 - 4:11pm.

Why do some people think "forbidding" firearms causes their worried little butts to be "safer?" Criminals don't follow laws. Stick with me here Sunshine, but that's why we call them "criminals." We "forbid" murder, rape, robbery, etc., yet these are everyday occurences. The gun control types are more than happy to let others with guns "protect" them. In fact, they demand it. That they won't undertake such a responsibility for themselves is a direct result of the nanny-state mentality we've all been raised in.

Submitted by KP97 (not verified) on November 19, 2006 - 8:12pm.

Modern psychologists say that fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity. I'm willing to set aside the authors emotional state and talk bout the bill of rights, or just plain common sense. I'm a 4th generation native of Montana. We don't venture out in the wild without protection from the wild animals. At least you can predict their behavior. Unfortunately you can't always predict the behavior of the human animals you might meet along the way. Liberals always forget this.

Submitted by countertop (not verified) on November 19, 2006 - 8:14pm.

All good comments. In addition, I'd point out that the only reason guns aren't allowed now has to do with fear of poachers. Fine. If someone is poaching - prosecute them. But just because I have my Colt with me doesn't mean I am up to no good. The other point you fully miss in your post is that the National Park Ban isn't just about carrying on the trails, its about possessing guns in the parks at all. In many parts of the country, this means that individuals with no business in the park at all are forced to travel hundreds of miles oout of the way in order to avoid traveling through a park (as is the case for people trying to get from one side to the other of Shenandoah, Great Smokey Mountains, and Zion National Parks just to name a few I am familiar with) or to disarm completely and leave their guns at home (which doesn't work if your going hunting or simply excerising your 2nd Amendment Rights.

Submitted by countertop (not verified) on November 19, 2006 - 8:19pm.

btw, while I really hate to criticize folks on blogs that I just discovered (and like, I really do think this is a neat idea - and well done) this statement I'd feel safer in the backcountry knowing that guns are prohibited rather than worrying that the next person I encounter might be packing heat. Is about as asinine a statement as I've heard in a while. Who cares how you'd feel. Feel fine now?? Why would you feel any different? The only thing likely to change - based upon trends nationwide over the last few years in states that have allowed private citizens to carry guns - is that the parks will be safer.

Submitted by Robert Green (not verified) on November 19, 2006 - 10:32pm.

While I certainly understand that criminals carrying firearms in national parks is a scary thought, I am not sure how this line of reasoning should apply to law abiding citizens. Criminals are criminals beacause they do not respect nor care about the law. I may be mistaken, but I believe the Appalachian Trail has had quite a history of murders & rapes. I am sorry but your logic is flawed. You say that your concern is for a bunch of pistol packing.... etc etc... "ready to take you on." Well, if by "you" you mean a criminal intent on causing death or griveous injury, then I feel much safer knowing responsible citizens are armed and ready to defend themselves or others. PS Jim Webb is likely to be just as supportive of this legislation.

Submitted by Wayne Baughman (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 2:26am.

GUNS IN PARKS: GOOD IDEA "That's all we need...pistol-packing hikers ready to take you on." --AND WHY NOT? Ah...because merely *possessing* a firearm increases my likelihood of wanting to "take you on?" How about if I have pepper spray? Walking stick? Black belt in a martial art? Six inches taller and 30 pounds heavier? I challenge you to reflect more on the attributes that make people a real threat or not. "Frankly, I'd feel safer...knowing that guns are prohibited rather than worrying that the next person I encounter might be packing heat." --I DO NOT SHARE your stunningly optimistic assessment of the correlation between prohibition and action. So for you, "knowing guns are prohibited" prevents you from worrying about other people? Let's see. Using this "logic," you should thus feel perfectly safe and not worry when going into the most dangerous parts of a city because violent acts are prohibited. Hmmm. Because I doubt that you would extend your logic to this case and to yourself or your loved ones, you come across as either disingenuous or unable to think critically, at least on this topic. At best, you have a damned odd view about what it takes to achieve a feeling of personal safety, but it should not trump my freedom to have the capability to protect myself or my family.

