NationStates Jolt Archive

Apparently Senator Tom Coburn (R-OK) is proposing that visitors to National Parks be allowed to carry loaded guns:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/josh-sugarmann/want-loaded-guns-in-natio_b_85083.html

Colburn:
http://coburn.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=LatestNews.NewsStories&ContentRecord_id=08f98ce0-802a-23ad-457e-babbd44a228b

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Where do you stand on this?

If you touch the poll in the right places it will grow for you.

I've been in many National Parks. There is no need for guns -- in fact, it would increase the probability of an accidental (or not) shooting.

You're not allowed to hunt -- so what's the point?

I've been in many National Parks. There is no need for guns -- in fact, it would increase the probability of an accidental (or not) shooting.

You're not allowed to hunt -- so what's the point?



You might need to defend yourself, dur:rolleyes:

Honostly, this is an idiotic idea, that only this man could think up.

but Coburn says that there are increasing rates of violent crimes on national parks

INCREASING!

Ridiculous and wholely unnecessary. I'm with the Park Rangers on this one.

You are incredibly unlikely to ever be in a situation necessitating the use of a gun when trekking through a National Park.

Also, seeing other visitors strolling around with guns in the forest would ruin the atmosphere for me, personally as a trekker/hill climber/adventurer myself.

Not to mention the glaringly obvious fact that this would add a whole new level of difficulty for the Rangers to control poaching. Poachers would absolutely love this amendment if it came to pass. They can just stroll in with thier armaments, and if anyone asks, it's just for protection!

You might need to defend yourself, dur:rolleyes:

That's why there are Rangers all over, dur. :rolleyes:

I've never been to a national park, but I doubt a gun is necessary.

That's why there are Rangers all over, dur. :rolleyes:

Methinks he was being facetious.

That's why there are Rangers all over, dur. :rolleyes:

I know, I was being sarcastic. I was argeeing with you.


I dont even think Park Rangers are armed all the time (could be wrong though), so youd have an armed populace but unarmed law enforcement.

I know, I was being sarcastic. I was argeeing with you.


I dont even think Park Rangers are armed all the time (could be wrong though), so youd have an armed populace but unarmed law enforcement.

Apologies -- and yes, most times they don't seem to be -- though given some of the places they are (Yellowstone, for example) where there are large and potentially dangerous animals if provoked, they do have arms.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Park_ranger

For the love of... something! Guns at National Parks? WTH for? That's what Park Rangers are for. What? Are the afraid the bears are going to revolt and use AK-47s on the visitors?:confused:
I'm speechless...

Also, seeing other visitors strolling around with guns in the forest would ruin the atmosphere for me, personally as a trekker/hill climber/adventurer myself.

Not to mention the glaringly obvious fact that this would add a whole new level of difficulty for the Rangers to control poaching. Poachers would absolutely love this amendment if it came to pass. They can just stroll in with thier armaments, and if anyone asks, it's just for protection!


These two things are my biggest concern as well.

Not to mention the glaringly obvious fact that this would add a whole new level of difficulty for the Rangers to control poaching. Poachers would absolutely love this amendment if it came to pass. They can just stroll in with thier armaments, and if anyone asks, it's just for protection!
Yeah.

I would be more worried about getting lost or stepping on a poisonous snake than being eaten by a bear or wolf. So instead of a gun bring a cell phone with GPS.

but Coburn says that there are increasing rates of violent crimes on national parks

INCREASING!
From what? 0.1% to 0.2%?

That has to be about the most retarded proposal ever.

If I were out hiking or camping in a National Park the last thing I'd want is the knowledge that there are armed idiots out there who might shoot me when I go pee because they "heard something move behind that tree".

Also, in parks like Yellowstone the risk of poaching would be huge and you just know that people would be shooting the bears and bison you come across there if they came "too close" to the car or the hiking trail or whatever. Bears aren't usually supposed to be near where all the tourists are but sometimes they wander off and end up near the parkroads anyway. People just call the park rangers if that happens and they take care of it, transporting the bears far off back into the woods - but if people had guns to "protect themselves" you bet they'd shoot the bear because omg it's a bear!!1!1, no matter if it's only a young one that's just passing through or something.

