AN EASY, QUICK WAY FOR OBAMA TO KEEP HIS PROMISE
Let National Park Gun Rule Stand
The rule doesn't change much, mostly just making the status quo the legal status quo, so let it be.By Bill Schneider, 12-18-08
 |
|
 | |
| Belly River Country in Glacier National Park. Photo by Bill Schneider. | |
|
In early December President Bush kept his promise and came through for gun owners who supported him by loosening rules allowing loaded, concealed guns in national parks and wildlife refuges.
Now, President-elect Obama needs to keep his promise and come through for gun owners who supported him by allowing this rule to stand as currently written.
The new administrative rule goes into effect in January and applies to all 48 states that issue concealed carry permits; only Illinois and Wisconsin don’t. It replaces a regulation brought in by during the Reagan administration that allowed guns in national parks, but only if they were unloaded and inaccessible.
Back on September 4, I devoted my column to trying to convince park advocacy groups that fighting this rule wasn’t worth their time and money when they had much bigger fish to fry such as securing adequate funding for the National Park Service (NPS), various park expansion plans, many serious wildlife issues, curbing the rampant fee increases, and addressing the dramatic decline in park visitation, to name a few.
But paranoia over the rule drowned out my little voice in the wilderness. The ink on the Federal Register publication of the rule had hardly dried before opponents, including the National Parks and Conservation Association and the Coalition of National Park Service Retirees, started making plans to encourage the incoming administration to reverse the rule. A few days later, the New York Times joined the chorus.
The rule won’t change much, so what’s the big deal? People who feel strongly about having their guns for personal safety have been taking them into national parks for decades. Every park ranger knows it, and it has caused minimal if any crime or gun-related accidents. Think about it. Rangers at entrance stations don’t even ask park visitors if they have guns, partly because they don’t care, but mostly because the Reagan’s gun rule was impractical, in not impossible, to enforce.
So, when the Bush rule hits the ground next year, the impact will be invisible. All that changes is the status quo becoming the legal status quo, and as far as I’m concerned, it should be legal. Why should taking a loaded, concealed handgun into a national park be any different than taking it into a national forest?
So, since this rule is a no big deal, I should write about something important, right?
Not quite. I have a dog in this fight.
I’m out there on the Internet with a big bet that our new President and the new, blue Congress won’t pass any gun laws because they face too many global crises to worry about gun issues--and of course, they also hope to stay in power more than four years. Parting ways with some of my gun-toting readers, I’d like to keep this pro-planet administration in power long enough to institute some positive changes, so I don’t want to let a shallow issue like this new rule distract our leaders away from something important or help defeat them in 2012.
The NPS faces plenty of challenges, and I’m sure most park administrators would agree with me--off the record, of course. In fact, after my last column I had a call from a park superintendent who agreed completely that the NPS has much bigger priorities. The NPS doesn’t want to deal with the gun issue and now officially (instead of realistically) doesn’t have to deal with it.
So let it be.
To date, Obama has managed to send out several signs that he isn’t sincere about his promise to gun owners that they have nothing to fear from him. His transition team still asks applicants if they own guns and his website, Change.Gov, still has a strong, anti-gun policy statement on it, and his Attorney General appointee, Eric Holder, has a worrisome track record on guns.
Perhaps those signs are nit picking, but they sure have the shorts of hardcore gun owners in a knot. Let’s balance it out with a positive sign and gives the gun guys some relief. An easy, quick way to do this would be refusing to reverse the new national park gun rule. The new administration has a lot to do, but here’s something big that can be done without doing anything.
And please don’t just quietly leave it alone. Have a press conference and announce that the new administration has decided to leave the rule in place.
Foortnote: To read more of my articles on gun issues, click here.
Like this story? Get more! Sign up for our free newsletters.
Comments
I maintain my assertion (and this is me speaking as a liberal Democrat) that both Obama and his team know they *can't* fix the economy, so there is an incentive to do something, anything that looks like it is solving some problem. Hence, make-work programs, bailouts, and gun bans will be at the top of the list.
a. Feel like they have a large enough penis
b. Know how to use their fists
Also, Salazar is not a "positive sign" as you put it. I hope he can change, but his record is not one to be that proud of.
