| Author | Post |
|---|
Toymaker
Member
| Joined: | Fri Sep 22nd, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 97 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:22 pm |
|
MSNBC National Park Carry Poll: - poll is at main page on left - look for "vote" at http://www.msnbc.msn.com
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25820753
Showdown over packing heat in national parks
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25630796/
In 40 years as a ranger, manager and superintendent of national parks from Alaska to North Carolina, Doug Morris says he never responded to a crime that would have been prevented had a visitor been carrying a concealed weapon. Nor did he hear complaints from gun owners about the rule requiring them to unload and lock away firearms while in national parks.
But Morris, who retired three years ago, says he did see cases where visitors shot wildlife or fired wildly into the night in crowded campgrounds. That’s why Morris and a majority of his fellow members of the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees adamantly oppose a National Rifle Association-led effort to lift the decades-old ban on concealed weapons in the parks. “Nothing is broken about the existing rule,” he said.
But David Yates, a gun-rights activist from Alexandria, Va., says he believes the current rule tramples the Second Amendment rights of all law-abiding Americans to bear arms. Yates, who usually carries a handgun for self-defense where legally allowed, has given up visiting national parks as “a point of honor and principle.”
“I won’t go there because they make a political issue out of preventing somebody from defending themselves,” Yates said.
NPS manages nearly 400 sites
Morris and Yates are on opposing sides in the latest showdown over U.S. gun rights, which would ease the ban on loaded weapons within some of the 58 national parks and 333 other sites managed by the U.S. National Park Service. The dispute involves a proposed rule change that would allow visitors with concealed weapons permits to carry their firearms in national parks, as long as doing so also would be legal under state law. Rifles and shotguns and “open carry” of loaded handguns would remain illegal in the parks.
The NRA’s long campaign to ease the ban appeared to be close to succeeding a month ago, but lost momentum when the Interior Department extended the period for public comments on the plan until Aug. 8.
The NRA sees the extension as yielding to “bullying” by anti-gun members of Congress who are “trying to run out the clock ... possibly until after the election, into a new administration.”
Interior spokesman Chris Paolino said the department wanted to be fair to parties who wanted to comment in light of a Supreme Court ruling in June. That decision affirmed the Second Amendment right of individuals to possess firearms along with the government’s right to regulate them.
Paolino could not say when a final decision would be made.
25-year-old rules
Under rules last updated 25 years ago, visitors to the parks must keep all firearms unloaded and inaccessible, generally locked in a trunk or elsewhere in a vehicle.
When those rules were written, just a handful of states allowed citizens to carry concealed weapons. Since then, with help from campaigns by the NRA and other groups, all but two states now allow citizens to obtain permits to carry loaded, concealed handguns. In many of those, known as “shall issue” states, any citizen who is entitled to own a handgun may obtain a permit to carry a concealed weapon.
Given changing state laws, the NRA for years has said rules for national parks should change so that gun laws are consistent on parklands within each state. But a bigger issue, an NRA spokesman told msnbc.com, is the right that all “law-abiding Americans” have to self-defense.
“Just because you’re in a national park or on federal land doesn’t mean you’re immune to crime,” said Andrew Arulanandam, the association’s director of public affairs.
Opponents counter that the crime rate in national parks is very low. “They’re extremely safe places,” said Bryan Faehner of the National Parks Conservation Association, which opposes the rule change. “You have a higher likelihood of being hit by lighting.”
In recent years, statistics from NPS’ nearly 400 sites, which receive about 275 million visits a year, show a rate of less than one violent crime per 100,000 visits. According to the FBI, in 2006 the average rate of violent crimes in cities across the United States was 474 per 100,000 people.
The low rate does not sway the NRA. “The fact that you can throw a statistic out there is not going to provide any consolation to the family of someone who lost their life in a park,” Arulanandam said, adding that “violent crime rates have decreased (as) … the number of states that have right-to-carry laws has increased.”
