I don't understand most of your comment (English is my fourth language). I don't understand "coming into this pretty hot" and "fast-forwarded a few exchanges".

I don't understand most of your comment (English is my fourth language). I don't understand "coming into this pretty hot" and "fast-forwarded a few exchanges". I also don't understand the part about empathy. What's empathy got to do with anything? I obviously understand the individual words, but not the idioms behind or what you are trying to convey. In case any parts of my comment were unclear, I'll try to reiterate or clarify. First I'm genuinely curious about what kind of wildlife would pose a threat to the point where you need to defend yourself by carrying guns in your car, and where you would risk such an encounter. I try to convey that this is curiosity more than criticism by comparing it to the genuine need on Svalbard. I then address their claim about "gun rights". My point is that protecting yourself from wildlife isn't about gun rights. No one (as far as I know) is looking to ban a licensed hunting rifle or high-caliber handgun where the owner would need it for protection. My point is that many "gun rights" advocates want to have five AR-15 or a fully automatic Uzi—guns that are highly capable of killing a high number of people and not very effective against bears. In other words, I understand their clients' (legitimate) needs but I don't think it's relevant to the concept of "gun rights".