Submitted by VA Hiker (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 3:06am.

News Flash: criminals don't care which way this issue goes. They're carrying guns wherever they like. Is there something magical about a park that suddenly erases the fact that I'm trained, tested, and licensed by the state to carry a firearm?

Submitted by Alan Rose (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 3:24am.

Lets see, National Forests already follow state law, so all Virginians can carry their legal guns there, and, to use your logic, I don't recall hearing about that leading to any mass shootings by permit holders.

Submitted by Mike Frantzen (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 3:42am.

I ride my bike through a national park sometimes for up to 8 hours a week. Next to a restroom they have a notice board with events they hold, rules and restrictions, and sketches of all of the criminals that they're looking for who committed crimes in that national park. There is very little police presence in the national parks so there is little to deter a criminal. That seed of doubt alone, "could this victim be armed", would go a long way to deterring crime.

Submitted by Dexter Guptill (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 4:22am.

Here's a clue: The people who are "ready to take you on" are already carrying. They're called criminals. Nationwide, people with permits have a lower crime rate than some (New Orleans, for example) police departments. I can give you an example of why this ban is stupid. I volunteer at Jamestown Settlement. My usual motel (when I'm not staying in the fort over the weekend) is in Williamsburg. I have to go the long way around Williamsburg to get to JamestownIf I don't want to break the rules on the Colonial Parkway, I have to go the long way around Williamsburg to get to Jamestown. This is because I have a MATCHLOCK MUSKET, ca 1450s technology, in the car. Even worse, I might have a 1510-style wheellock pistol -- Oh, horrors! That is, of course, assuming that I left my modern concealed-carry firearm in the hotel... Incidentally, I voted for Webb. He's planning to carry through on both of Allen's pro-gun initiatives - national park carry and national permit reciprocity. Something to do, perhaps, with the fact that he wants to be able to carry his own gun in more places that he's likely to need it.

Submitted by Scott mallonee (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 4:26am.

Kurt, You say, " ...we seem to have made it into the 21st Century without a spate of backcountry holdups (although there were a handful of stagecoach holdups back in the early 1900s in Yellowstone)." "Stagecoach holdups"? I suspect the families of Julianne Williams and Lollie Winans don't appreciate your flippancy. The 24 and 26 year old women were murdered in Shenandoah National Park in June 1996. You further pose, "Do we really want to legalize toting guns around in national parks? Frankly, I'd feel safer in the backcountry knowing that guns are prohibited rather than worrying that the next person I encounter might be packing heat." Does Washington DC's prohibition of guns make you "feel safer" when you vacation in Southeast DC housing projects? I submit that the people you should reasonably fear are not responsible concealed carry permit holders, but those who respect no sort of "prohibition". Regards,

Submitted by Chris Chubb (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 5:04am.

Do you really want be disarmed where you are the farthest from law enforcement? With drug smugglers and growers using the backcountry as their private weed farms or meth labs, you never know what you will trip over when out for a walk. In the Boy Scouts I was taught to always "Be Prepared." For this reason I carry a poncho, extra water, a pocket knife, a first aid kit and other "emergency" gear. Why not the ultimate in emergency gear? Make the discharge of a firearm illegal in National Parks and be done with it.

Submitted by CommonSense (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 5:04am.

Gee, I wonder if all criminals follow the law and think to themselves; " It's against the law to carry a firearm while I rob these happy trailhikers. I better not bring my firearm." Please people, the law abiding citizen who elects to carry doesn't tote it around to intimidate innocent people. It's for protection!

Submitted by Jimmy W. (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 5:21am.

All a person needs to do is review the news over the past couple of years to see what kind of bad stuff is already going on in the parks. As others have mentioned, meth labs, marijuana fields and worse are already abound. In addition, there have been several well-covered cases of violent criminals holding up in the backcountry of various parks... some of these have preyed upon tourists. With the dwindling budgets that the NPS has to contend with, a person is a fool to expect that the NPS Police be able to protect you in all scenarios. The proposed change would not make it legal for EVERYONE to carry a gun into a park, all it does is make it legal for someone to carry their personal firearm into a park if that park is in a state where they can already legally carry it. That's common sense my friend.