You say that the new rule won't change anything, but it will. People will have guns loaded and much closer without fear of paying a fine or penalty. Animals will be poached.
Do we really need drunk guys at drive-in campgrounds with instant access to firearms camping next to families just trying to have a good time? This whole thing creates a cultue of fear and paranoia. Eventually, our society will evolve and move on to a type 1 civilization where this kind of fear and moronic behaviour will simply fade away......
Can anyone cite just one example where this has been a problem? All the anti-gun law in national parks does is make criminals out of otherwise law abiding citizens.
What is the difference between a State park and a National park? Trees are trees.
There is no valid reason for infringing on the rights of law-abiding citizens in national parks.
Have you noticed that with most articles about this topic liberal authors use the term "loosening gun laws"? In reality, it is "restoring the 2nd Amendment rights". Liberalism is insane.
Lessee, Larry. I'm a registered Democrat, for universal healthcare, against the Iraq War, against torture, for gay marriage, pro-choice, pro-environment, for high levels of public assistance, and for marijuana legalization. I voted for Bill Richardson in the primaries and did not vote in the Presidential election.
Recognizing the right to own and carry modern weapons is fundamentally liberal and progressive, so I support it.
BTW, didn't this whole thing start with " ZOMG! Noze loadedz guynz in PAKRZ ZOMG, werez gunna diez!"
In some circles, guns are known as " Equalizers". Perhaps when citizens are allowed to bring firearms into Yellowstone, the Rangers will use the opportunity to tone it down a little and become more even handed, and friendlier to the public instead of outwardly hostile and defensive.
Then again , they may simply get worse.
It did indeed start that way, but since it got so completely and thoroughly knocked down (by showing that CCWers aren't a threat to public safety and never have been), people are starting in on the meme that people will be killing any bear they see out of fear.
I would submit that that line of thinking is going to correct itself right quick, as people studied bear-human interactions and found that firearms were actually less effective than bear spray in preventing injuries to humans from bear attacks. Of course, those same firearms are *very* effective in preventing attacks by predatory humans, which is and always has been the point of people carrying in parks all along.
In fact, concealed carry permit-holders are arrested and charged with crimes on a regular basis.
Since October 1 (just of this year) available reports show:
http://www.bradycampaign.org/blog/?cat=86
1. Florida: Permit-holder pleads guilty to murder;
2. Pennsylvania: Permit-holder charged with murder of FBI agent;
3. Pennsylvania: Permit-holder charged with "terroristic threats";
4. Tennessee: 200 permit-holders have active domestic violence restraining orders against them;
5. Iowa: Permit-holder arrested with 150 lbs. or marijuana;
6. Utah: Permit-holder, suspected sex offender, commits suicide in police station;
7. Alabama: Permit-holder, and school teacher, arrested with marijuana; also selling counterfeit merchandise;
8. Pennsylvania: Permit-holder charged with reckless endangerment, aggravated assault, discharging gun in public;
9. Pennsylvania: Permit-holder charged with attempted murder, aggravated assault;
10. Connecticut: Permit-holder charged with breach of the peace and reckless endangerment;
11. Texas: Permit-holder arrested for assault;
12. Arizona: Permit-holder, after shootout with police, arrested on 14 counts of aggravated assault;
13. Nevada: Permit-holder, O.J. Simpson co-defendant, pleads guilty to robbery and conspiracy to commit robbery;
14. Florida: Permit-holder charged in negligent manslaughter of his girlfriend;
15. Colorado/Utah: Permit-holder arrested while intoxicated on school grounds.
Are these the "law-abiding citizens" you're talking about? These incidents are just the ones reported in the news. Likely many more go unreported.
Most gun owners are, in fact, law-abiding citizens -- but as these examples show definitely not all are. That's why keeping guns out of certain places like National Parks protects the public at large from the armed law-breaking of the few.
Doug Pennington
BradyCampaign.org
jlbraun. I already asked nicely, now, come on guys, knock it off.....Bill
have a lot of paybacks to radical groups, let Emanuel be the "power behind the throne"( for lack of a better term), or do what he believe to be best for the country?