Seriously, I'm baffled by how he even thought of this. Like, who even brought the issue of violent crime in National Parks and how it should be fought with carrying guns up to him?
You'd think it was the summer vacation and they ran out of issues, not the middle of a presidential nomination battle. Sheesh.

This is a terrible idea. Why, there out to be a law prohibiting people from carrying weapons on public or government land. And a law prohibiting people from speaking freely on government or public land. And a law prohibiting spitting on government or public land.

Don't you just hate that pesky constitution and all the rights it grants?

Evene if this law were passed I dobut that many people would bother bringing a gun on their vacation.

I'm fine with it

that's a 100% increase in crime!



so anyway, I think it's been suggested that he introduced it to force the Democrats into a gun debate during an election year.

Living in Scotland I'm baffled by the notion that anybody should feel the need to carry a firearm at any time, never mind when visiting national parks. :sniper:

Imagine poor old Yogi's surprise when upon pilfering that picnic basket he finds himself staring down both barrels of a shotgun!

Living in Scotland I'm baffled by the notion that anybody should feel the need to carry a firearm at any time, never mind when visiting national parks. :sniper:

Imagine poor old Yogi's surprise when upon pilfering that picnic basket he finds himself staring down both barrels of a shotgun!

Thats the problem here. Somebody says "Bear" and everybody thinks of Yogi. I think of "The Edge."

I do not want to have to defend myself with a sharp stick.

Living in Scotland I'm baffled by the notion that anybody should feel the need to carry a firearm at any time, never mind when visiting national parks. :sniper:

Imagine poor old Yogi's surprise when upon pilfering that picnic basket he finds himself staring down both barrels of a shotgun!
Not all brits and scots have been put under the pussification ray, check out the Home Gunsmith site for detailed instructions on how to make everything from shotgun pistols to SMGs.

I was argeeing with you.
One of the best typos I've ever run across!!!

It's the perfect mixture of agreeing and arguing!!! Fantastic. :D

If you outlaw guns in national parks, only Bigfoot will have guns. :eek:

Thats the problem here. Somebody says "Bear" and everybody thinks of Yogi. I think of "The Edge."

I do not want to have to defend myself with a sharp stick.

and there have been a few mountain lion incidents as well.

Thats the problem here. Somebody says “Bear” and everybody thinks of Yogi. I think of “The Edge.”
http://img159.imageshack.us/img159/4088/edgenewyear1kr7.jpg

I, too, would wield a shotgun in the face of the above.

...check out the Home Gunsmith site for detailed instructions on how to make everything from shotgun pistols to SMGs.
Yeah, home-made weapons sound soooooo safe.

Thats the problem here. Somebody says "Bear" and everybody thinks of Yogi. I think of "The Edge."

I do not want to have to defend myself with a sharp stick.

and there have been a few mountain lion incidents as well.
But that's nature being nature and isn't that the reason you went to a National Park in the first place?
If you want to completely rule out close encounters with wildlife, go to the zoo. And don't climb into the enclosures!

Personally, I think people should be allowed to carry a loaded firearm ANYWHERE (except places like schools, hospitals, etc).

National Parks got that thing called wilderness, and I'd feel much safer going into the woods armed. There could be bears, but perhaps even worse, there could be large venomous spiders.

When one is alone in the wilderness, secluded from society, one cannot rely on law enforcement personnel for protection. Instead, one must have an alternative means of self-defense; thus, it would be incumbent upon all hikers to carry a firearm in order to safeguard their own well-being. Whenever I see a family hiking without a single weapon amongst them, I cannot help but think that the children are being needlessly endangered by the reckless behavior of their parents. I applaud Coburn for his prudent assessment of the situation and his dedication to making national parks more amenable to children by ensuring that their guardians can shield them from peril.

If I hiked in national parks, I would probably want a firearm, because I'd be more worried about the 4 legged predators than the 2 legged ones. Of course, since I don't hike in national parks, this is a moot point for me. :p

If I hiked in national parks, I would probably want a firearm, because I'd be more worried about the 4 legged predators than the 2 legged ones. Of course, since I don't hike in national parks, this is a moot point for me. :p

If everyone who hiked in national parks could carry weapons willy nilly, there would be nearly 0 predators of the 4 legged kind, and more of the 2 legged variety. Why? For at least two reasons.