Submitted by Dave Yates (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 5:37am.

As a matter of law, the National Parks regulation which prohibits firearms also criminalizes firearms for off duty law enforcement officers, notwithstanding HR218. The Federal LEOSA did not address, or supercede the CFR. Thus, your safety in a National Park is at the whim and mercy of the very limited staff of Park Rangers and US Park Police. For those of you who have posted or think that you'd feel better knowing everyone was unarmed, I would suggest you keep track of the National Park Service's own "Morning Report" - http://home.nps.gov/applications/morningreport/ You won't have to look far for violence, the current weapons ban being clearly ineffective. It's also dishonest, deceitful and dishonorable for the National Parks to maintain or enforce this ban. I've been to over 50 National Parks and NEVER seen a sign, posting or letter prohibiting weapons in the park anywhere near the entrance. There is no valid reason to believe that the National Parks will be any different from the 3 dozen States which have adopted shall issue permit issuance for handguns. All of the evidence to date shows that crime does not increase with permissive weapons laws or rules, and in fact most of the time violent crime goes down. The National Parks would be wise to amend their rules now to adopt the state law with regard to personal protection.

Submitted by Rick Povich (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 6:02am.

The comment posted above by Dexter Guptill is right on the money, "I suspect the families of Julianne Williams and Lollie Winans don't appreciate your flippancy. The 24 and 26 year old women were murdered in Shenandoah National Park in June 1996." You see, my wife and I were hiking on that very trail a few hours after she'd jogged alone. later that day we found out the two women had been killed. Your naivete in railing against acknowledging an individual's Second Amendment and God-given right to self defense is breath taking. Rape is illegal. Murder is illegal. Oops. Forgot to tell the bad guy! Sorry Winans and Williams families. We'll do better next time. One park ranger for every 125,000 square miles. No cell phone service. Yup. They'll be right there to help you. Santa, too! Check your facts. Concealed carry permit holders are among the most responsible and law-abiding citizens. We're not the ones you need to worry about. It's that guy who's been following you at a discreet distance...

Submitted by JimKiser (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 6:34am.

Well I was going to add all the info about the drug dealers and poachers taking over the Parks, but it seems to be piling on. I think the point has been made. In Va where I live our crime rate is much lower than the district and Md. If you think the Parks are bad try the National Mall at night where the Park police supposedly patrol. Shootings robberies and rapes every month. Yup those Park police are really on the job.

Submitted by Mike Wright (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 6:57am.

"Great. That's all we need, a backcountry full of pistol-packing hikers ready to take you on. This guy seems a little over the edge to me." Give me a break. Is that his argument aginst this bill? Then, we're blessed with this gem: "Do we really want to legalize toting guns around in national parks? Frankly, I'd feel safer in the backcountry knowing that guns are prohibited rather than worrying that the next person I encounter might be packing heat." You're right. I'd be terrified that the next law-abiding citizen I encounter on the trail may be armed, too. Thankfully, the current law prohibits criminals from bringing guns into National Parks - making the parks completey safe. Gimme a break! News Flash - anyone who's going to commit a crime in National Parks is going to bring their gun REGARDLESS of what the law says. This is why they are criminals. Why is this concept so hard for antis to understand? It's so simple. Self defense is my RIGHT. Not you or anyone else will EVER deny me my RIGHT. No law will ever prevent me from defending myself.

Submitted by Don Pollock (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 7:49am.

Sorry Kurt - my safety isn't your call! When the "fit hits the shan" there's likely to be only two parties present...attacker(s) and victim. Rather than rely on others, I opt to have a say in the matter.

Submitted by Doug Troutman (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 8:21am.

I had two incidents with firearms in a park as a Ranger. In one case, two off-duty cops had their service weapons, as required by their department. They apologized when they recognized the rules outside their "territory". In the other incident, a guy smuggled a revolver into the park, and his girlfriend emptied it into the back of his head. I guess this was the "rule of unintended consequences"? The average gun owner who would fire on a wild animal, like a big bear, in a park setting would be called "lunch". I never had a bear shoot at me, or really scare me. The same is not true of humans with guns. Leave 'em home.

