The most dangerous thing you will ever meet on an isolated trail is another human being. As a woman that would love to prowl local trails on her own, I don't do it, because I live near Atlanta, and don't want to be a victim. Remember Meredith Emerson at Vogel State Park ? What about Jennifer Ewing on the Silver Comet Trail? All these ladies wanted was to use the parks THEY paid for with their tax dollars. They might both be alive if guns had been permitted.

The federal government has closed large parts of state parks out West because of the coyotes and drug traffickers, and rangers are murdered. Your government doesn't want you to be aware of these issues, but you CAN inform yourself via the internet. Usually the stories are on sites of local newspapers and television stations. Get informed!

I would like to use my parks more, and I think I could do it safely if I were permitted to carry a sidearm. If you believe these attacks are isolated, please check out this link on the Washington Post from yesterday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2008/07/08/DI200...

I am aware that guns can save lives, but they also take lives. I know that a lot of people like to say guns don't kill people, people kill people, but if the people didn't have guns there wouldn't be as many deaths. I am not saying people who work in bad areas shouldn't be able to carry concealed weapons for protection, but as a citizen with my own rights, I do not want them in National Parks. National Parks are not the most dangerous places, but if you want to be safe, don't travel alone, and travel smart, I do not feel a need to carry a gun in a National Park to protect myself.

Cate -

I'm also a nature lover. If you met me on the trail, you'd wouldn't know whether I was armed or not. After we parted ways, you'd probably think to yourself, "What a nice man". If you only knew. I feel sorry for you and your irrational fears. Good luck in our reality.

I am also a second amendment advocate. In addition, I am a woman and a concealed weapon permit holder. I respectfully disagree with you Sully and here is why.

As has always been my contention; issues are not usually caused by those who carry weapons legally. In order to get a concealed weapon permit, a criminal background check must be passed. Only law abiding citizens get concealed weapons permits.

A poacher, is not a law abiding citizen. True, it could be they have a weapon legally because they haven't gotten caught at their illegal activities. However, I think these people are fewer than those who have the right to carry a weapon because they obey the laws.

As you, yourself stated, "women hiking alone". Well, I'm considering going on a solitary vacation in about a month. I'd like to visit some of our National Parks, but frankly, I'm a bit uneasy about doing so. I'm not afraid of the animals; but, I am a bit fearful of the people I could possibly encounter. It's a sad reality, that a woman alone is an easy target, especially when we have no means of defense and are in the middle of nowhere.

I am the first person to hope I never, ever have to use my weapon. But I'd feel safer knowing I have it if I need it....and no, I wouldn't bother to shoot a bear with a 9mm.

As far as people feeling threatened when they come across someone with a gun. If it is a concealed weapon, it means it is not visible, so they wouldn't even know a person has one.

The weapon would only become visible if it was absolutely necessary to use it. That is part of the responsibility that comes along with the privilege of being able to carry one and this has nothing to do with a political victory, it has to do with safety in parks and anywhere else I wander in this great country of ours.

Also, if people dont know who does or doesn't have a weapon, they may think twice before starting something. Meaning specifically, if I meet someone on a trail that has ill intent, they may think twice knowing I could be carrying a weapon.

"If you want to be safe, don't travel alone", is bulk.

I should be able to travel alone or walk the streets of any city any time day or night alone if I so choose...and be safe. But of course I cannot and why? Because of muggers, rapists, murderers, etc. So who is free here?

Not travelling alone if I so choose, infringes upon my right to the pursuit of happiness. Carrying a weapon is a right guaranteed to me by the second amendment.

National Parks are part of the United States of America. They belong to us all. The second Amendment, (whether you agree or not, says I can carry a weapon). Therefore, I should be able to carry one with-in the parks.

Why should *I* be expected to stymie my activities? I shouldn't. Instead I should be allowed the right to protect myself...mainly against human predators.