1: Poachers. As it is, any non-enforcement person with a gun in a national park can be assumed to be either a criminal, or a poacher. Enabling free gun carrying means you can't stop poachers until after the deed because they can always claim "it's for self defense. Them there five hundred rabbits, two dozen wolves and twenty bears were going to get me. So I shot them and skinned them."

2: Gun first! For every responsible and calm gun owner out there, there's likely a dozen or so "shoot first ask question later" types. In fact, some of the responses on this thread practically pigeonhole them as that sort of people who are more likely to cause a lot more damage than not through pure trigger happiness the moment they see a bear or other large animal. And you're going to let them into reserves like this? Might as well put vandals in an museum.

I'm actually surprised that guns are banned from national parks. For people who spend a lot of time in the wilderness, firearms are considered to be essential survival gear, at least in bear territory.

I'm actually surprised that guns are banned from national parks. For people who spend a lot of time in the wilderness, firearms are considered to be essential survival gear, at least in bear territory.

That's because they're national parks, they exist for conservation not so that some jumpy idiot can think that a bear is too close and angry and kill it when it's just strolling by minding it's own business.

state parks maybe, but not national.

If everyone who hiked in national parks could carry weapons willy nilly, there would be nearly 0 predators of the 4 legged kind, and more of the 2 legged variety.If that were so, then the vast majority of expansive public lands in the US that AREN'T national parks would be depopulated of game, but that hasn't happened.

1: Poachers. As it is, any non-enforcement person with a gun in a national park can be assumed to be either a criminal, or a poacher. Enabling free gun carrying means you can't stop poachers until after the deed because they can always claim "it's for self defense. Them there five hundred rabbits, two dozen wolves and twenty bears were going to get me. So I shot them and skinned them."Yet somehow there are plenty of places that allow guns where anti-poaching laws are adequately enforced.

2: Gun first! For every responsible and calm gun owner out there, there's likely a dozen or so "shoot first ask question later" types.Oh really, and how many gun owners do you know?

That's because they're national parks, they exist for conservation not so that some jumpy idiot can think that a bear is too close and angry and kill it when it's just strolling by minding it's own business.Oh, so requirements for field employees to carry firearms are unneeded?

Although the vast majority of bear-human encounters are peaceful (I hike a bit in the summer, alone and unarmed, and I'm not particularly in fear for my life - but I stick to the trails.), bears occasionally make unprovoked attacks on people and kill them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fatal_bear_attacks_in_North_America_by_decade

Some of those happened in National Parks.

Personally, I think people should be allowed to carry a loaded firearm ANYWHERE (except places like schools, hospitals, etc).

National Parks got that thing called wilderness, and I'd feel much safer going into the woods armed. There could be bears, but perhaps even worse, there could be large venomous spiders.

What you don't want to protect children or the sick? you know how many people DIE in schools and hospitals these days? Pussy. :p

What you don't want to protect children or the sick? you know how many people DIE in schools and hospitals these days? Pussy. :p

I propose giving guns to every child in school. That way they can protect themselves against perverts... teachers... mean lunch ladies... each other.... Spaceman Spiff.....

I propose giving guns to every child in school. That way they can protect themselves against perverts... teachers... mean lunch ladies... each other.... Spaceman Spiff.....

There should definitely be a panic box in every classroom with a shotgun in it so that people who want to shoot up the schools can only get off a few rounds. Should have some sort of sophisticated combination lock system on it.

Not to mention giving hospital patients grenades and rocket launchers for when a doctor tries some malpractice or the nurse brings hospital food.

There should definitely be a panic box in every classroom with a shotgun in it so that people who want to shoot up the schools can only get off a few rounds. Should have some sort of sophisticated combination lock system on it.

I would agree with you if I thought that in each classroom would be an adult who actually was trained in how to handle said shotgun. Knowing some of my colleagues, that might well constitute a bigger danger to the students!

Not to mention giving hospital patients grenades and rocket launchers for when a doctor tries some malpractice or the nurse brings hospital food.

Hospital food alone is worth a tasing, bro.

I had some surgery several years ago and those motherfuckers kept bringing me jello when I said I was a vegetarian, and they kept on bringing it even when I told them to stop several times. and then they brought me fucking BACON. I would have blown those fuckers' heads off, cut off a strip of their underflesh and fried it to a delicious crisp to see how THEY liked it.