Submitted by Rick Povich (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 9:04am.

Don says," I had two incidents with firearms in a park as a Ranger. In one case, two off-duty cops had their service weapons, as required by their department. They apologized when they recognized the rules outside their "territory"." So you gave them a special break just because they were law enforcement? Well they violated the regulation and you knew it. Why didn't you fine them just as you supposedly would have if a citizen exercised their Second Amendment right? Double standard. Your other examples also prove laws don't prevent people from committing crimes. All the more reason to extend state concealed carry laws within the boundaries of national parks.

Submitted by Joel M (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 9:55am.

The National Park System comprises 390 areas covering more than 84 million acres and has 1400 permanent law enforcement rangers, adding an additional 500 during peak season (2002 statistics, it's probably lower now since they've suffered budget cuts every year). Even at 1900 law enforcement rangers that works out to 44,210.5 acres per ranger. That sure makes me feel safe. Law Enforcement, Emergency Safety Net Fraying in U.S. National Parks WASHINGTON, DC, July 3, 2006 (ENS) - Visitors to America's national parks this summer can expect reduced law enforcement protection, longer emergency response times, fewer lifeguards, scaled back water and trail safety patrols, and dirtier campgrounds, according to a new report by retired National Park Service employees. Read the rest here, http://www.ens-newswire.com/ens/jul2006/2006-07-03-04.asp

Submitted by Gabe (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 10:17am.

If "No Guns" sign actually worked, I'd wear one. Since they don't, I wear my gun instead. Criminals are just that, criminals. They don't care what the law says and they certainly don't care what a sign says. Shouldn't the author of this blog want criminals to afraid of robbing/killing/raping/etc... not encouraged? Lol...I hope for the authors sake that no criminals in his area find this post...

Submitted by Tim Hartle (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 12:16pm.

"Do we really want to legalize toting guns around in national parks? " We most certainly do. And you SHOULD worry about the next person you encounter packing heat in a park. Right now there's an excellent chance he's a bad guy looking for a defenseless target. If you choose to be one of those targets, that's your right. I prefer to be prepared to defend myself. That should be my right.

Submitted by kath (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 1:02pm.

According to the NPS website, guns are permitted in some Alaska national parks.

Submitted by Day Hiker (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 1:31pm.

Month after month, article after article, right out of the National Park Service Morning Reports: Man arrested for Rape in Park Murder Suspects Arrested Attempted Homicides Fatal Shootings Assaults on Visitors Homicide Investigations Kidnapping Felony Drug Trafficking Animal attacks The life threatening list goes on and on. As a law abiding citizen I have the right to defend my family and myself from these criminals that obviously have no respect for the law. Thinking that a "No Guns" sign at the park entrance will somehow make things safer is just being naive and uneducated, just ask the 100's of people that have been attacked in these "No Guns" parks.

Submitted by MikeB (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 1:35pm.

I had the courtesy of riding home with a senior level member of the Nat'l Park Svc a year ago and discussed safety in the Nat'l Parks. I was told that there is a lot of crime that goes unreported...and that criminals, like pedophiles and violent criminals, who have been shunned by society are now seeking refuge in National Parks. Add to that--there are not enough *armed* park rangers to cover the existing NPS trail system...and now their budget is being cut. What's first? Park Rangers. The only person responsible for your personal safety in the middle of nowhere--is YOU! That said, I prefer to be armed. Why? Because a cop is too heavy and I rely on no one else to do what I am perfectly capable to doing myself. Do not disarm me if you wish to be a victim. Do not prevent me from defending my family--I am permitted to carry a weapon in 25 states, why should a Nat'l Park be any different?

Submitted by LeeA from VA (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 3:36pm.

