Recent comments

I can't believe with the rate the world is falling apart with all the shootings that we have to ask permission from anyone to protect ourselves. Isn't carrying a gun that simple? I haven't owned a gun in years only becuase I can't afford it. If anything should happen they should make it easier to get one.

Your comment is perfect...Our original military was brought about by farmers and other common men to form a militia to overthrow its current government which had become corrupted. Our argument will continue to go in circles because you simply feel that "the people"(2nd amendment) is talking about a collection of men as 1 body (which is government, and that would be gov. infringing on gov.) and I feel that "the people" is talking about each individual rights. While you feel there is no reason to carry a gun and carrying by a law-abiding citizen is dangerous. I feel that I should carry so that I won't have to use it. Every time you hear a story of a sad gun attack you want to blame special interests instead of the sad reflection of the degradation of society. I see that it's all the more reason that I need to carry and protect myself. You see violence as something that can have a happy "sit around the campfire and cry" ending. I feel that I am more realistic in knowing that bad people will always exist and I should have the right to protect myself. You feel that a good government will always stay that way. I feel that the evolution of all government everywhere is to limit freedoms. Our system is setup so politicians want to pass more and more laws so that they can say "look at me! Look what I did!" With virtually no sunset on laws eventually there will be a time when all freedoms are gone. You feel that when this time comes we can all sit around a table and talk it out and everyone will have common interests and want to have a common ground. I feel that a view of history will show that men have their own selfish desires and the only way government can be changed (eventually....not immediately) is through drastic means. When government wants its people to comply with just or unjust laws they use lethal force (eventually). What happens when the people want to have a new government in say…150 years? What happens when they want to retake their freedoms and take power back from the few? What happens when our own US military rapes, tortures and stores in a shipping container, a Halliburton employee and Dick Cheney and George Bush and the “good-ol’ boys club” just want to cover it up for each other? Do you really think corruption will stay stagnant? Do you feel that it won’t get worse? I’m just trying to be realistic. The world would be better without violence and bad people. (At least from my prospective). I just don’t believe it’s gonna happen.

Lone Hike, I totally agree with your comments which are well structured with excellent points.

I travel to the States from the UK each year to visit your wonderful National Parks. I think I've seen about 80 or so Parks and Monuments over the course of maybe a year's travel in total. Not once have I ever felt threatened, intimidated, suspicious or otherwise alarmed by my fellow park-goers. To be honest in all that travel around your country I haven't ever felt any of the above emotions outside the parks either. I'm sure I could if I wandered to the wrong places, but I try to be a sensible traveller.

So, then, as an outsider, I can't see any need to have a concealed firearm about my, or anyone else's person in a National Park. What would you use it for? How many people get murdered, raped or robbed inside the Park system each year? Would that figure be any lower if deadly weapons were allowed in? I really don't think it would and suspect it might even rise.

Looking in from afar the American attitude to guns really does seem very strange and very polarised. There seems to be very little middle-ground.

Well, there is a very simple rule. You may carry a weapon in those federal areas where you are allowed to hunt. And you are not allowed to carry it, where hunting is not permitted. If you have to think twice, in which category the National Parks fall, well - congratulations - you just qualified for a seat in the Senate.

You are correct, Robert. This is a law that must be changed. When folks are on vacation, especially they like to carry to protect their families, in car campgrounds in particular. Folks are quite vulnerable in their tents from all kinds of derelicts.

Professor Janiskee is right; this is important stuff. We hear lots of opinions on what the Park Service should do but this is widely recognized as one of the best and most authoritative analyses of THE LAW. Robin Winks was one of a kind, and an incredible asset to the NPS from academia (Yale). This is one of the most important articles in my library.

Kudos also to the George Wright Society, a terrific organization. I commend it to NPT readers. See www.georgewright.org. Come to one of the biennial conferences and see the intellectual vigor of the NPS.

J Longstreet
a national park superintendent

Perhaps this will cause a boom in the bullet-proof tent industry.

I've spent approaching 500 nights out in wilderness areas throughout the 48 states and a few places in southern Canada. I've never been in a survival situation where a deadly weapon would have been an effective solution to the problem. As far as I can recall, I've never even heard, second-hand from someone who was there, of a situation where a deadly weapon would have been the most effective solution to their predicament.

That doesn't mean such situations might not exist. But by several orders of magnitude, people more often meet unpleasant fates by hypothermia, and then less frequently, by drowning, suffocation, or falls. Attacks by animals and humans are much fewer by comparison. (My unquantified sources are a combination of anecdotal discussions with SAR experts, and frequent review of daily reports from various national parks.)
__________
The WildeBeat "The audio journal about getting into the wilderness"
10-minute weekly documentaries to help you appreciate our wild public lands.
A 501c3 non-profit project of Earth Island Institute.

Well, for those of you promoting guns in national parks for safety, here's a tidbit of information for you. Success in using bear spray as a deterrant to attacks from wildlife -- 94%; success in using guns as a deterrant from wildlife attacks: 60%. Any questions?

Further, how many people are threatened by others in National Parks? Not enough, if any, to allow the gunners in. I feel safer WITHOUT the guns thank you.

It would be nice to live in a Utopian society where all the bad people stay at home and we can count on individuals to live up to the social morals we hold dear to us. That would be beautiful. It would be nice if we could count on everyone to drink responsibly and not get behind a wheel of a car. It would be great if we didn't have to worry about a pervert putting an image of an erection in Disney movie just so he can laugh with his cartoonist buddies. It would be incredible if marijuana was used just for medicinal purposes (maybe we'd stop hearing about how it's better for clothing than cotton....LOL). Ah peace and love....it sounds great. It's also safe to assume that if someone wants to target children they will continually find places where children go (i.e. family vacation areas or maybe even a national park). A lot of people would assume that we have the second amendment so we can protect our homes from intruders but I highly doubt that Thomas Jefferson had a bunch of masked men enter his home looking for new stereos. More than likely, the writer and signers of the declaration intended we had the RIGHT to protect our "pursuit of happiness". At the time this was intended against Tyranny (a government that doesn't fear its people rules its people). Basically we have the right to own any weapon to compete against our own military so that if it were needed we could defend ourselves against our own government. So while it's funny to you that someone would protect their family in the realm of "PUBLIC PROPERTY"...and you use clever remarks about bears and cougars because you have seen then in the wild and feel all warm inside, to me it's a sad state of our government that our 2nd amendment right has been reduced to discussion point of where and when I have the right to have the ultimate ability to level the playing field with any "would-be evil doer". Here's a challenge...find the number of times individuals like Bruce or I (Concealed Carry Permit Holders) have used our weapons to hurt families. Don't be childish. It's time to look at the truth. Good people with guns don't make news. You are a product of modern media. What if you are wrong on guns? What if Bruce or I had our gun in a N.P. and saved you or your family from someone who intended you horrible harm? Should we go to jail? Should we have our gun taken? C'mon don't hide behind what sounds good at a dinner party.

I am a licensed Florida gun owner. There is no facility for checking my weapon when entering a local National Park. My choice is leaving the weapon at home (not an option) or locking it in my car. Another poor choice.

I like to think that medical doctors will take to heart the dictum “First, do no harm,” even though it is not part of the Hippocratic Oath (which new doctors don’t take, anyway). Similarly, I like to think that park rangers will abide by the dictum” First, love the parks,” even though they take no such formal vow when they don that flat brimmed hat. Chance exemplifies the “love the parks” spirit, and it warms my heart to know that he is preparing for a career in national park stewardship.