Foes of allowing guns in parks point out that the move is opposed by current NPS Director Mary Bomar, seven former directors and the Association of National Park Rangers, among others.
“The No. 1 best argument is that the resource managers are against it,” said Peter Hamm, spokesman for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence.
'Resistance to change'
But Yates, a member of the Virginia Citizens Defense League, said he believes the park service’s opposition is a matter of “institutional resistance to change.”
“They simply have a culture that is averse to the concept of self-defense,” he said.
He and the NRA’s Arulanandam said that rangers shouldn’t base their fears on past experiences with guns in parks, since those incidents involved people who were breaking the law to begin with.
Not necessarily, said former Ranger Morris, who served as superintendent of Shenandoah, Sequoia-Kings Canyon and Saguaro national parks during his career. He recounted cases in California where campers, legally transporting guns in vehicles, were frightened by black bears.
“They somehow found their gun, got it loaded and shot the bear,” he said. “In one case, they hit the bear and they did not kill it. The bear just danced around the campground kind of angry until a ranger came and had to kill it.”
Black bears and many other animals in parks hardly ever pose serious threats to humans, Morris said, but “people who visit these parks are really out of their comfort zone and … they perceive threats that just don’t exist.”
Rangers also worry that allowing concealed guns in campgrounds could lead to more human vs. human conflict.
A potential for irony?
Hamm of the Brady Campaign, who once worked at Interior himself, stressed that many sites administered by the NPS are urban and the rule change could have interesting consequences by overriding state laws that work in concert with state right-to-carry permits.
Under Georgia state law, for example, “You can’t bring a gun into the Georgia state Capitol but under this loosening of the laws, I don’t see how you could argue that you wouldn’t be allowed to carry a concealed weapon into the Martin Luther King historic site,” he said. “There’s some irony there.”
Both sides use consistency to make their case, with the NRA saying that one set of rules for all national parks would be easy to follow. But opponents argue that rules still would vary depending on the state the park is in; also, they say, some national parks extend across state borders, creating potential conflicts.
'Open Carry' Backers Would Go Further
For that reason, some gun-rights activists would like to go even farther than the current proposal. Members of the “open carry” movement believe it should be changed to allow citizens to carry unconcealed guns in parks, a right they say is constitutionally protected. Calling the current proposal a “cruel hoax,” Mike Stollenwerk, a co-founder of OpenCarry.org, said, “You almost have to be a freaking international attorney to figure it out.”
The park service has successfully defended its policies on weapons in parks for years against NRA efforts to change them, shutting the door firmly with a November letter from Director Bomar to a member of Congress: “The existing regulations provide necessary and consistent parameters throughout the National Park System.”
So the NRA went to the top, appealing to Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne, a conservative Republican and former governor of Idaho.
In Idaho, where per-capita gun ownership is high and the NRA’s backing is crucial to a politician, Kempthorne had been a solid member of the pro-gun camp before joining President Bush’s Cabinet 18 months earlier.
Alex Wong / Getty Images
Just eight days after members of a House panel put him on the hotseat over the ban on guns in national parks, Interior Secretary Dirk Kempthorne announced a proposal to lift the restrictions.
As a U.S. senator, after receiving nearly $10,000 in campaign funds from the NRA, he voted against the 1993 Brady Bill, which requires a waiting period and background checks for handgun buyers. He also brought Michael Bogert, a onetime assistant general counsel at the NRA, to Interior to act as his counsel.
The NRA enlisted Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, Kempthorne’s successor as Idaho’s junior senator, to write a letter to the secretary seeking a revision of the gun regulation. The Dec. 14, 2007, letter was signed by 51 senators to whom the NRA has collectively given at least $618,033 in congressional campaign funds in the last 10 years, according to federal election records placed online by the Center for Public Integrity. Those who signed the letter included such pro-gun stalwarts as Republican Sen. Larry Craig, Idaho’s senior senator and a member of the NRA’s board for more than two decades, and Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska, a former NRA board member.
