Do we need guns in National Parks?

November 11, 7:25 AMCleveland Gun Rights ExaminerDaniel White

Previous Next

47 comments Print Email RSS Subscribe

Subscribe

Get alerts when there is a new article from the Cleveland Gun Rights Examiner. Read Examiner.com's terms of use.

Email Address   Include other special offers from Examiner.com Terms of Use

Artist and blogger Todd Wilkinson is unhappy about the upcoming rules change which will permit law abiding citizens to carry defensive firearms in National Parks beginning in February. He asks...

Always, the first question responsible legislators should ask when writing a law is this: What significant problem is being solved by putting another code on the books?

I happen to agree with that particular statement. In this case, the significant problem being solved is that visitors to National Parks, unlike State and local parks, are having their Second Amendment rights taken away from them and are rendered defenseless. Wilkinson doesn't see this as a problem. He doesn't feel that safety is an issue.

I have never, after hiking thousands of miles and visiting dozens of national parks, ever felt the need to carry a loaded firearm inside one.

Classic Liberal thinking. Because he hasn't felt the need to carry a gun, nobody should. I'm sure Canadian folk singer Taylor Mitchell didn't feel the need to carry a gun when she went hiking in Cape Breton Highlands National Park in Nova Scotia before being killed by coyotes two weeks ago.

Fortunately, a Montana man didn't feel the same way when he was attacked by a Grizzly bear in the Cabinet Mountains (not a National Park but it could happen there as well). He shot and killed the charging bear.

A 14-year-old Montana boy found himself in a similar situation when he was stalked by a Cougar. Fortunately for him, he wasn't in a National Park that bans guns and was able to shoot and kill the animal. Officials ruled it self-defense.

Wilkinson issued a challenge in his article.

How many homicides, drug killings, and acts of gang violence have occurred in Yellowstone and Grand Teton in the last decade?

Name one.

The Christian Science Monitor ran an article about increasing crime rates in all the National Parks noting "incidents of vandalism, arson, burglary, and theft." Yellowstone's website notes that "while most park visitors leave Yellowstone after a safe visit, some are victims of offenses such as burglaries, automobile break-ins, and an occasional assault or murder."

The National Park Service website notes an incident from a few years back when two bank robbers were arrested in Yellowstone. ABC's 20/20 also ran a story about increasing crime in all the National Parks.

Is that enough? Fortunately, crime rates and animal attacks in National Parks are still fairly rare, but that is little consolation to those victims who are attacked and/or killed. Just because one person feels safe does not mean that everyone is safe. If someone wants to trust their safety to the odds, that's their business. But if they want to take responsibility for their own safety and be prepared to repel an attack, whether from man or beast, they should be allowed to do so.

If, and when, it results in just one headline about a life saved thanks to the rules change, will Todd Wilkinson and those like him admit their mistake? Probably not. But if just one life is saved, it is all worth it.

Further reading: Tears flow from gun control advocates as the end of the National Parks gun ban draws closer