Legal Carry In National Parks! Feel Safer?

Something like this does not worry me in the least. The crooks always had the firearms, looking for an opportunity to commit crimes. Now the law abiding citizen is able to carry.

Crime or not, I always wondered what someone was supposed to do in the event of a bear attack...call 911?

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=360792

 

A lots of us (including me) have been keeping firearms in our coaches for many years and no not throw them away when going into a national park. I carry a Kel-Tec 380 Auto in my truck and a Mossberg 500 short barrel pistol grip 12 gauge in my coach. They are out of sight but available. I have seen surveys indicating that about half of the RV'ers do similarly. I have a concealed carry permit that is good in 30 states. I don't flash them around and very rarely actually carry the weapons. I have he weaons wjere they are quickly available.

 

QUOTE(NorthernIllinoisPlumber @ Feb 22 2010, 09:10 PM) [snapback]21034[/snapback]

Something like this does not worry me in the least. The crooks always had the firearms, looking for an opportunity to commit crimes. Now the law abiding citizen is able to carry.

Crime or not, I always wondered what someone was supposed to do in the event of a bear attack...call 911?

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=360792


If you are carrying a handgun and are attacked by a bear, I am betting on the bear. Anything less than a 44 magnum will not even faze an enraged grizzly. Even with a hand cannon, the odds of hitting an 800 lb bear in a vital area is almost nil. Bears are all fat, bone and muscle. Hit any of those items and you will only make him madder. Even a direct hit in the heart will not stop a bear moving at 40 miles an hour directly towards you. It is not like on TV, they do not stand up, raise their arms and roar before charging. They just accelerate like a formula one racecar. What carrying a firearm will do is make it much more dangerous to hike the back country of Yellowstone, Grand Teton, Glacier and the like. Someone else on the trail will hear you snapping twigs, think you are a bear and shoot you out of irrational fear. It is an ill conceived ruling that is being pushed for a greater agenda. It will not make you safer in a National Park, but it does tweak the gun control activists in a very public way which is why gun proponents pushed so hard.

 

I'm not too concerned about a bear attack. They are pretty rare. What is not rare is the growing number of murders and assaults in our National Parks. There has also been an increase in gang activity within the parks. All it takes is a simple search on the internet and you can see the increase in crime within the parks.
Those of you that like to travel with the Summer crowds may not feel the need to arm yourself however those that travel during the Winter, when crowds and Rangers are scarce, may want to carry your own protection. To me it is no different than carrying a spare tire. I hope I never have to use it, but if I do, it is available. I received my firearm training in the military and I feel that anyone that considers carrying a weapon get professional training to understand the safety aspects of your choice.

 

Hi,

The new rule makes me feel considerably less safe. I'm very disappointed.

 

From the article:
The National Park Service said there were 3,760 reported major crimes, including five homicides and 37 rapes, in 2008, the most recent year for which data was available.

This is an appalling statistic. I guess we will see in a few years whether this new rule has lowered, or increased, the amount of crime on our National Parks.

 

QUOTE(pianotuna @ Feb 23 2010, 07:36 AM) [snapback]21042[/snapback]

The new rule makes me feel considerably less safe. I'm very disappointed.



I truly respect your opinion and concern, but I would ask if you have been feeling safer in a National Park or a US Forest Park?
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having volunteered in both, I know that Federal parks do not have a gun ban while National parks did. Now they are on the same page law abiding citizens can go back to observing the state laws that pertain to those facilities.

Contrary to some anti-gun advocates opinions, not all gun owners are carrying. Federal and state laws provide for, as it should be and as rgatijnet stated, “your choice” to have a handgun whether or not you carry it on your person. My choice is to also have fire extinguishers in my home, RV, and autos. They too are a common sense safeguard and, like any rational person, I hope never have to use them either.

I’ll echo the opinion that proper professional training and obtaining the proper permit is important. It is paramount to gun safety and it will educate about the differences in state laws so that one can be on the legal side of them. And while I’m on the pulpit, if you own any type firearm, whether they are locked up or not, please teach the kids about gun safety. They don’t know to avoid danger -in any form - unless they are taught.

 

The National Park Service said there were 3,760 reported major crimes, including five homicides and 37 rapes, in 2008, the most recent year for which data was available. The agency does not note which crimes involve firearms. Crime is down across the system's parks, according to park service spokesman David Barna.

National parks hosted about 275 million visitors in 2008, the agency said.

