Because, despite disingenuous propaganda to the contrary, unprovoked bear attacks can and really do occur everywhere from Yellowstone National Park (fatality) to Pinetop, Arizona (massive head trauma and probable loss of movement in both arms).
That's odd. Wasn't it just a few short years ago that the Brady Campaign filed suit (and lost) to prevent the government from jettisoning their unconstitutional rule banning law-abiding citizens from carrying firearms when visiting national parks, loudly claiming that there was just no earthly reason for "allowing" people to exercise their inherent right to self-defense in such places? Sadly, the Yellowstone incident has proven the Bradyites to once again be completely wrong. Innocent people should indeed be able to defend themselves from predators (whether two- or four-legged) wherever they may happen to be, particularly when hiking in a popular yet remote tourist attraction.
The Arizona case is especially illustrative of our position because the 61-year-old woman involved apparently sustained many of her injuries while trying to fight off the 300-pound black bear with her bare hands.
Would an appropriate-caliber handgun have allowed the victims to successfully fight off their ursine attackers? We'll of course never know for sure, but one thing is for certain - an immediately available and properly used firearm would undoubtedly have given these victims a much better chance at a happier outcome.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
2 comments:
Not that it matters on the gun issue, but what's a 61 yr old woman doing alone in the Arizona wilderness in July in the first place?
Grace,
The Pinetop incident wasn't in the wilderness but in the town itself, near a country club. The lady was walking her dog when the bear, who had been digging in a nearby dumpster, attacked her without warning.
Post a Comment