'In the hot seat'
When Kempthorne didn’t respond, House Republicans put him on the hot seat at a Feb. 14 hearing before the Natural Resources Committee, speaking about Second Amendment rights and asking him about the status of congressional inquiries about the “bizarre” national park gun rule. Kempthorne promised he would reply “very soon.”
Mark Wilson / Getty Images
Republican Sen. Mike Crapo led the NRA's efforts to lobby fellow Idahoan Dirk Kempthorne, the Interior secretary, to allow guns in national parks.
Eight days later, Kempthorne wrote to Crapo that the Interior Department would propose changes to national park gun policy as sought by the NRA and members of Congress. The proposal, published April 30 in the Federal Register, said the rules would be changed to “allow individuals to carry concealed weapons in park units and refuges to the extent that they could lawfully do so on analogous state-administered lands.”
Thousands of comments poured in. Interior spokesman Paolino declined to say whether the majority favored or opposed the rule change.
With the quick turn-around between Kempthorne’s February appearance before the House committee and issuance of the proposed new rule, the NRA had been expecting final approval by the end of the year and was dismayed when the comment period was extended.
In a statement on its Web site, the NRA said the anti-gun Democratic chairmen of congressional panels with oversight of the parks, Sen. Daniel Akaka of Hawaii and Rep. Raul Grijalva of Arizona, pressured for the extension in a “blatant and intentional stalling tactic.” Spokesmen for Akaka and Grijalva both denied that was the intent of the extension of the comment period.
But Hamm, the spokesman for the Brady Campaign, said the extension does improve the chances of opponents to keep the weapons ban intact. “The closer you get to a presidential election on an issue like this, the less likely the system is going to want to make a change,” he said.
'Very mainstream'
NRA spokesman Arulanandam, a former executive director of the Idaho Republican Party who once worked for Kempthorne, called the comment extension and threats by other lawmakers to block the rule change by other means disappointing. He also said the NRA, with 4 million members, is “very mainstream” although “there are a lot of people who try to portray us as otherwise.”
Likewise, Faehner, the spokesman for the parks conservation association and himself a former park service employee, said some in the pro-gun lobby depict his side unfairly.
“Our staff and our members, many of them are gun owners and hunters,” he said of the group’s 340,000 members. “We support the Second Amendment and we don’t oppose guns in any way. I was shooting shotguns when I was 10 years old. But there’s a time and place for everything.”
While Arulanandam would not estimate the NRA’s immediate chances of victory on the issue, he said that a defeat this time would not be the end of the organization’s effort. “If you look at our track record, we get what we want, even if it takes a few years,” he said. “We don’t go away.”
Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 06:10 pm by
|
Snoopy
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 01:46 pm |
|
I can see the headline now, "Poll says that the public doesnt want guns in National Park"... this poll is geared from the start to reflect one and only one view point by offering three opinions on one side and only one on the other... divide and conquer
|
bcronnie
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jul 24th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 03:09 pm |
|
okay, I know criminals don't register guns and guns don't kill people only idiots using them do but still, please people, keep the guns out of the parks. The parks are small islands of sanity in what is more and more an insane planet. The rangers are right in saying that bringing weapons into the park endagers the wildlife far more than there is a risk of animal to human or human to human conflict. Bringing weapons will only see the number of incidents escalate.
The NRA and open carry assertions that people need to defend themselves falls pretty flat in the face of the number of incidents of where gun toting 'law abiding' individuals act to carry out or assist in the prevention of 'crime'. Let us see some statistics backing up this 'urban myth' if there are any.
As a relatively frequent Canadian user of US National parks, a gun owner, a disliker of government bureaucracy please keep weapons out of the parks except in the hands of the rangers.
|
ScottyT
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 03:13 pm |
|
I think it is a big step forward that the poll even mentioned "open carry." I think it shows that we are getting somewhere.