Out of 275 million visitors you are going to have some crime. That being said and having lived in the Colorado Rocky Mountains above 8000 feet for 23 years I can tell you that all gun owners are not all there. In the Crystal River Valley near Carbondale Co the ranchers paint COW on their cows and Horse on the horses with daglo orange paint during hunting season. They tie surveyors tape to the manes and tail and still get some animals killed each year. I had a friend who owned a meat processing plant near Rifle Co. and you should have heard the stories he told. On guy brought in a mule that he had been driving around town with it draped over the hood of his truck all day. My friend asked him what he wanted to do with it and the guy said process it. My friend asked him what he thought that was and he replied a mule deer. My friend told him to go find out who owned the mule and pay him for it. Guns are only as safe as the person using them.

 

The only persons that a gun ban effects is the LEGAL user.

The person, bent on illegal activity, will not be effected by a gun ban.

Politicans are famous for calling for a "level playing field", well, to allow persons that have passed the requirements of thier home state or the state where the park is located, to be issued a carry permit, are doing just that, making the playing field level.

I am not so concerened about an 800 pound bear, but I am concerned about the 200 pound criminal.



QUOTE(pianotuna @ Feb 23 2010, 10:36 AM) [snapback]21042[/snapback]

Hi,

The new rule makes me feel considerably less safe. I'm very disappointed.

 

I think the simple truth is that the new law does not change much. People who had been carrying firearms in their vehicle wil continue to do so. As far as carrying them on your person, there we will be a small percentage of folks doing that in public areas, but not too many. There will be a higher percentage of people carrying in the back woods. The crooks who carried before will continue to, but now will be moe afraid somebody will shoot back. I read on one forum where a woman said she was now afraid to go to a national park. Give me a break. Some of the places we go to, i do feel safer with a pistol in the truck. The chances of me actually have to use it are extremely rare. Reminds me, I need to get to the range before our May trip.

 

Having spent 23+ years in the military and having used a weapon on numerous occasions, I'm reasonably familiar with the use of guns for self-defense. That being said, I disagree with "civilians" carring weapons. I know all the arguments for carrying and am smart enough to realize that my opinion won't change anyone's mind who is convinced they need a weapon. Nor will I ever rail against carrying for the same reason - it's like peeing against the wind. To those who have had the training, good for you. For those who haven't, you are the one's who scare me. Your saber rattling could go too far and that, combined with testosterone is dangerous. I understand this is not a perfect world, but I'm opposed to civilians owning weapons in most cases and against them carrying in almost every case, other than being used for hunting. And yes, I do own a weapon myself.

 

QUOTE(abbygolden @ Feb 24 2010, 10:57 AM) [snapback]21061[/snapback]

Having spent 23+ years in the military and having used a weapon on numerous occasions, I'm reasonably familiar with the use of guns for self-defense. That being said, I disagree with "civilians" carring weapons. I know all the arguments for carrying and am smart enough to realize that my opinion won't change anyone's mind who is convinced they need a weapon. Nor will I ever rail against carrying for the same reason - it's like peeing against the wind. To those who have had the training, good for you. For those who haven't, you are the one's who scare me. Your saber rattling could go too far and that, combined with testosterone is dangerous. I understand this is not a perfect world, but I'm opposed to civilians owning weapons in most cases and against them carrying in almost every case, other than being used for hunting. And yes, I do own a weapon myself.



Sorry, but after my military enlistment I became a civilian.

 

an unarmed civilian is a SUBJECT.

QUOTE(abbygolden @ Feb 24 2010, 10:57 AM) [snapback]21061[/snapback]

Having spent 23+ years in the military and having used a weapon on numerous occasions, I'm reasonably familiar with the use of guns for self-defense. That being said, I disagree with "civilians" carring weapons. I know all the arguments for carrying and am smart enough to realize that my opinion won't change anyone's mind who is convinced they need a weapon. Nor will I ever rail against carrying for the same reason - it's like peeing against the wind. To those who have had the training, good for you. For those who haven't, you are the one's who scare me. Your saber rattling could go too far and that, combined with testosterone is dangerous. I understand this is not a perfect world, but I'm opposed to civilians owning weapons in most cases and against them carrying in almost every case, other than being used for hunting. And yes, I do own a weapon myself.

 

QUOTE(rgatijnet @ Feb 25 2010, 09:06 PM) [snapback]21082[/snapback]

Sorry, but after my military enlistment I became a civilian.




Me too!!

 

QUOTE(NorthernIllinoisPlumber @ Feb 25 2010, 10:28 PM) [snapback]21084[/snapback]

Me too!!