Lots of misinformed commentary here by the folks who refuse to believe that unarmed parks visitors (in isolated areas or otherwise) are potential victims of those with criminal intent. In other words "it won't happen to me". That is a classic victim's mentality.

The same histrionics about how dangerous concealed carry will be were brought up back in 1987 when Florida became the first state to streamline concealed carry laws - and those concerns were shown to be groundless in the years that followed. Over 30 states have follow suit in streamlining their CCL (Concealed Carry License) laws.

For you folks that don't know what's involved - CCL permit holders in most states have to go through criminal background checks, take approved firearms courses (including laws limiting the use of deadly force) and demonstrate minimum proficiency. The license has to be renewed each four years or so and any incident during that time is reported to the issuing authority - and misuse can (and does) result in revocation of the permit. In other words - a CCL holder sitting next to you is perhaps one of the most law-abiding citizens you will ever encounter - and you'll never know they are carrying. You have no need to know and they won't tell you. So all this "anti-carry" fuss is really over nothing.

If concealed carry is so dangerous - then why aren't National Forests as dangerous as these anti-carry types fear? - National Forests have long followed the guidelines that are now proposed for the National Parks - permitting concealed carry based on the laws of the states where they are located.

Don't kid ourself - there is a fair amount of crime in National Parks - and if it happens to you - it will take a long time for help to get to you. I hope none of the "anti-carry" folks have to find that out the hard way.

I have been carrying concealed since before the license was available. I figure if I ever have to use it, I have bigger problems than a fine or even jail time. If it saves my life I will gladly pay the fine or do the time. A friend once told me it’s better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6. I only use a gun in self defense. If my life is truly in danger, some "law" written somewhere on a piece of paper in a courthouse is not going to save me from someone who does not follow the law yet has bad intentions. The bad guys will always break the law, that is why they call them criminals. I have sent a guy with a large knife and a snoot full of drugs packing one time when he brandished the knife against my family. My gun saved our lives. I did not report it because I would be considered the criminal for carrying without a permit and he was long gone after deciding his life was not worth whatever he had in mind. I now have a carry permit because my state now offers it. I carry often and hope I never have to use it. I also wear my seat belt for the same reason. We should not have to worry about getting a ticket for carrying in an environment that is extremely vulnerable. I do not fear the animals, it is the criminal element I feel is the most threat. If you read the book “more guns less crime” by Dr. John Lott you will understand the firearm statistics much better. Best book I ever read on statistics and how they are manipulated. He actually crunched data from every county in the U.S., not just the ones that supported his point of view. He was actually against guns until he did his research.

Then there are the studies of the study:

For example, despite a large body of research, the committee found no credible evidence that the passage of right-to-carry laws decreases or increases violent crime, and there is almost no empirical evidence that the more than 80 prevention programs focused on gun-related violence have had any effect on children’s behavior, knowledge, attitudes, or beliefs about firearms. The committee found that the data available on these questions are too weak to support unambiguous conclusions or strong policy statements.

Firearms and Violence: A Critical Review

And...

"The claim of many millions of annual self-defense gun uses by American citizens appears to be invalid."

The myth of millions of annual self-defense gun uses: A case study of survey overestimates of rare events.

And this interesting tidbit... :-)

For three years, John Lott pretended to be a young woman.

Her name was Mary Rosh.

Mary Rosh often spoke sweetly of her days as a student of John's, she gave a glowing Amazon.com review of his book "More Guns, Less Crime," she criticized anyone who questioned John's research or his conclusions, and she attacked other researchers in her ardent defense of Lott's idea that more guns on the streets leads to less crime.

She was also a petite defenseless creature. We know this because John, we mean, she said:

"Do you really think that most women can out run your typical criminal?…Even if I am not wearing heels, I don’t think that there are many men that I could outrun."

"As a woman, who weighs 114 lbs, what am I supposed to do if I am confronted by a 200 lbs. man?"

http://www.whoismaryrosh.com/

Anyway...