I noticed the divide and conquer strategy. Anything they can do to make the "not allowed" bar stick out farther than the rest...
|
67GT390FB
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 03:23 pm |
|
| agreed. how likely is a reporter to say 38% oppose carry while 62% favor some form of carry?
|
Orygunner
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 03:31 pm |
|
I think the results of the poll are positive. Even though they did divide the "for" votes into three categories, they all still outweigh the "no way" votes 62% to 38%.
...What scares me is the 38% that is ignorant or misguided...
...Orygunner...
|
Dustin
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 609 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 03:32 pm |
|
Eitherway, We're in the Lead 
State laws should apply.
17% /dotRed.gif)
It should not be allowed.
38%
Concealed weapons should be allowed in all national parks, regardless of state law.
16%
Concealed weapons and "open carry" should be allowed in all national parks, regardless of state law.
28%
|
SpringerXDacp
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 04:03 pm |
|
Dustin wrote: Eitherway, We're in the Lead
State laws should apply.
17%
It should not be allowed.
38%
Concealed weapons should be allowed in all national parks, regardless of state law.
16%
Concealed weapons and "open carry" should be allowed in all national parks, regardless of state law.
28%
No change as of 12:03pm
|
Sheldon
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Battle Creek |
| Posts: | 188 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 04:06 pm |
|
Dustin wrote: Eitherway, We're in the Lead
State laws should apply.
17%
It should not be allowed.
38%
Concealed weapons should be allowed in all national parks, regardless of state law.
16%
Concealed weapons and "open carry" should be allowed in all national parks, regardless of state law.
28%
Where I come from 38% is a bigger number than 28% N we are loosing.
|
Huck
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 04:28 pm |
|
bcronnie wrote: okay, I know criminals don't register guns and guns don't kill people only idiots using them do but still, please people, keep the guns out of the parks. The parks are small islands of sanity in what is more and more an insane planet. The rangers are right in saying that bringing weapons into the park endagers the wildlife far more than there is a risk of animal to human or human to human conflict. Bringing weapons will only see the number of incidents escalate.
The NRA and open carry assertions that people need to defend themselves falls pretty flat in the face of the number of incidents of where gun toting 'law abiding' individuals act to carry out or assist in the prevention of 'crime'. Let us see some statistics backing up this 'urban myth' if there are any.
As a relatively frequent Canadian user of US National parks, a gun owner, a disliker of government bureaucracy please keep weapons out of the parks except in the hands of the rangers.
Another, "I'm a gun owner, but..." type I see.
I'm a frequent American user of US national parks, for almost 4 decades, and I've never seen or heard of any of the things that that retired ranger mentioned. And furthermore, you talk about the parks as "small islands of sanity" yet crime occurs in them all the time. And I have heard about many of the incidents mentioned in these links. Here's some reading for you.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/graphic/2008/02/28/GR2008022800363.html
http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/1/14/162412.shtml
http://www.the-eggman.com/writings/crime_in_nat_parks.html
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2003305418_safetrails15m.html
Real safe "small islands of sanity" eh? As in anywhere, "no guns allowed" = easy victims. It's obvious that like all gun laws the National Park gun ban has done nothing to prevent crime in National Parks.
Furthermore, armed citizens being a deterrant to crime is far from a "urban myth" as you put it. All you have to do is compare crime statistics in places where concealed and/or open carry is legal as compared to places where it's not and you'll see the difference. And armed citizens quite frequently do defend themselves and others from criminals contrary to what you obviously want to believe. More reading for you.
http://www.kc3.com/self_defense/Self_Defense.htm
http://www.nraila.org/ArmedCitizen/Default.aspx
http://www.mcsm.org/moreuse.html
When it comes to carrying; "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." When you're out in the middle of nowhere you'd better be able to fend for yourself because help is hours or even days away.
Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 06:55 pm by Huck
|
DopaVash
Founder's Club Member
| Joined: | Fri Apr 11th, 2008 |
| Location: | Houston, Texas USA |
| Posts: | 258 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:04 pm |
|
Good post, Huck. I wonder if he/she will actually post here again or if they were just one-time trolling. Seems like these anti's are going to be the growing pains for our movement, but, I think we should see it as an opportunity to strike at the heart of the ignorance and educated them into Sheepdogs.
|
Dustin
Member
| Joined: | Wed May 28th, 2008 |
| Location: | Louisiana USA |
| Posts: | 609 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:16 pm |
|
Sheldon wrote:
Where I come from 38% is a bigger number than 28% N we are loosing.
Well maybe where you come from, they raise Pessimistic People only .
I however choose to be more Optimisitc
Makes for a better life 
So if you add these two together
Concealed weapons should be allowed in all national parks, regardless of state law.
16%
Concealed weapons and "open carry" should be allowed in all national parks, regardless of state law.
28%
You'll get a higher percentage of people who at least agree that you should be AT LEAST able to carry a weapon in Parks.
Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:18 pm by Dustin
|
Sheldon
Member
| Joined: | Mon Jun 25th, 2007 |
| Location: | Battle Creek |
| Posts: | 188 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:24 pm |
|
Dustin wrote:
Well maybe where you come from, they raise Pessimistic People only .
I however choose to be more Optimisitc
Makes for a better life
Oh I know a good joke about that but this is not the place for it, however.....
okay, I know criminals don't register guns and guns don't kill people only idiots using them do but still, please people, keep the guns out of the parks. The parks are small islands of sanity in what is more and more an insane planet. The rangers are right in saying that bringing weapons into the park endagers the wildlife far more than there is a risk of animal to human or human to human conflict. Bringing weapons will only see the number of incidents escalate.
that is a joke and he is living in a fantasy world. The last time I was in Yellowstone there were two people attacked by bears, and over a half dozen were assaulted and robbed by the other vicious animals in the park, n that was over a four day period of time, taint no island of safety or safe haven there.Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:32 pm by Sheldon
|
Phssthpok
Member
| Joined: | Tue Jul 17th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 333 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:26 pm |
|
If it were simply a matter of visiting a park as a destination, this MIGHT be concidered a valid argument. However, as the current rules are written, simply traveling from point A to point B while passing THROUGH a park (without even stopping) is illegal, unless you stop at the border, unload/lock up your sidearm, and only THEN proceed with your travels. The NPS doesn't run just 'parks'. Infact there are far more 'other' sites that it administers that are not in any way park-like which also fall under their rules.
I open carry everywhere I go. In Washington state it's perfectly legal. Unfortunately, in the town where I live there is a 'National Historic Site' (Fort Vancouver) administered by the NPS, the boudaries of which encompass some half dozen public streets. Simply making a wrong turn in that part of town could make an unsuspecting visitor into an instant federal criminal.
The same holds true for Highway 101 around the Olymic penninsula (an extremely popular scenic drive for tourists and locals alike). On the western side of the loop, 101 passes through the Olympic National Park, rendering anyone legally carrying a sidearm an instant criminal.
Then there is Vista House in the Columbia River Gorge. Again, a (SMALL) NPS administered location with a single scenic road passing through its borders. I've lived in the area all my life and I didn't know it was a 'National Park'. I broke the law the other day because I didn't see the NPS sign (obscured by an RV) untill I was out of my car and walking toward the building.
I'm sure ther are several more examples throughout the nation that are similar in nature. People should not have to worry about becoming an instant criminal simply because they crossed some nebulous political border during their travels.
|
Orygunner
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 05:53 pm |
|
bcronnie wrote: okay, I know criminals don't register guns and guns don't kill people only idiots using them do but still, please people, keep the guns out of the parks. The parks are small islands of sanity in what is more and more an insane planet. The rangers are right in saying that bringing weapons into the park endagers the wildlife far more than there is a risk of animal to human or human to human conflict. Bringing weapons will only see the number of incidents escalate.