The problem is, we know nothing about the man or what he really stands for or might do.
It's so good to see someone from the Brady Campaign here. Yes, people commit crimes. Concealed carry licenseholders are people. Therefore, there will always be some of them that commit crimes.
Other readers may be interested in the following:
1. Florida has issued 315,000 CCW permits since 1995. In all that time, five (5) were revoked because the licenseholder committed a violent crime with a gun. Floridians with permits were 300 times less likely to commit a gun crime than those without permits.
2. A Texas study found that those with permits were 5.7 times less likely to commit *any crime at all* than those without permits, and 14 times less likely to commit a non-violent crime (which includes drug offenses, misdemeanor assaults, and speeding tickets).
Therefore, it behooves a Republican-founded (yes, really. Sarah and Jim Brady, as well as Paul Helmke, are all Republicans) organization like yours, Doug, to call attention to those very rare instances where a CCW permitholder commits a crime, rather than look at the overall rate of crime of CCW holders, which is extraordinarily low any way you look at it.
In any case, what is a Republican
shill like you doing on a progressive, liberal site like NewWest.com anyway?
Of course you didn't, MM. Criminals would have them concealed, and so would the citizen that didn't trust the Park Rangers to keep him safe 5 miles from the nearest road.
I suggest that carrying firearms into an NP is a life choice that does no harm to others, so while you may choose not to exercise that option, you should not be intolerant of other law-abiding citizens' life choices that demonstrably are an insignificant threat to you.
You correctly point out that people carrying in the National Forests is legal (and has been for decades). This reasonable and common sense rule change will simply align the parks system with the forest system and state laws. I recognize that you might personally not like it, but you should strive to be more tolerant in your words.
JLB -
Stupid people carrying guns is a problem for everyone. It's not benign. There should be an IQ test at the park entrance. I've seen some incredibly angry people in national parks, specifically "good ole boys" who like to taunt wildlife watchers, or people who can't handle the traffic jams in Yellowstone.
Get Real, you asked this question:
"What is the difference between a State park and a National park? Trees are trees."
The difference is people go to the national parks. Sure there are outliers, but it's the general rule. Also, there's much more accessible wildlife in the national parks, just sitting there waiting for someone to take pot shots at it.
And to answer Cody Coyote on rogue YNP rangers:
I've never had a single issue with a YNP ranger. Then again, I follow the laws of the park. I find them to be friendly, but often a bit stressed due to the sheer amount of people in the park who lack the slightest self awareness and any basic ability to use common sense.
I believe that the wildlife is much more accessible in National Forests than in the National Parks, simply because there are less people. I think the scenery is better in National Parks, however.
"Shooting at ghosts", indeed. How utterly silly. Why are you conjuring all of these imaginary scenarios to inspire fear and uncertainty about legal CCW holders, which have been shown repeatedly not to be true?
And thanks for Pennington for coming in here. Two gigs in Florida among 315,000 holders. And was that this year, or of all time? And Pennsylvania...four people out of how many over what period? And how many people in TN are under DRO's total? Never mind that DRO's are a knee-jerk in lots of divorce cases...I'll bet in the grander scheme of things, crime rates for CCW holders are in toto far below that for the general population.
I'm going to agree with Bill here and say the dog should be left alone, but doubt very much it will. The country is a wreck and the BHO Admin is going to have to have SOMETHING on its "accomplishments" list.
A buddy of mine took a fighting muffin in the chest. They sent him home in 4 zip lock bags.
http://crackle.com/c/Screenbites/Charlie_s_Angels_The_Fighting_Muffin/1609681
I don't think national parks are the center of crime in this country. I have to agree with Bill on this one.
Then why pack a gun? You still can't hunt there. Besides, that regulation is going away shortly after the inaugural anyway, just like the rest of the BS that Bush has shoved through lately, so just leave your gun behind on this one.
Some advice to JLB: Don't say things like ""Shooting at ghosts", indeed. How utterly silly" in Montana or Wyoming. You will either get laughted at or whupped on by some wrangler.