Perhaps they were too ignorant to realize that gelatin comes from hooves and is therefore an animal product.

Not to mention giving hospital patients grenades and rocket launchers for when a doctor tries some malpractice or the nurse brings hospital food.I had some surgery several years ago and those motherfuckers kept bringing me jello when I said I was a vegetarian, and they kept on bringing it even when I told them to stop several times. and then they brought me fucking BACON. I would have blown those fuckers' heads off, cut off a strip of their underflesh and fried it to a delicious crisp to see how THEY liked it.

When one is alone in the wilderness, secluded from society, one cannot rely on law enforcement personnel for protection. Instead, one must have an alternative means of self-defense; thus, it would be incumbent upon all hikers to carry a firearm in order to safeguard their own well-being. Whenever I see a family hiking without a single weapon amongst them, I cannot help but think that the children are being needlessly endangered by the reckless behavior of their parents. I applaud Coburn for his prudent assessment of the situation and his dedication to making national parks more amenable to children by ensuring that their guardians can shield them from peril.

Hey look everybody, MTAE is back!

Great, so now instead of some school, we'll get a camping trip full of Boy Scouts shot up instead?

As soon as someone proves to me that you can't kill a bear with your bare hands, I'll concede the need for guns in national parks.

...I'll wait.

In 1982 the Reagan administration passed the law for all guns to be unloaded and unaccessible when they are transported through national park territory, ranger patrols and park manpower was sufficient and crime rates in national parks seem to have been as low as anywhere during the 90's, but it's not like the parks were unsafe the 70's either, if anything, packpacking was more popular then than it is now.

Since 9/11 though, park manpower has been moved from the rural parks to the national monuments and crime rates and assaults on rangers and assaults on people etc., seems to have gone up and the park rangers admit they are understaffed and unable to respond to these new problems, from the rapes in the Alaskan territories to the drug cartels in the border states in the southern parks... We don't even know the extent of the problem, assault rates are not compiled nationally.

The Forest Service does not know how many violent crimes are committed on federal land, because other law enforcement agencies that might handle certain investigations are not required to notify it, said John Twiss, the agency's director of law enforcement and investigations.

Webster supervises seven law enforcement rangers -- armed and commissioned officers -- in the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie and Olympic national forests. About 40 unarmed, forest protection officers with limited ticket-writing ability also work in those forests.

Webster said the law enforcement staffing is too low.

"If we could provide seven-day-a-week, 24-hour coverage, we'd stay busy," he said. But that staffing level is "not a reality. That's not going to happen. We can only put on the ground what we have the money to pay for."

Bush said North Cascades National Park is understaffed with eight law enforcement rangers. Ashe said Mount Rainier National Park was "significantly staffed" in the summer with six law enforcement rangers -- one on the upper mountain and five below.

Olympic National Park, which is much larger than Mount Rainier and with more roads than North Cascades, has 31 law enforcement rangers in the summer, spokeswoman Barbara Maynes said.

The parks also have non-commissioned, unarmed rangers; Mount Rainier, for instance, employs more than 30 during the summer.

Although violent crime is rare in North Cascades National Park, Bush said, "smuggling of people, goods, drugs, guns -- anything you can't go across the border and (declare) you have" -- has increased since the U.S. border has tightened in recent years.

At Mount Rainier, a common problem is property crimes, primarily car break-ins, committed by people with drug habits, Ashe said. He called the perpetrators a "parasitic influence" on the park.

"A good share of people who visit us either think or have the attitude that where the pavement ends, so do the rules," Webster said.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/277584_hikercrime14.html

Other stories
CRIME RATES TICK UP ACROSS NATIONAL PARKS
http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0808/p03s01-ussc.html

Norton Questions How Safe People are in National Parks
http://www.wtop.com/index.php?nid=25&sid=214218


The Forest Service does not know how many violent crimes are committed on federal land, because other law enforcement agencies that might handle certain investigations are not required to notify it, said John Twiss, the agency's director of law enforcement and investigations.

What's wrong with having a .40 S&W in your top pack pouch, available and yet not intimidating? Nothing.

I can imagine bringing a handgun if you're planning on overnighting for a while, not that I've ever done it (camped, or brought a gun, either one). If you're going to be in a remote place with a load full of expensive gear, then self defense is going to be an issue.