Posting a "No Firearms" sign is like posting a "Helpless Victims Here" sign. Criminals by definition DO NOT obey the law! They (criminals) are like preditory animals. They attack the weak. You will not see a lion attack a full grown healthy elephant but if the elephant is sick, wounded or a baby he becomes lunch. The same is true with criminal who knows he is armed (because he doesn't care about the law) and knows you are not armed (because you are obeying th law), well I hope you get the picture! If you choose to be a victim that's your choice as for me I'll carry my .45! Oh, by the way I'd use it to protect you also.

Submitted by Rod Adams (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 4:35pm.

All I desire is the ability to protect my family and self from predators while enjoying the scenic beauty within our Nation's parks. The predators I describe include both wild animal and un-lawful human bent on causing harm, or worse, death. As a law abiding citzizen, trained through 20 years of military (Marine Corps, Retired) service, I for one refuse to be denied my civil right to self defense, and constitutional right to keep and bear arms. I applaude Senator Allen for recommending legislation making it legal for me to carry my weapon, on my person, while inside a national park. With this legislation turned into law, all law abiding citizens will be allowed the tools necessary to protect family and self from predators.

Submitted by Jon Carruthers (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 7:31pm.

Does anyone find it odd that of all the posts so far in response to this blog...NOT ONE AGREES WITH THE AUTHOR...?? I, for one, am loving it.

Submitted by Dennis Olson (not verified) on November 20, 2006 - 8:46pm.

I think it would make more sense to ban cars from all national parks since more people are killed and injured by cars than guns. Maybe it's time we understood what threats are real and what are not.

Submitted by dutch (not verified) on November 21, 2006 - 4:15am.

Kurt. This law enables law abiding people to carry. The criminals already are (they don't obey gun bans). Therefore, the "pistol packing hiker" is not going to "take you on" unless you are going to rape him. As a "journalist" who closely follows goings on in national parks" you should know better than to claim that leading up to the 21st Century there has not been a spate of back country holdups. There have been numerous violent crimes in national parks. Law abiding people have a right to defend themselves. You say you'd "feel safer in the backcountry knowing that guns are prohibited rather than worrying that the next guy you encounter might be packing heat". But if the guy packing the heat is a law abiding hiker you don't have a problem anyway. The ban is irrelevant to the criminal. In every state that law abiding citizens have been allowed to carry legally, violent crime has dropped markedly. Common sense suggests that the same trend would be true in national parks. Timothy Treadwell, the grizzly bear guy, felt safer ignoring common sense. And he was perfectly safe until the bear ate him.

Submitted by kath (not verified) on November 21, 2006 - 5:51am.

Another 'incident' not mentioned is the murder of a national park volunteer in Yosemite a few years ago.

Submitted by kath (not verified) on November 21, 2006 - 7:23am.

Then there was the 1992 'incident' in which an escaped convict from the Arizona state pen hid out on the South Rim of the Grand Canyon, kidnapping and robbing tourists along the way to make his getaway.

Submitted by kath (not verified) on November 21, 2006 - 7:24am.

The comment about just a few stagecoach robberies in Yellowstone in the olden days was not only flippant but ill informed.

Submitted by David (not verified) on November 21, 2006 - 1:36pm.

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Our forefathers knew what they were talking about.

Submitted by Michael (not verified) on November 23, 2006 - 4:17am.

As much time as I spend in the woods it puts my mind at ease when I do carry. As a boy of 12 I came across a pack of wild dogs, had it not been for my trusty .22 leaver action I don't think I would be here today, for they had already killed a 500 lb steer. Now days,there are more than wild dogs in the woods, and those things are alot more dangerous.

Submitted by David Beck, Sr (not verified) on November 24, 2006 - 4:29am.

I read somewhere that our founding fathers wrote into our Constitution '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.' Duh. Why on earth would they amend our Constitution with something that says that? Seems clear to me that 'The people' are what might make up a Melitia if it should be required. 'The people' would be pretty harmless if 'Arms' only meant those things that protrude from our shoulders; which is what too many politicians expect 'The people' to use to protect themselves from any attacker. Again, duh. Anti-protectionist!-don’t you think it makes sense to allow all law abiding ‘free’ citizens to protect themselves if they fear for their life if they were to face an attacker that is holding a deadly weapon. If you were with ‘the’ person who is dearest to you and you were threatened with death, what would you want to do? Would you be able to talk your way out of the altercation or would you rather have a weapon (a gun) that could save their life? Sticks and stones might break their bones, but words will never hurt them? Personally, I’d rather carry a legal gun than ‘sticks and stones’ to hurt them. Please don't infringe my Constitutional right! I am a member of the Virginia Citizens Defense League. The word you should catch is ‘Defense’. That is all I ask for. Allow me to defend myself!