The NRA and open carry assertions that people need to defend themselves falls pretty flat in the face of the number of incidents of where gun toting 'law abiding' individuals act to carry out or assist in the prevention of 'crime'. Let us see some statistics backing up this 'urban myth' if there are any.
As a relatively frequent Canadian user of US National parks, a gun owner, a disliker of government bureaucracy please keep weapons out of the parks except in the hands of the rangers.
Welcome to the forum!
I'd like to address your statements:
1st Paragraph: Weapons do not endanger wildlife, people do. I find the ability to protect myself MUCH more important than the chance of someone killing animals in our National Parks. Besides, self-defense is legal, killing wildlife illegally is not. Your desire to keep the parks "small islands of sanity" has nothing to do with my inalienable right to life and the right to protect it.
2nd Paragraph: Am I correct in reading that you believe self defense with a firearm is an 'urban myth'? You either must be joking, don't bother to research, or just don't get out much... Read this link and claim it's still a myth:
http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html
Those are just the ones that make the news. Mulitple studies have proven there are between 1 and 2 1/2 million defensive gun uses every year in the US. Most of those never make the news, is perhaps why you claim it's an urban myth...
3rd Paragraph: A Canadian gun owner? What kind of guns does the government still allow you to own nowadays, anyway? Do you disagree with our trying to loosen firearms restrictions in National Parks for self defense because your government won't loosen your restrictions?
...Yes, I know I probably won't get a reply, it's just fun to respond anyway...
...Orygunner...
|
Orygunner
Member
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 06:09 pm |
|
DopaVash wrote: Good post, Huck. I wonder if he/she will actually post here again or if they were just one-time trolling. Seems like these anti's are going to be the growing pains for our movement, but, I think we should see it as an opportunity to strike at the heart of the ignorance and educated them into Sheepdogs.
I think you've hit on something with that statement. Yes, with the publicity of forums like OCDO, we are going to see more Anti-gun rights people visiting and putting in their opinions.
The GREAT difference between the Pro-gun and the Anti-gun sides are:
In forum discussions, Pro-gunners are overwhelmingly calm, rational, can point out multiple facts and links to prove the case for gun rights, while Antis arguments are either emotional, illogical statements, inaccurate, limited scope (cherry picked) facts, or ad-hominem attacks.
Even the Pro-gun blogs do not censor the Anti posts. In Anti-gun blogs, they're either heavily censored, or public commenting is disabled. (Note the gunguys.com and bradycampaign.org blogs. no comments allowed. I wonder why? )
I don't believe I've ever seen a real gun rights/gun control debate where the Anti-gun person has won an argument. Theirs quite simply is emotional. Ours is facts.
While we may not be able to change the stance of the true anti-gun zealot, know that there are many others reading the discussions that recognize the differences and it plays to the favor of the gun rights movement.
...I welcome them to our forum, one and all...
...Orygunner...
|
Felid`Maximus
Activist Member
| Joined: | Mon Nov 12th, 2007 |
| Location: | Reno, Nevada USA |
| Posts: | 482 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 06:36 pm |
|
bcronnie wrote: Bringing weapons will only see the number of incidents escalate.
The NRA and open carry assertions that people need to defend themselves falls pretty flat in the face of the number of incidents of where gun toting 'law abiding' individuals act to carry out or assist in the prevention of 'crime'. Let us see some statistics backing up this 'urban myth' if there are any.
I see news articles quite a lot where armed citizens have stopped robberies in progress etc. Just recently in Tennessee a customer with a CCW stopped 2 guys from robbing a store. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L8oEO_MV57I&feature=related ) A few other examples I can think of off the top of my head was that not too long ago an armed guy stopped a bank robbery. In the Appalachian School of Law an armed citizen stopped a school shooter. Here in NV an armed citizen stopped a shooter who busted into a bar shooting people.
