The anti-gunners had their panties all in a bunch when legislation was passed that removed the prohibition against legally carrying a firearm in national parks. They went on tirades claiming there was no need for guns in these natural refuges. Well I’m here to tell you why we need the ability to carry guns in national parks; it’s because most animals are far more powerful than we are and without a weapon for self-defense we can’t hope to match them. As evidence I put forth the two grizzly bear related deaths in Yellowstone this year:
Wildlife agents are trying to capture a grizzly bear that killed a man in Yellowstone National Park, its second such fatality this summer.
The body of John Wallace, 59, from Michigan, was found on Friday along the Mary Mountain Trail.
Dan Wenk, a park superintendent, said there were no witnesses to the attack.
Fatal grizzly attacks are rare inside Yellowstone – the July attack on a Californian hiker was the first such incident in 25 years.
Although rare these things do happen and the only way a human can hope to stand up to something as powerful as a grizzly bear is if he or she increase their defensive capabilities. Anti-gunners will claim bear mace is equally or more effective than a firearm when defending against bears. I’m not an either or kind of guy and I would never criticize somebody for carrying a firearm and bear mace because some situations lend themselves well to one tool while other situations lend themselves well to the other. Having both increases your capabilities and should the bear mace not dissuade the bear from eating you a well placed shot from a high-powered firearm will likely do the trick.