Why would you suspect a criminal of not having a gun just because the law forbids it?
Why are you so terrified of law abiding citizens with guns that you're will to deliver up to the criminals in all segments of society unarmed innocent victims?
If you're not terrified of law abiding citizen with guns, What's your reason for wanting to take away their guns?
"Then why pack a gun?"
Lemme guess. You're a man. :(
The longer answer is, of course, "why not?" Given that the way our government works, you have to meet a certain level of scrutiny in order to restrict a fundamental right like the right to arms. It's been made clear that prohibiting all firearms in a useful condition does not meet even the lowest standard of review, (the rational basis test), and is thus invalid. Therefore, it does not matter whether there is an articulable "need" for carrying a firearm in a national park, the fact is that restricting that right from being exercised by law-abiding people simply doesn't pass even the rational basis test.
Lastly, if there were a "need" for a firearm in a national park for protection, sure as hell I wouldn't go there! The fact is that a firearm is there for times when you can't predict the future - which is to say, all the time. :)
That's what bear spray is for.
Definitely expect to see a few more dead bears, even though bear spray has been proven to be more effective.
"Now, President-elect Obama needs to keep his promise and come through for gun owners who supported him by allowing this rule to stand as currently written."
Bill, this is the first I've heard of this. Can you back it up? It's unequivocal: "Obama needs to keep his promise".
Did he ever promise to support the guns in the parks rule? If so, I'll be informed. If not, you need to set the record straight. If your answer is about the second amendment and not guns in the parks, that's a serious error and I hope you don't try to split hairs about it (or, "if anyone got the impression...")
Let's have straight shooting, in the parks and outside 'em.
President-elect Obama promised many times to not push gun control and assured gun owners they had nothing to fear from him. I'm not aware of him specifically making any reference to any specific gun law or reg, including the park gun rule, but wouldn't be surprised if he did.
Likewise, President Bush promised many times to fight gun control, but again, I'm not aware of him specifically making any reference to the park rule, but wouldn't be surprised if he did.
I refer to both of their promises in general. If Obama lets the rule go, he will be following through with his campaign promises in my opinion.
Bill
I'm disappointed in your answer, as it shows a willingness to distort the record to support a personal position or fit a convenient opening setup (Bush-Obama).
President Bush has come through many times and in many ways for gun owners and didn't wait until December of his final year. As he does, for example, I'd consider his judicial appointments to be part of this promise-keeping.
The fact is, you wrote what you did without any information about either Bush or Obama on the subject of guns in the parks, and that's my concern. I'll leave it there, but will say this.
Avoiding tempting but not entirely truthful shortcuts, even as an opinion columnist, better serves journalistic integrity in the long run. Maybe you think I'm too hard on you, but the response comes because you didn't have the evidence to back up what you wrote and declined to acknowledge or reconsider it.
Richard
I'm not especially worried about this, and no reasonable person should either. Bears simply aren't going to get shot in greater numbers than they already do - if a bear kills or injures a person, the bear is hunted down and shot. If someone has a reasonable fear of a bear injuring or killing them, then shooting it is a reasonable response - perhaps not the best one, but in a situation where a person's life is at stake, the reasonable option is OK.
Again, reasonable people carry firearms for two-legged predators, not four-legged ones. Bear spray is for the latter, and prudent hikers carry both tools.
"Obama will be taking everyone's guns away. "
Not going to happen, period. That's pure fantasy on your part. And I say that as a Democrat.
Besides if you have that big of a fear of wild animals you have NO business walking around in the park in the first place.
Bears that attack humans are not always shot unless it's a prey situation (the grizzly that went into a tent near Cooke City last year). Grizzles that charge and maul humans are not always killed.
Now that many people will be able to play cowboy on the trails of Yellowstone and Glacier, there will be more shot bears, wether in good judgement or not. A bear charging you is not always a reason to shoot it since most charges are bluff charges. The appropriate and scientifically proven response is bear spray.
++
Again, reasonable people carry firearms for two-legged predators, not four-legged ones. Bear spray is for the latter, and prudent hikers carry both tools.++
I have no doubt that reasonable people do carry for fear of two legged predators. But I also have no doubt that not all people are reasonable.