Similarly, if you're somewhere where bear attack is likely, you may want a rifle of a large enough caliber to put a bear down. I don't know much about bears, but I worked with a guy who had hunted a few while working in the petrochemical industry in Alaska, and I remember him saying that bear attack does happen, even if it's infrequent, and it's good to be prepared. And I guess a bear takes a *long* time to bleed out if you don't hit it with something big.

1: Poachers. As it is, any non-enforcement person with a gun in a national park can be assumed to be either a criminal, or a poacher. Enabling free gun carrying means you can't stop poachers until after the deed because they can always claim "it's for self defense. Them there five hundred rabbits, two dozen wolves and twenty bears were going to get me. So I shot them and skinned them."

Who on Earth would be poaching rabbits? Or, at the very least, going all the way to a National Park to poach them? Had I a gun and the will, I could bag a good half dozen just looking out my window right now.

That having been said, I'll admit I'm a little wary about having guns allowed in National Parks.

Looking over that list of bear killings, only five since Jan. 2000 seem to have happened in National Parks (well, technically, only two in a National Park -- and those two were seasoned experts doing a documentary on bears -- two in National Forests, and another in a Wildlife Reserve.) Most of the deaths appear to occur in rural northern Canada and Alaska and at least two were hunters, who I presume were armed at the time (one was skinning an elk he had killed and the other's "gun was found nearby").

I'll admit that this isn't the most complete statistical analysis ever made and that I only looked over ~8 years, but the numbers seem to indicate that the chance of fatal bear attack in a National Park is no worse than anywhere else, including instances where the person killed was presumably armed. Further, I think it behooves us to remember that National Parks are first and foremost a vehicle for conservation, not recreation.

I'm all in favor of our constitutional rights, mind you. But just as we refrain from shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater, so should we refrain from coming into an area which has been set aside for the conservation of our vanishing wild areas and quiet contemplation of the natural world with guns cocked.

I agree it is a stupid idea to allow guns in national park, but what concerns me is how and why did he jump stright to guns. What about allowing teasers, mace, maybe even pocket knives? Also shouldn't we start petitions to stop this bad idea?

I'm all in favor of our constitutional rights, mind you. But just as we refrain from shouting 'fire!' in a crowded theater, so should we refrain from coming into an area which has been set aside for the conservation of our vanishing wild areas and quiet contemplation of the natural world with guns cocked.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that certain modern conveniences make the enjoyment of the wilderness suffer, e.g. snowmobiles in Yellowstone. The argument there was that they detracted from the overal atmosphere and affected others' enjoyment of the same, and that's probably true. However, I'm not sure I can see how having a rifle with you would damage the scenery in a similar way. I suppose a gun-phobic suburbanite might get queasy at seeing a firearm, but if you're going someplace where you're at least possibly prone to attack from wildlife, whether bears, wolves (etc.) then you ought to at least be able to protect yourself, I should think.

I'm sympathetic to the idea that certain modern conveniences make the enjoyment of the wilderness suffer, e.g. snowmobiles in Yellowstone. The argument there was that they detracted from the overal atmosphere and affected others' enjoyment of the same, and that's probably true. However, I'm not sure I can see how having a rifle with you would damage the scenery in a similar way. I suppose a gun-phobic suburbanite might get queasy at seeing a firearm, but if you're going someplace where you're at least possibly prone to attack from wildlife, whether bears, wolves (etc.) then you ought to at least be able to protect yourself, I should think.

It's not so much the physical presence of the gun, I think, as the fact that the sort of people this law envisions using guns to protect themselves in National Parks have neither the training nor the instincts to use it responsibly and effectively. I've been reading more over that list of fatal bear attacks and it turns out one man was not only armed with a rifle at the time of his attack, but shot twice and hit the bear once. He still died. As he was hiking a trail in Alaska at the time with a rifle, I assume he was at least a reasonably seasoned outdoorsman. I simply can't imagine your average tourist doing any better with a handgun and, moreover, I fear that they would constitute a physical danger to themselves and others.

As for wolf attacks, again assuming that Wiki is a reasonably decent source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans#List_of_fatal_wolf_attacks), it seems that most fatal attacks occur in central asia, with only one fatal wolf attack in North America over the last ten years. Going back to 1922, there seem to have only been six fatal wolf attacks in North America, with two of the instances occurring on children living in a house that kept a wolf as a pet.

