I do find it funny that every discussion of guns on SD ends up the exact same way without question… A distinct line drawn between pro-gunners and anti-gunners. Predictability is what we’re after, right? 
You haven’t read all the posts in this threadm have you? Naughty naughty, Brandon.
I have to agree with that, mangeorge. The thread got a bit heated, but I think everyone has been able to discuss the issue pretty well, on the whole, without devolving into a “gun grabber!” vs. “cro-magnon!” screaming match.
I once had an 18 wheel flatbed hauling baled hay loose his load in front of me. It was on HWY 99, passing through Bakersfield.
Imagine about a million or so of 110 lb footballs playing dodge-em with you at 70 mph, many of them bursting.
There were no video cameras then, but I wished I had one anyway.
Wish I had a 12 ga. I’d a shot them varmits, one and all. 
The part about the bales is true. Had to get on-topic.
You’ve obviously never had any firsthand experience with a Park concessionaire. Of all the two-legged varmints that you are apt to encounter in a National Park, by far the most dangerous are the concession employees. They’re not going to mug you on a trail, but they will steal everything they can from your cabin when you’re not there. How do they get in? They have the keys—they work in housekeeping. Don’t their supervisors keep an eye on them? No, because they’re the ones doing it. They also sell drugs, and you bet your bottom dollar they have guns. They all have guns, sometimes sawed-off shotguns and other illegally modified weapons.
I find that many of the people who oppose lawfully-carried guns in national parks not only know very little about guns, they also know very little about national parks.
I hesitate to tell this story because of a) its anecdotal nature, and b) because it could come off like something I’m pulling out of my ass to prove a point, but I guess I’ll go ahead and share. Scout’s honor–it’s true.
When I was an undergrad, I majored in English and double-minored in religion and psychology. I had a phenomenal Intro to Psych professor, Dr. Robert Benefield, whose class was a lot tougher, according to those in the know, than some of the other profs. He was the type of guy that gave insanely difficult exams, but actually taught you the material–and in an often funny, always interesting, way.
So, after that class, I signed up for a couple of other classes that he taught–neurological (biological) psychology as a senior, and, before that, a course called Behavior Modification. It dealt a lot with reinforcement, shaping, things like that. Dr. Benefield had worked for many years as a counselor for troubled teens, as well as with severely developmentally disabled folks, and his stories were always good.
But senior year, in bio psych, was the first time I ever heard him talk about having a gun to his head. I can’t be sure it was in a national park, but it was a park in Arkansas, up in the “mountains.” (Mountains being a relative term for the Ozarks.) I believe, though I’m not 100% sure, that he went up there after his first wife died. Sort of a Zen thing. Well, he’d left his campsite for a hike, and when he returned there was a Bad Dude there. The Bad Dude had a gun–Dr. B was unarmed.
I don’t recall if he told us what the motive was for this guy…I vaguely recall it being a drugs/money thing, but I could be wrong. I do know that the guy had Dr. B kneel down on the ground and then put a handgun to his head.
Dr. B, scared out of his wits but oddly not terrified, talked to this man. As a Christian and as a psychologist. I don’t know what he said, but the guy eventually left.
I really don’t do the story justice. And of course it’s an exceedingly rare thing, but I’ve been thinking about it for a while due to the original subject matter of the thread.
Anyone fired the new Ruger LCR? I think you could take it to a federal park. 
Peace,
mangeorge
Yeah, for attacking chipmunks. I do have the LCP. It’s a great BUG.
I can’t speak for anyone else, but I’ve spent a lot of time in NPS “units,” over 40 of them by a quick, rough count, plus a rafting/hiking trip in ANWR. In the larger parks, the bulk of my time was spent in the back country - I don’t think I’ve ever camped in the “car camping” areas. But in the smaller places, I was doing what everyone else was - parking the car and wandering into the visitor center, doing some day-hiking, and so on.
Add to that a bunch of state parks, a lot of visits to Indian reservations (geez, talk about remote!), and some Canadian parks.
I’ve camped in grizzly bear country (alone for a week) and Alaskan brown bear territory (paw-prints the size of a dinner plate in the sand next to the tent), have come face-to-face with black bears (hell, I get those in my own yard these days), and have gotten too close to a huge bull moose.
