The L.A. Times has a guest comment advocating carrying guns when one goes into wild areas:

...I am puzzled now by the strange way people here are dealing with mountain lions - which is to say, letting them kill you...

I don't know much about big cats. We don't have them in Alaska, and the few I have encountered southward were pretty spooky. They are elegant creatures, and I do respect them. I do not go where they are without the means to protect myself. And I keep my eyes peeled. It is in my genes not to be eaten by bears, large cats or anything else.

Why would anyone go into mountain lion country without the means to protect themselves from attack? I notice the police are armed. The wardens and rangers are armed. Indeed, anyone with any clue where they are would be armed...

I've only seen mountain lions in zoos, and I don't know much about them either.

However, I do know that they're stalkers, and they prefer to strike from behind. They attempt to snap their victim's neck.

While I usually hike with my Uzi strapped to my pack (that's what that loop at the bottom of the pack is for, right?), in the case of a mountain lion attack it would seem to do little good. While I have no special knowledge, it would seem that protecting your back from an attack from above and behind would be the best defense from a mountain lion attack.

That would include things like making sure that your back is against a wall or a cliff if you're doing bike repairs, carrying a large backpack that covers your neck, and, most importantly of all, going out in large or medium-sized groups.

UPDATE: I started a thread about this here. I also changed the text above from "editorial" to "guest comment."