With all the debate lately over whether visitors should be allowed to carry weapons in national parks, much has been said about the need for protection against wild animals, bears in particular. Well, studies show bear spray is a much more effective deterrent than a speeding bullet.
Evidence of human-bear encounters even suggests that shooting a bear can escalate the seriousness of an attack, while encounters where firearms are not used are less likely to result in injury or death of the human or the bear. While firearms can kill a bear, can a bullet kill quickly enough -- and can the shooter be accurate enough -- to prevent a dangerous, even fatal, attack?
The question is not one of marksmanship or clear thinking in the face of a growling bear, for even a skilled
marksman with steady nerves may have a slim chance of deterring a bear attack with a gun. Law
enforcement agents for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have experience that supports this reality --
based on their investigations of human-bear encounters since 1992, persons encountering grizzlies and
defending themselves with firearms suffer injury about 50% of the time. During the same period, persons
defending themselves with pepper spray escaped injury most of the time, and those that were injured
experienced shorter duration attacks and less severe injuries.
That snippet was taken from a report prepared by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. You can find the entire document attached below.
Comments
You people amaze me. I do NOT have to justify my NEED to have my firearm. YOU have to justify why YOU think it is OK for you try to strip me of my Constitutional RIGHT !!
Fred, "you people amaze me". What a trite statement that lacks substance of thought. Fred, why are you so consumed on this gun issue, as if your the chief spokesman for the NRA. Nobody is taking away your constitutional right to own a gun. It's your constant whining that puts this gun issue into a mode of political firebranding against those who have the slightest distaste for guns and gun violence. We know it's your damn right to own a handgun..etc... I'm tired of you being a professional month piece for the NRA and your constant tirade that were taking away your "constitutional right" to own a gun. Nonsense! Now, get on with your life!!
Can you carry a gun in the Supreme Court building? No! Can you carry a gun in other government buildings? No! Can you carry a gun in airports? No. Can you carry a gun on board airplanes? No. Can you carry a gun on school campuses? No. Can you carry a gun in police stations? No. Can you carry a gun in bars? Not in many states. Not loaded, not unloaded. Not cased, not packed away in most of these places. Can you have a gun in a National Park? YES! It simply has to be unloaded and packed away. Why the obsession with National Parks, one of the safest places you could find yourself? No one is going to take your gun away from you at the gates of a National Park! You will simply be asked to unload it and pack it away. In most of these other places your gun WILL be taken away from you and likely you WILL go to jail.
I have a Constitutional right to freedom of speech, yet I can be arrested for yelling, "FIRE!" in a crowded theater; for threatening the President of the United States, or for spouting obscenities in public.
In the recent Supreme Court decision regarding handguns in DC, Judge Scalia said nothing in the ruling should "cast doubt on long-standing prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons or the mentally ill, OR LAWS FORBIDDING THE CARRYING OF FIREARMS IN SENSITIVE PLACES SUCH AS SCHOOLS AND GOVERNMENT BUILDINGS." I would submit that our National Park Service is charged with protecting our most "sensitive" historical and ecological places. That our parks represent to the world peace, conservation, and all of the best that human beings in general, and Americans in particular, can achieve. As such I would suggest that loaded firearms are incongruous with that representation.
"I do NOT have to justify my NEED to have my firearm." I disagree. In most states you need to acquire a permit to carry a concealed weapon, and by applying for that permit you are "justifying" your "need" to carry a firearm.
As Judge Scalia wrote, the justices in the majority "are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country" and believe the Constitution "leaves the District of Columbia a variety of tools for combating that problem, INCLUDING SOME MEASURES REGULATING HANDGUNS."
Why do the Park Rangers need to carry handguns? They don't have a need too if they're not as effective on bears and the Rangers (assuming that they are people too) have a higher chance of hurting themselves. Furthermore, as "Frank N" points out
and since you only have a 1 in 1.9 million chances of being injured by a bear then why the need for bear spray? Just think of the amount of steel that goes into producing each can not to mention most bear spray is oil-based.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service spends more time managing people then it does the fish and game.
Actually thousands of people hike in Yellowstone every year without carrying bear spray (many families with young children), while thousands of others that hike with it never use it. I started carrying it several years ago at the insistence of my kids. I never felt the need for it when I didn't have it, and never have since I've been carrying it. I have been hiking/packing Yellowstone for over forty years (as well as Glacier, Canada and your state). Sometimes I feel a little silly with my spray dangling from my waist as eight and ten year old kids run by me on the trail with their parents, all completely unarmed. Guns and bear spray are the same. They are both like booze to an alcoholic. They simply give a false sense of bravery and security. The best thing to carry regarding safety is common sense. If you don't have that, no gun or spray in the world is going to help you in the back country. In the time it takes to read THIS sentence, you would get your first look at a charging bear and it could be on top of you. Time's up. Did you get that gun or spray out? Did you have time to aim and fire ACCURATELY? At least with spray you don't have to be accurate. The number one cause of death in Parks is accidents (with drowning leading the list in the back country).
A friend of mine carries one of those air horns they use at basketball games. Just a small one, fits in his pocket. He claims to have turned a charging bison with the thing. I believe him!
Rangers carry guns because they are police officers. Poachers aren't interested in going along just because the ranger asks nice. There are crimes in National Parks. Just very,very very little violent crime involving visitors.
I'll say it again. If you are that worried about violent crime in National Parks, you have no business even being outside.
So why does the sound of the spray scare off the bear... but not the sound of the gun? It sounds like you have it in your mind guns are bad no matter what. Don't make yourself sound so silly.
I am not as concerned about bears as I am about the possibility of some deranged maniac out to do harm to me or some other innocent person(s) who are out enjoying the great outdoors. While crimes such as robbery, rape and murder are more prevalent in the cities they do occur in national parks (wilderness areas) not your national monument type areas. A person with a concealed weapons license isn't going to bother anyone, unless you are the deranged maniac out to hurt someone. No one ever thinks it will happen to them, but violent crime does happen. All the liberal mind anti gun sentiment in the world will not change anything. I have never seen a ranger off the asphalt in a national park. They won't get to you until after you have been victimized. So to all the anti gunners out there who have never had the the proper positve education about firearms and probably never served this great nation in the armed forces maybe you can run and get away from the thug. Hope you don't run into a bear during your getaway, if you are so lucky.
Dear Armed and proud: Please remember that many (perhaps most?) who oppose concealed carry in the national parks are not "anti-gun." Take me for instance. I've owned and used guns for going on sixty years now. There's probably more firepower in my closet (properly secured, of course) than in yours, and unless you are exceptionally good, I am a better marksman and wingshot than you are (practice, practice, practice). I have never harmed myself or another human being with a weapon, accidentally or otherwise, and I trained my son to be just about the most careful hunter and responsible gun owner there ever was. My point here is that you need to be more careful when you sling those "anti-gun" remarks around. You may be offending some people you shouldn't want to.