In conclusion, I do not think that the danger of wildlife attack necessitates the risk of allowing untrained, unseasoned tourists into a wilderness area with firearms.

I've been in many National Parks. There is no need for guns -- in fact, it would increase the probability of an accidental (or not) shooting.

You're not allowed to hunt -- so what's the point?

No point from what I can tell. Coburn was, as is to be expected just playing the game of politics.

"Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) has circumvented a formal unanimous consent agreement to move a public lands bill, charging that Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) was using the deal to turn the bill into an election-year effort to score political points against Democrats."

It's not so much the physical presence of the gun, I think, as the fact that the sort of people this law envisions using guns to protect themselves in National Parks have neither the training nor the instincts to use it responsibly and effectively. I've been reading more over that list of fatal bear attacks and it turns out one man was not only armed with a rifle at the time of his attack, but shot twice and hit the bear once. He still died. As he was hiking a trail in Alaska at the time with a rifle, I assume he was at least a reasonably seasoned outdoorsman. I simply can't imagine your average tourist doing any better with a handgun and, moreover, I fear that they would constitute a physical danger to themselves and others.

As for wolf attacks, again assuming that Wiki is a reasonably decent source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans#List_of_fatal_wolf_attacks), it seems that most fatal attacks occur in central asia, with only one fatal wolf attack in North America over the last ten years. Going back to 1922, there seem to have only been six fatal wolf attacks in North America, with two of the instances occurring on children living in a house that kept a wolf as a pet.

In conclusion, I do not think that the danger of wildlife attack necessitates the risk of allowing untrained, unseasoned tourists into a wilderness area with firearms.

You realize that we basically exterminated the wolves, and that they've only come back in any significant number recently, right? ;) In fact, the radio mentioned just today that the Gray Wolf was just taken off the endangered list recently - we're up to 1500 in Yellowstone. However, I'm in agreement that attacks are and probably will stay quite rare. The need for a gun will accordingly be quite rare. The need for a gun will remain absolutely essential in rare instances, which I think leaves the allowance of them on the table. Perhaps visitors declaring guns would be given additional instruction of some kind, to help amateurs know a bit about safety and animal behavior. I'm sure some sort of education might be made available, though hunters aren't ordinarily uneducated - the few who still hunt generally learned from a family member and are normally experienced, even if their number drops each year.

I certainly hope that any hunters reading this aren't of the impression that I consider them a danger to innocent bystanders -- that certainly wasn't my intent =P. The ones I'm concerned about, as you mentioned, are those who can't tell a muledeer from a grizzly. I'm not sure that a five-minute lecture from a ranger and a pamphlet at the front gate are quite enough to prepare someone from downtown New York on 'sounds you'll hear and shapes you'll see at night in Yellowstone', nor am I convinced that the gun which would be packed by an average tourist would be near enough to protect them from bear attack -- though I do remain positive that it remains an unacceptable threat to random passerbys and random wildlife.

As for wolves, I am quite aware that their reintroduction is recent, which is why I consider the fact that we've apparently had fewer wolf attacks since 2000 than we did in the late '70s/early '80s a good sign. =P

(I should also mention that the wolf attack in the '00s, which it was a rare wild wolf attack, also took place in northern-ish Canada, where the wolves never disappeared. It's therefore unwise to tie it into wolf reintroduction programs in the United States.)

If that were so, then the vast majority of expansive public lands in the US that AREN'T national parks would be depopulated of game, but that hasn't happened.

In terms of game abundance comparison, it has.


Oh really, and how many gun owners do you know?


Wrong sort of question to ask. The right question is how many people who are prone to overreact when encountering large predators do you know?

There should definitely be a panic box in every classroom with a shotgun in it so that people who want to shoot up the schools can only get off a few rounds. Should have some sort of sophisticated combination lock system on it.

I can see the headlines now

"Thieves break into school. Make off with 30 shotguns and 400 rounds of ammunition."

I certainly hope that any hunters reading this aren't of the impression that I consider them a danger to innocent bystanders -- that certainly wasn't my intent =P. The ones I'm concerned about, as you mentioned, are those who can't tell a muledeer from a grizzly. I'm not sure that a five-minute lecture from a ranger and a pamphlet at the front gate are quite enough to prepare someone from downtown New York on 'sounds you'll hear and shapes you'll see at night in Yellowstone', nor am I convinced that the gun which would be packed by an average tourist would be near enough to protect them from bear attack -- though I do remain positive that it remains an unacceptable threat to random passerbys and random wildlife.

