A classic case of defunding the public good. Another related problem was the change in policy to allow guns in public parks - a very perverse interpretation of the 2nd amendment that just made park rangers' life more dangerous without any real benefit to 99% of the population.
I think the right to self defense is especially important in places where law enforcement cannot respond quickly and effectively. Whereas the police can respond in minutes in a densely populated city, the same cannot be said in the middle of a rural park. A person should be allowed to defend themself, with a firearm if necessary, when faced with a deadly threat.
The policy you mentioned only allows people to carry a firearm if they are otherwise allowed to carry a gun in public according to state law. This means they cannot be a convicted felon or otherwise disqualified, and in most states they are also required to have a concealed carry permit: https://www.nps.gov/articles/firearms-in-national-parks.htm
Along the same lines, it is important to note that death (whether of park rangers or the general public) did not notably increase after this policy change, either, so it is not a particularly dangerous policy as you suggested.
Unless you set up security checkpoints around the parks, how would banning guns in parks prevent people who intend to harm park rangers (which is a serious crime) from bringing in guns? I don't believe that a person who intends to commit murder will be deterred because committing murder requires them to break an additional weapons possession law that cannot be well-enforced given the nature of rural parks.
As sneak said in another comment, "People who would shoot at park rangers would not be deterred by such a prohibition, so the change does not make them any less safe. It does, however, make normal park-goers a lot safer."
We've already asked you not to post nationalistic flamebait to HN, regardless of which nation you have a problem with. If you do this yet again, we will ban you.
A gun is more effective and practical than a knife or an RPG. It is easy to use, relatively safe and reliable, affordable and easy to carry. In a very rural area not every threat is a person, for example a bear, and guns aren't exactly exotic technology. They've been around for hundreds of years. Trying to put the cat back in the bag is hopeless.
In particular in the US there are more guns than people. Attempting to confiscate all those guns would inevitably fail and likely lead to massive civil unrest. It would also fail to prevent criminals from still having access to guns.
Perhaps an arms-race is unfortunate but unilateral disarmament on one side is not a practical solution to the problem.
FWIW the US is not the only country where citizens are allowed to have guns. Look at Switzerland for an example.
Yes, permitted. You need a license, which is something that can be denied for a multitude of common reasons. Gun ownership in Switzerland is taken seriously and very heavily regulated. And the same goes for bullet ownership. Read your wikipedia link; it reads nothing like what anyone in the USA would recognise.
Relative to the USA status quo, Swiss gun laws are like a far left socialist wet dream. No electable left-wing politician would ever imagine being able to get one tenth of Swiss-style laws passed in the USA.
I absolutely do not want to contribute any sort of "guns r bad" vs "guns r good" type conversation on the lovely HN, but I think it is worth noting that (some) national parks are a hotbed for criminal activity. The large and largely untraveled open spaces are attractive to people who'd like to get away with things that would be too loud, smelly, or obvious anywhere else. I don't have stats in front of me (I will hunt later today), but N parks are not always the idyllic and peaceful nature place they should be, especially anywhere near Mexico.
Your dichotomy is false; the “civilized world” to which you presumably refer does not eschew guns for self-defense. Instead, it simply restricts that right of self-defense to those professionally affiliated with the government: police and military.
The debate is never “guns or no guns”. The government and its agents always have guns, even in places like Japan. The debate is whether or not the unwashed masses also are permitted the right to defend themselves alongside (and sometimes against) the agents of the state.
History shows us quite plainly the dangerous issues with the circumstance where only the state is armed and civilians are not, from the holocaust all the way down to the 2004 Republican National Convention in NYC.
Are you serious? Have you spent any time ON YOUR OWN in a place like Rocky Mountain National Park, in Colorado? For one, there is the wildlife factor: Bears and moose are dangerous.
Secondly, National forests are a very important component of public lands for hunting: I for one find it awesome that I can stock 1 year worth of organic, grass-fed meat from legally harvesting an Elk on state or national forest land [1].
Finally, hunters - with our firearms and ammunition purchases - actually supply the bulk of $$$ that go towards maintaining public lands and wildlife [2]. You are welcome!
People who would shoot at park rangers would not be deterred by such a prohibition, so the change does not make them any less safe. It does, however, make normal park-goers a lot safer.