Me, too, but I had the training to know how and when to handle guns. However, that's not my issue. My issue is that there are far too many people who feel that if they own a gun, it makes them invincible. It reminds me of the internet bully who always has the testosterone level too high and will hide behind his unalienable right to bear arms. We all have that right. It's just that there are many who abuse it. Again, however, I realize that my opinion runs counter to those who have responded to the OP. It's not a subject that I can change opinions, nor will I try.

 

QUOTE(NorthernIllinoisPlumber @ Feb 25 2010, 11:28 PM) [snapback]21084[/snapback]

Me too!!







Me three!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

The people that frighten me is tthe ones that carry a weapon/gun for defense and have no idea when or what they should do with it in a confrontation. The weapon itself is not intimidation enough to stop someone that is intent on harming you. It is a weapon for them to use against you if you hesitate, or present yourself in a manner that shows you have no idea what you are doing.
I have no problem with anyone carrying a weapon anywhere, IF it doesn't make them feel invincible, and they are the badest thing around. Presentation of confidence and being aware of your surroundings, is the best defense you will ever have.
If this is your situation or similar and response, carry a gun, if not don't carry.

TRUE STORY FROM...
"THE HOUSTON HERALD NEWSPAPER"
IN HOUSTON , TEXAS
MARCH 5th, 2009
~
Last Thursday Night Around Midnight, A Woman From Houston , Texas Was Arrested,
Jailed, And Charged With Manslaughter For Shooting A Man 6 Times In The Back
As He Was Running Away With Her Purse. ~


The Following Monday Morning,
The Woman Was Called In Front Of The Arraignment Judge, Sworn In,
And Asked To Explain Her Actions.
The Woman Replied, "I Was Standing At The Corner Bus Stop
For About 15 Minutes, Waiting For The Bus To Take Me Home After Work.
I Am A Waitress At A Local Cafe...
I Was There Alone, So I Had My Right Hand On My Pistol,
That Was In My Purse, That Was Hung Over My Left Shoulder.


All Of A Sudden I Was Being Spun Around Hard To My Left.
As I Caught My Balance, I Saw A Man
Running Away From Me With My Purse.
I Looked Down At My Right Hand And I Saw That My Fingers Were Wrapped Tightly
Around My Pistol. The Next Thing I Remember Is Saying Out Loud,
"No Way Punk! Your Not Stealing My Pay Check And Tips."
~ I Raised My Right Hand, Pointed My Pistol
At The Man Running Away From Me With My Purse,
And Squeezed The Trigger Of My Pistol 6 Times!
~
When Asked By The Arraignment Judge,
"Why Did You Shoot The Man 6 Times?
~
The Woman Replied Under Oath,


"Because, When I Pulled The Trigger The 7th Time, It Only Went Click."
~
The Woman Was Acquitted Of All Charges. She Was Back At Work, At The Cafe, The Next Day!



Now that's Gun Control.....

 

Nice story but let's stick with facts. Totally BS. These kinds of stories don't help either side and just show how gullible people are. How do I know this is a BS story? Anyone who has been involved in the criminal justice system (LEOs, attorneys, etc) will quickly pick up the points that prove the story was BS.
"The Following Monday Morning, The Woman Was Called In Front Of The Arraignment Judge, Sworn In, And Asked To Explain Her Actions. "
At arraignment there is nothing about the defendant explaining their actions. That's not what arraignment is. In fact, the defendant doesn't say anything about their actions. It's the time for the defendant to hear the charges against them.

"When Asked By The Arraignment Judge,
Why Did You Shoot The Man 6 Times? "
No judge is going to ask any defendant anything. That's not the judge's role at either arraignment or trial. Judges don't question the defendant. That's the job of the prosecutor and defendant's attorney. Totally BS.
Another reason it's BS...
"The Woman Was Acquitted Of All Charges. She Was Back At Work, At The Cafe, The Next Day!"
Arraignment has nothing to do with the acquittal. Arraignment is not the trial. Arraignment is when the defendant hears the formal charges against them. Evidence is not presented, witnesses do not testify, judges do not make rulings. It's about being arraigned on the charges.
Another reason it's BS? That story has been around for at least 40 years.

 

As I, and obviously others have done, Googled for the March 5, 2009 article in the Houstoin Herald, and it was immediately obvious that there was no such article, at least for that day. I, too, believe I've seen variants of this "article" before in other places at other times years ago. Perhaps you got the date wrong?

 

Snopes claims it's false.