It is no longer on paper. Green ideology comes up against children's safety. If omitting a firearm component makes the students less safe than similar groups traveling in that area (fishing guides, NPS, NFS etc.) they are leaving themselves open for criticism, or worse.
In principle I agree with you. However, the key phrase in your statement is "[i]f omitting a firearm component makes the students less safe..."
All the evidence and studies I have heard of suggest that pepper spray is an effective defence against bear attacks; a more effective option than firearms. Based on this, the only data I have, I can't say they are putting their agenda before the kids' (or their own) safety.
As you correctly stated, many groups, maybe even these guys, hold a worldview that would prevent them from using firearms even if the evidence showed they were more effective. It just so happens that, in this case at least, the data appears to support their preferences.
Previous Topic
Index