There is concrete evidence that people with guns stop crimes. People also use guns all the time in defense of themself. NRA statistics say this happens all the time. Now, what concrete evidence do you have that allowing people to legally have a handgun for self-defense will cause "the number of incidents" to escalate? Are you trying to imply that murderers and rapists don't bring weapons into places that outlaw them? If so, how is it possible that shootings occur in places that don't allow weapons? Are you saying that armed people are more likely to be targeted or that a good person with a gun cannot resist the temptation to commit crimes?
Washington D.C., a bastion of sanity, has for a long time outlawed the use of firearms for self-defense. Look up the statistics to see how well that worked out for them. I'm sure it works just as well at the parks.
I think your logic that "legal guns" = "escalation in crime" is only based on flawed theory and urban myth.
Last edited on Thu Jul 24th, 2008 06:38 pm by Felid`Maximus
|
tarkio
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 20th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 6 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 06:38 pm |
|
A few random thoughts from someone who lives near some parks and is forced to travel through national parks to get from point A to point B.
I find it interesting that members of the federal government are willing to speak up and say that they are more interested in protecting wildlife than allowing taxpaying citizens to protect themselves. Doesn't surprise me that the think that way, just that they had the guts to say that publicly.
I often travel a main US highway that cuts across the corner of Yellowstone, usually late or in the middle of the night. Because I am law abiding, I have to stop and remove a mag, clear a round and secure the firearm properly. This is offensive to me. Once again, forcing law-abiding citizens to take precautions to keep them from breaking the law, when those very citizens are well-proven as the type of people who would not ever break any firearms law. Reminds me of the old simile of creating new gun laws to decrease crime is like strengthening parking laws in front of the American Embassy to keep car bombers from parking their car, complete with bomb, from blowing up the embassy.
The statement that crime is extremely low in parks is also bunk. Huck thankfully did the research to show some of the more egregious cases of violence in parks. If it is such a nice safe island of sanity with no crime, why the hell do the rangers carry firearms?
Finally as someone who travels through and to a national park more than most, I can attest to the fact that the busy parts of national parks are not such nice pleasant relaxing places. When the parks are busy, yes you do have a lot of families blissfully going about their way. But for that very reason, there are also predatory types that are drawn just to these areas because of the number of people, usually far from home, carrying many valuables.
I believe the rangers are stuck in the mindset that they are the only ones who can handle the responsibility of "caring" for people. Just as many police thought 20 - 30 years ago. Thankfully, most police now have the attitude that responsible individuals with firearms is the police and publics' best friend.
Finally, I am sick of people on the east and west coast and major urban areas dictating to me how to live my life when they have no idea of what it takes to live in my neck of the woods.
Sorry for the vent.
|
Doug Huffman
State Researcher
|
Posted: Thu Jul 24th, 2008 06:53 pm |
|
I remember when the Rangers would stop by Camp 4 in Yosemite and complain about having to draw straws to see who had to wear the gun tomorrow. 1965 - 66?? And the Firefall. Sic transit gloria mundi
|
GnGKlinger
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jul 13th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 32 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Fri Jul 25th, 2008 01:56 am |
|
Snoopy wrote: I can see the headline now, "Poll says that the public doesnt want guns in National Park"... this poll is geared from the start to reflect one and only one view point by offering three opinions on one side and only one on the other... divide and conquer
Its PMSNBC, Of course theyre tryin to bias the Poll. They gotta make their view look somewhat popular.
Heres the Link to vote, Please do:
http://www.regulations.gov/search/search_results.jsp?css=0&N=8099&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&Ntk=All&Ntx=mode+matchall&Ne=2+8+11+8053+8054+8098+8074+8066+8084+8055&Ntt=National%20Park%20Concealed&sid=11B57E47D4A6
|
Current time is 06:02 pm | Page: 1 2   |
|
|
|