Prudent hikers should carry both bear spray and a concealed firearm?
Wow. Talk about fear and paranoia.
-- To re-state a little, Paul above asked "How many people with concealed weapons permits have been arrested for a gun crime? I can't seem to find a single person.... Can anyone cite just one example where this has been a problem?"
I provided 15 examples since October 1 of this year alone.
-- Florida has a notoriously weak system for doling out concealed carry permits. The Sun-Sentinel did a long series on the system, finding 10 times as many criminals and other dangerous people with FL permits - including murderers and sex offenders - than previously admitted by the state. http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/florida/sfl-gunmain28jan28,0,2918397.story
For heaven's sake, Paxico Burress had a FL permit up until May. Certainly no hardened criminal; still, all of his Florida concealed carry training helped him shoot himself in the leg while drinking alcohol in a bar.
You want somebody like that carrying in the Park (or anywhere else for that matter)?
-- Assuming for the sake of argument that permit-holders are less likely to commit a crime doesn't protect the victims of those permit-holders who do commit crime. If anything it's worse, because they were victimized by people that gun advocates and the State assured them were "law-abiding citizens." Cold comfort.
As I've shown here and above, the permitting systems of different states give permission to all manner of dangerous people to carry. We're talking about life and death here, not standing on a soapbox and speaking your mind. There's a real-world difference between shooting off your mouth and firing your weapon.
The public has the right to be free from the risk of people doing criminal or stupid things with firearms, whether those people have a license to carry or not. Which is why keeping guns out of places where the public expects to be more shielded from that risk than other places makes common sense, including at schools, government buildings and yes, National Parks.
-- When it comes to domestic violence restraining orders, if it's your mom or sister who's threatened by an armed boyfriend - who has a permit to be armed by the State - you'd damn well be pissed off that the system doling out permits handed one to a wife-beater.
-- Finally, jlbraun's right about our Republican roots, though I'm not sure how much the RNC appreciates our "shilling" operation.... :~]
Doug Pennington
BradyCampaign.org
The Brady Bunch Campaign has been continually putting out false and misleading information for years. Your org is discredited. It twists facts into fiction to support your desire to ban as many guns from the hands of law-abiding United States citizens as possible.
One method your org uses attempt to deceive the public is by using kids as an excuse to keep parents from protecting them by keeping a functional firearm at home. Which is more dangerous to kids - a swimming pool or a firearm at home? A swimming pool. If you want to "protect" kids then why don't you try to ban swimming pools?
Firearms in the hands of law-abiding citizens are used to stop a crime between 800,000 and 2.5 million times a year, depending upon which survey you support.
Your org attempts to deceive the public into thinking that having a firearm causes people to commit suicide by publishing stats on the number of suicides that were carried out with a firearm. Your reports are misleading at best and fraudulent at worst.
There has been no credible proof presented that having a firearm will cause someone to off them self. If someone wants to assume room temperature there are a 1000 ways to accomplish the goal.
Here are stats compiled by the government on deaths caused be various means including firearms.
http://www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=127
Here is an article from this week pointing out misleading statements of the Brady Bunch.
http://www.gunowners.org/a121708.htm
Early Brady Plans Revealed; Push to end all private sales tops list
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/6312
If the anti-Bill of Rights crowd ever gets all of what they desire, America is through.
From yesterday pointing out misleading statements from the Brady Campaign. http://www.ohioccw.org/content/view/4171/53/
If you want to read current real-life accounts of citizens using their firearm to stop a crime the place is excellent http://keepandbeararms.com/
Everyday they post links to articles in newspapers from around the country. See for yourself.
You make interesting observations. Nonetheless, what you get on an RSS feed (which I'm sure you've done) doesn't present the fuller story.
For example, my old man, a retired fighter pilot, carries. His career was flying a multimillion-dollar gun platform for Uncle Sam. He was a pretty good shot, nearly winning the Goldwater Trophy (2nd place) back in the day. Then, as a FAC in the Delta, he blew up a VC sampan with smoke rockets, too.
