The Coalition of National Park Service Retirees sees no need to change gun laws in the national parks, saying that allowing the public to carry weapons in the parks could jeopardize the safety of visitors.
Last month, you might recall, the Traveler pointed to an effort by nearly half the U.S. Senate to allow concealed weapons to be carried in the parks. Current Park Service policy allows permitted weapons to be transported through the parks, but they must be unloaded and stored so as they're not readily accessible.
Forty-seven senators, led by Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, don't think that's good enough. He says varying gun laws on federal lands can be confusing to gun holders. (The New York Times pointed out, though, that if gun holders are confused, perhaps they shouldn't be permitted to carry guns.)
In a letter to Representative Nick Rahall, who chairs the House Natural Resources Committee, the coalition asked that if legislation proposing a change in the current regulations reaches his committee, that it not gain favorable consideration.
We believe that to change these regulations so that visitors might wear or keep firearms close at hand in national parks - guided by differing state laws -could significantly increase the danger to visitors in national parks. Equally worrisome is that such a practice would almost certainly put wildlife in many parks at greater risk, wrote the coalition. Poaching would become easier. And visitors who believe that carrying a firearm provides them with extra “security” and the authority to shoot animals would be far more likely to use deadly force whenever they feel the slightest threat. Information gathered by State and Federal wildlife management organizations throughout the country overwhelmingly indicates that both people and wildlife are safer when guns are not the first choice when people feel threatened.
Comments
"Yes - it is the uncertainty of not knowing who is or is not armed that is the deterent."
Then it would seem strange that we have so much gun violence in the U.S., even where there is CCW. (And again, I think this dramatically misreads the mindset of someone intent on using a gun criminally.)
"Go ahead - give us the statistics. I think you will find that tricylces typically cause more accidental deaths."
"Firearm injuries are the second leading cause of injury death in the United States"--CDC/National Center for Health Statistics, 2004.
(I admit I don't know if tricycles are first.)
"OK - those were the claims of NPS Retirees. What exactly are you objections?"
I don't really have an objection to CCW. My objection is to carrying guns openly in the parks because I don't know if that person is mentally stable, what his or her intentions are, whether he or she is reckless, well-trained or not, etc. If the ethos of the country were different, I might not feel this way. But given how dramatically problematic America's relationship is with firearms (compared to that of the rest of the industrial world) these aren't the concerns I want to confront when I'm spending time in the parks. Guns change the scenery.
"You find it 'dubious' that a criminal would be less likely to use a gun if someone in the room may have one than if he knew nobody had one?"
No, because I didn't say that was dubious. Noone's talking about a criminal in a room somewhere.
But research has shown it is lower where CCWs are available.
But the vast majority of those aren't accidental - which is what you originally suggested. - ie. your statement ""We could also quote stats on the number of accidental shootings that occur every year." Actually, the rate of accidental injury by guns is extremely low. 3.1 per 100,0000. In comparison dog bite is 128, cycling is 181, and falls are 2746.
Source CDC Surveillance for Fatal and Nonfatel Injuries, US 2001
So what? You don't know that any place else either. Do you worry about the same thing about the other drivers on the road? Should we ban cars because you are worried?
In a room, in a hotel, in a campsite, on the trail, the concept is the same. The possibility the victim could defend himself is a deterrent.
"But research has shown it is lower where CCWs are available."
Only if you ignore the mountain of research that says it does not. An easy wikipedia search lists research that contests your claim about what the research shows: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concealed_carry_in_the_United_States
"But the vast majority of those aren't accidental - which is what you originally suggested"
You're right, anon. The stat I quoted was about injury deaths, not necessarily accidental injuries/deaths.
"So what? You don't know that any place else either. Do you worry about the same thing about the other drivers on the road? Should we ban cars because you are worried?"
That's my point. If I were crossing high-speed traffic or contending with drunk drivers in the backcoutry of the national parks, then this might be a concern. But one of the appeals of the parks is that I don't have to.
"The possibility the victim could defend himself is a deterrent."
Then why are people still getting shot where there is CCW? Again, see link above to wikipedia bibliography.
I'm not necessarily for a ban on CCW permit issuance per se, but I always got the sense that the CCW proponents' claims that they're safer or feel like they're safer with guns is way overblown.
I for one am worried about the possibility that someone in a campground might start shooting at an otherwise scared bear and hit someone. There was a guy who failed to secure his food in an Eldorado National Forest campground (placed a cooler in a covered gazebo tent), and was legally carrying a .45 in a holster. He heard noises, investigated it, and eventually started shooting at the bear which probably just wanted to get the heck out of there. This wasn't necessarily a CCW issue, but definitely one where I certainly hope I don't find someone like this in my campground, who has a sense that his gun is the way to handle a situation which would have been better handled by not doing something stupid like keeping food outside in a known bear area. I'm also wondering what the heck was he doing sleeping with a gun in a holster. If myself, my wife, or my child are in another tent, I just hope that we don't get hit, since nylon isn't really an effective barrier against lead projectiles.
I remember the shooting at a church, where the daughter of the pastor was killed by a CCW holder who was showing a gun to another patron thinking of buying a similar model. He cleared the magazine but didn't clear the chamber. The bullet went through a wall and lodged in the girl's head.
I don't think the possibility that someone else might have a gun runs much through the minds of criminals. Violent crime rate often has a lot more to do with poverty and reduced contact with others. There are low violent crime rates out in the middle of nowhwere, like Wyoming or Alaska. There are states where the violent crime rates are high even with easy CCW permits, such as Florida and Texas. I highly doubt that the criminal really thinks that much that someone else will be armed. They just think they'll "get the drop" on someone else. Gang members still engage in gang shootings against other gangs they know will be armed. People still rob banks even though there's armed security. Lowlifes still rob convenience stores even though many managers keep weapons. Heck - I know of quite a few gun shops being robbed even though nearly all the employees are armed. A lot of people have deep fears about random crime, but the vast majority of violent crime isn't random. It's gang violence or violent acts against people who are known to the perps.
So there is plenty of research that says it reduces crime and some that says it doesn't. There isn't anything that says that legalizing the carrying of guns increases crime. And do you really use Wikipedia as your definitive source?
Really? There is no high speed traffic or drunks in parks?
Because it is a deterent - not a prevention.
Really? Why don't you name those guns shops and identify the date that they were robbed while armed employees were inside.
"There isn't anything that says that legalizing the carrying of guns increases crime. And do you really use Wikipedia as your definitive source?"
I never claimed it leads to an increase in crime. You claimed the research says it lowers it. I clealry didn't use Wikipedia for my definitive source; I pointed you to the bibliography of scholarship on the subject via Wikipedia.
"Really? There is no high speed traffic or drunks in parks?"
Nope, not in the backcountry--there aren't any highways and very few, if any roads, hence; not really any drunk drivers.
"Because it is a deterent - not a prevention."
Not according to the research.
Never argue with a True Believer.