I know what it’s like out there.
Just wanted to add here – I spent most of 2008 on the AT, and while I never came close to needing a gun, there were several times when it occurred to me that I was well out of the reach of any outside help should someone with bad intentions come along. I would have liked it very much if there were a handful of concealed-carry licensees around.
You were also out of the reach of outside help should you suddenly suffer from a cerebral hemorrhage. Did you think you needed to have a neurosurgeon with you? You were also out of reach of outside help should you be attacked by a swarm of rattle snakes. Did you think you needed large doses of antivenom with you?
The point, of course, is that the chances of running into someone with “bad intentions” on the AT are so remote, they’re not really worth spending much time thinking about.
Most people, it seems, are very poor judges of relative risk. You were almost certainly in far more danger driving your car to the trailhead than you were at any time on the trail.
You may want to check your reading, champ; I’m pretty sure I said “I never came close to needing a gun” but that I wouldn’t have minded at all if others had them (actually, I think I know one who did). I never needed antivenom, but I certainly would have liked it if someone else had some.
Actually, there was in fact one guy who was arrested on the trail because he was making violent threats at people. (Luckily, this was in Shenandoah, so Rangers were handy; not all parts of the trail are so accessible). I also know people who had food stolen from them by bears that showed no fear of humans. I imagine they would have been a little relieved had someone in the shelter had a gun, even if they didn’t use it.
Some people, it seems, are very poor readers and inclined to strawman.
I have a problem with this. It does not stop Bad Guys. All it would do, is create a whole new class of “criminals”, who had not been criminals before such a law. It also punishes people who have never committed a crime. It assumes everyone is guilty, as a default condition. It would do nothing about actually disarming criminals. I don’t believe any group of law abiding citizens should have a right or a privilege taken away just because of a few assholes (the bad guys) don’t know how to act. If it’s only a matter of making things easier for the police, then there are a lot of things we can do. We can get rid of the requirement to have arrest warrants. We can do away with requirements for probable cause and/or evidence. We can get rid of the whole presumption of innocence.
You are assuming all people are guilty, before the fact.
“police don’t have to wait for you to do something bad”
Do you have any idea what a bad idea that is?
Or, I guess, dragged from your home. What a utopia!
There is a really simple solution here. Early Out and Brown Eyed Girl simply need not own any guns if they don’t want any. Those of us who do carry concealed will continue to do so as we have all along.
There is enough crime in parks to warrant the minimal effort involved in carrying a concealed hangun, IMO. Wild animal attacks are a non-issue. Everybody I know who has been attacked by an animal has been attacked by man’s best friend, the domestic dog.
A mid-size 9mm, .40 S&W, or .357 magnum in a decent holster on a good belt can be carried all day with zero inconvenience or discomfort. If I don’t need it, so what? If I do need it, I have it. I keep a blanket, water, and first aid kit in my car for the same kind of reasons.
If you folks (general you, not specifically early out you) arent worried about the rare random encounter with the “bad” guys, why for gods sake are you worried about the EVEN MORE RARE random encounter with a “bad” CHLer?
You can’t have it both ways and still make anysense that I can tell.
Are we to slide down that slippery slope to Required Gun Ownership, like that town in Georgia (and others) have? Shall we be mandated to post a sign on our homes stating that there are no guns in the home?
I guess I’ve been in too many gun debates. Both of these are results of debate. The first is fact and the latter has been proposed.
Generally, common sense is the rule. As it is, I have come to believe, in this law.
What you said was, “…there were several times when it occurred to me that I was well out of the reach of any outside help should someone with bad intentions come along.”
This is the strawman. You’re positing an occurrence that has almost no chance of happening. If someone else having a gun would have made you feel better, it would have been an entirely misplaced sense of well-being. Since the threat is well-nigh nonexistent, the “remedy” for it is unnecessary.
One guy. Out of how many? Conclusion: you’re safer on the AT than you are in any city in the world, or in most large towns. You don’t need protection in the parks.
ETA: You’re not allowed to shoot a bear because he’s stealing your food. You get out of his way, and say goodbye to your Twinkies.