As for wolves, I am quite aware that their reintroduction is recent, which is why I consider the fact that we've apparently had fewer wolf attacks since 2000 than we did in the late '70s/early '80s a good sign. =P

(I should also mention that the wolf attack in the '00s, which it was a rare wild wolf attack, also took place in northern-ish Canada, where the wolves never disappeared. It's therefore unwise to tie it into wolf reintroduction programs in the United States.)

I wasn't trying to compare our wolf population to Canada's - just noting that the likelihood of conflict is still there and possibly increasing.

Ultimately, I don't think many people are going to want to bring guns either way, and it's probably true that Coburn is just making waves for the sake of politics. However, if some people are more comfortable or are reassured by having certain sorts of firearms, then I don't see it being a problem. So long as it's clear that they're accountable for any use of those implements, then they should be free to bring them. Other regulations could apply, and hunting licenses might be required. That's my gut impression, as a non-hunter and infrequent park-goer, at least. :p

I can see the headlines now

"Thieves break into school. Make off with 30 shotguns and 400 rounds of ammunition."

Heh. My dad and some of his friends used to store their shotguns in their school lockers for after-class hunting, part of the year. This would've been the 1950's. Different world. :p

Ultimately, I don't think many people are going to want to bring guns either way, and it's probably true that Coburn is just making waves for the sake of politics. However, if some people are more comfortable or are reassured by having certain sorts of firearms, then I don't see it being a problem. So long as it's clear that they're accountable for any use of those implements, then they should be free to bring them. Other regulations could apply, and hunting licenses might be required. That's my gut impression, as a non-hunter and infrequent park-goer, at least. :p

I'd certainly feel better about it if hunter licenses or another sort of stringent regulation were applied. That would reduce the risk of gun-related accidents to be closer to the risk of wolf or bear attack. There remains the danger of poaching, but I'm frankly ignorant as to how big of a threat that is. (I'd worry, for instance, about letting someone into KNP or Meru with an elephant gun, but I don't know how big the problem is here in the states).

In terms of game abundance comparison, it has.Source please. Show me that non-park wild lands that aren't being exploited for natural resources have significantly less healthy populations of wildlife than national parks to the extent that it poses ecological risks. That should be a more reasonable bar for you to hit than the assertion that game populations would go to "nearly 0".

Wrong sort of question to ask. The right question is how many people who are prone to overreact when encountering large predators do you know?No, RIGHT sort of question to ask. You're the one who made the ludicrous ten-to-one claim. Defend it. Cite a source. Put up or shut up.

could you just call the correct authorities? (http://youtube.com/watch?v=A_YgupUZNdw)

Source please. Show me that non-park wild lands that aren't being exploited for natural resources have significantly less healthy populations of wildlife than national parks to the extent that it poses ecological risks. That should be a more reasonable bar for you to hit than the assertion that game populations would go to "nearly 0".


Google fails me in terms of raw data in this matter. So I'll mark this one down as inconclusive.


No, RIGHT sort of question to ask. You're the one who made the ludicrous ten-to-one claim. Defend it. Cite a source. Put up or shut up.

You do know what hyperbole is don't you? And it was a dozen, not ten.

But this should be a simpler ratio. A comparison of total hunting licenses versus total firearms licenses. This would at least provide a base estimate of how many people are somewhat acquainted with wildlife and being in the wild as opposed to those who have guns, but not the aforementioned experience.

Unfortunately, I cannot find any official numbers for total hunting licenses issued versus total firearms licenses, so we'll have to go with what I can dig up.

http://en.allexperts.com/q/Hunting-1633/number-hunters.htm

So 23 to 43 million hunters. This is a rough estimate only.

http://www.ncjrs.org/txtfiles/165476.txt

This puts 192 million firearms. Not licenses, granted, but we can safely assume the number of owners is less than 192 million since there's at least more than one person who owns two or more firearms, but for simplicities sake, we'll take 42 million firearms off the list for the multiple gun owners.

So at 43M hunters to 150M firearms, that puts it at a 1 to 2 ratio.