Submitted by Snowbird (not verified) on November 24, 2006 - 5:36pm.

Yes, paranoia is alive and well in the National Parks. Mixed with a little booze and a touch of domestic violence because your wife BBQ the steak wrong, or somebody accidently takes your camping spot by mistake... you just whip out your little old permit pistol...and settle business! Yes, the way the good old boy's like to settle it...the NRA way! Actually, I like too think the NRA stands for: NUTS RUN AMUCK, also known as the National Rifle Association. Sorry, paranoia breeds paranoia! You want better police protection in the parks, then let's get Congress to do it's job right ( for a change) and start funding the National Parks properly...and not on the cheap!!

Submitted by some name or other (not verified) on December 6, 2006 - 9:27pm.

Is this dumbass above the only one who agrees with the author? You might want to think twice about sharing an opinion with such a bigoted fool.

Submitted by parkaholic (not verified) on December 7, 2006 - 9:39pm.

This blog certainly supports the existance of tourons. (tourist/morons) Amazingly even though all these people carry their firearms for their protection it is dificult to find any writings describing the effective defense against a violent crime by these heroes. It must be because the conservative press refuses to write about it....yeah right. We also ignore the statistics showing how you are 7 times more likely to shoot a family member by accident than to incapacitate a common criminal. These accidents are committed by permitted, legal weapons. Do you think that the horrific numbers of wild animal attacks will be reduced with armed visitors. Perhaps the woman killed by a Black Bear in the Smokies would still be alive if she had been armed. Incidently she is the only death EVER attributed to a Black Bear in a National Park. Of course since you are so well protected you won't have to worry about food storage and stupid stuff like that either. The good news is that macho folks that talk tough are rarely the type who venture more than a hundred yards from their car in the parks anyway. This is not an issue of the right to bear arms...this is an issue of you are a visitor in Natures house....show some respect. I am not against gun ownership unless you are stupid. I am retired military and a staunch conservative you can have all the guns you want. Just don't bring them to my house or my Parks.

Submitted by Snowbird (not verified) on December 8, 2006 - 10:34am.

To "some name of other" (another faceless soul). Look! the NRA is simply playing it's hand to help promote more hysteria and paranoia with it's fear campaign... by provoking people like you to do their name calling, and to distort the real facts what their real agenda is all about...to sell more guns!! If you really read between the lines what "some of name other" has expressed in his garbled comments, it clearly shows the mentality of a NRA member... or close to it. Show some class!

Submitted by Rick Povich (not verified) on December 8, 2006 - 11:06am.

Parkaholic is obviously quite knowledgeable of anti-gun propaganda regarding the efficacy of firearms for personal protection. Unfortunately he comes up way short of any truth. Kellerman's (you know him, right?)"research" has long been discredited. Folks with firearms actually _save_ lives. Macho gun haters talking trash are always amusing but grossly uninformed. Do your research first - at a reputable governmental statistics location before you do yourself a disservice and repeat the bogus quackery of the Brady Bunch. Perhaps the women raped and murdered on Skyline Drive in Shenandoah would be alive to dispute your vacuous claims if their rights weren't abrogated by bureaucratic regulatory prohibition. I'm not against the First Amendment unless YOU'RE stupid. It's my park, my life and my rights. Gun control does not work. Fact.

Submitted by Snowbird (not verified) on December 8, 2006 - 12:13pm.

Mr. Povich, in all do respect, may I submit to you, look who's in the White House! Mr. Bush and can't shoot straight Dickie Bird Cheney...the good old boy's representatives of the NRA! You say that "firearms actually save lives" If that's true, then why does the United States have the highest homicide rate (for industralized nation) in the world ...outside of Bush's Bagdad fiasco? You can have your little six shell pea shooter, but just keep it out the park! I don't think my local police dept. has bogus facts what causes these high homicide rates. Give me another excuse?

Submitted by Rick Povich (not verified) on December 8, 2006 - 2:52pm.

Snowbird: "look who's in the White House! Mr. Bush and can't shoot straight Dickie Bird Cheney...the good old boy's representatives of the NRA!" That's informative and relevant to the discussion. To be expected. Snowbird: "You say that 'firearms actually save lives' If that's true, then why does the United States have the highest homicide rate (for industralized nation) in the world ...outside of Bush's Bagdad fiasco? Since you're either too lazy ir dishonest to cite valid stats I will" there were approximately 16,000 "homicides" (that's the official term) as of 2004. Of that total, approximately 75% were committed by criminals against criminals. The remainder were legitimate self-defense, law enforcement and undetermined shootings. Still don't believe me? Go to the CDC. Your LEO buddies aren't helping you here. Cars kill more people every year. As for guns saving lives, check Prof. John Lott's research. You might also want to read Don Kates and Gary Kleck's research. You'll find that guns are used more than a million times (low-balling the numbers her each year by _LAW ABIDING CITIZENS_ to prevent criminal attack or crime. Snowbird: "You can have your little six shell pea shooter, but just keep it out the park!" It's always interesting to see how anti-gun people are able to do little else than engage in silliness when they're devoid of valid information. Snowbird: "I don't think my local police dept. has bogus facts what causes these high homicide rates." Yup, they do. As I said, look 'em up yourself Snowbird: "Give me another excuse?" I'll give you another chance. Try again with legitimate information.

Submitted by Snowbird (not verified) on December 8, 2006 - 5:39pm.

Mr. Povich, I'll meet you half way on the issue, since you have not produced any documented facts about your position except your wind bag opinions. Let me say this, lets plant trees together in the parks, and you can plant (or leave) your water pistol at home, then we both will be doing something creative and constructive for the living environment... instead criticizing each other. It's not my nature to wait in the wings and be ready to ponce on someone who disagrees with me so vehemently...like you!

Submitted by Rick Povich (not verified) on December 8, 2006 - 6:06pm.

Snowbird: "I'll meet you half way on the issue, since you have not produced any documented facts about your position except your wind bag opinions." What don't you understand about the information I've provided? I've documented the location and the sources. You've offered nothing except biased opinion. If you choose to not believe the CDC (and FBI) as well as the researchers I've listed that's your problem. I provided data. Try to disprove it. Snowbird: "lets plant trees together in the parks, and you can plant (or leave) your water pistol at home" That's a good chuckle. Let's start at the sites where folks are murdered in the parks because they are unable to denfend themselves. Water pistol, huh? Another good one. Snowbird: "we both will be doing something creative and constructive for the living environment... instead criticizing each other." This discussion is about a person's God-given and Constitutionally affirmed right to self-defense has nothing to do with planting a tree. You and the rest of the vehemently anti-gun gang insist, entirely erroneously and persistently maliciously, that lawful exercise of the right to self defense will somehow be detrimental to the existence of the National Park system and to your ability to enjoy it. You're flat-out wrong. I've provided data and sources that prove you're misguided. John Lott has proven guns save lives. The facts are that concealed carry permit holders do not commit crime - whether in a park or anywhere else. Nor do they shot up flora and fauna. Snowbird: "It's not my nature to wait in the wings and be ready to ponce on someone who disagrees with me so vehemently...like you!" You don't have to wait for anything. If I see misrepresentations and silliness like you've posted I'll call you or anyone else on it. That's all. You simply will not find data to support any of your claims. There are none. I will vehemently defend my rights, however. One more time: read John Lott, Gary Kleck, Don Kates, CDC Mortality data and FBI crime statistics. You'll see who commits the crimes and who prevents them. Short of posting the entire data sets here I think it's time for you to do some research.