He's a dang good shot with more-conventional firearms as well.
Now he road-trips the country. Thing is, he is, like many fighter pilots, rather compact, not exactly the most intimidating figure. And while he's in great shape for an old fighter pilot, he's still, um, old. And he has nice stuff that bad people would probably want to take from him at, say, a rest area at 3 AM. So he constantly checks his six, and he carries. I'd prefer he do so because I'd rather not get the call to come get his body.
Furthermore, I would make the argument that my dad, as anyone else, has a perfect right to travel unmolested at any time, in any public place in a free country.
Imagine walking Rock Creek Park or Central Park at four in the morning on a summer night and not being completely vulnerable to predation from the dregs of the gene pool. Imagine actually ENJOYING it because the idea of jumping the innocent is considered unthinkable by the thoughtless...
One question I have asked repeatedly of 2nd amendment myopics and have never had answered: please provide an example of how the 2nd amendment has actually made more Americans free? The expansion of the 1st and 4th amendments (to use two examples) certainly have made more Americans free and I don't think it happened with guns. I can only think of one example where Americans have shown up with their own weapons to defend what they thought was important: many Confederate soldiers showed up with their own guns to protect slavery, miscegenation, and the plantation way of life. Anyone have a better example?
Hikers who carry pistols are creepy...
It would appear the problem is with states who have weak CCW laws. This is the infomation age and background checks are easily done. Where I live certain misdemanors will disqualify you from a CCW permit.
This brings me to the next issue of reciprocity with states. The CCW issue needs to be standardized so cross border issues don't make criminals out of law abiding citizens who may just happen to have the gun in a state without a cross border agreement.
Goofy stuff like this needs to be resolved.
Maybe you mean '...in Wyoming'? For, as of 1994, Death Valley N.P. eclipsed anything else the Lesser 48 had to offer.
Don't even get me started on Alaska's biggest, 6x > Jellystone.
And for the record, e abbey, no. Shooting people is not one of your God-given rights. There are actually about ten rights that God revoked one afternoon on a mountain in Egypt, and shooting people would be one of them.
I can only think of one example where Americans have shown up with their own weapons to defend what they thought was important: many Confederate soldiers showed up with their own guns to protect slavery, miscegenation, and the plantation way of life. Anyone have a better example?
Google up "Athens Tennessee 1946"
Former GI's led an armed citizenry to insure a fair election in a corrupted and oppressive local government. And they won their fight.
Stupid people carrying guns is a problem for everyone. It's not benign. There should be an IQ test at the park entrance. I've seen some incredibly angry people in national parks, specifically "good ole boys" who like to taunt wildlife watchers, or people who can't handle the traffic jams in Yellowstone.
The same thing has been said about allowing people to vote. But every time it is suggested that prospective voters be given IQ test, folks like Mike start crying that it violates a persons right to vote. Funny how some folks are very selective about which Constitutional Rights they support, or when they are inclined to support them.
A stupid person with a gun is potentially dangerous to a small number of people, as compared to stupid a voter, whos ill cast ballot has the potential to adversely affect millions.
I'd like Mr. Pennington to explain why it is that states like Alaska and Vermnont, that do not require any kind of permit to carry a handgun (concealed or openly), have the lowest violent crime rates per capita than any state in the Union. While places like Chicago and DC, that have the most restirctive gun control laws on the books, have the highest rates of violent crime per capita?
Orginizations like Mr. Pennington's have always told us that gun control laws are intended to reduce violent crime. It appears that they do just the opposite.
Pleaser explain this strange anomoly, Mr Pennington. Why aren't your favorite regulatory gun laws working as promised.
The public has the right to be free from the risk of people doing criminal or stupid things with firearms, whether those people have a license to carry or not. Which is why keeping guns out of places where the public expects to be more shielded from that risk than other places makes common sense, including at schools, government buildings and yes, National Parks.
Doug, Can you explain how any rule or law prevents "people doing criminal or stupid things"? If they are going to do something illegal (like murder you), they are going to do it regardless of the additional rules and laws you put in place. Just because a rule is written on paper, doesn't mean that the criminal is going to obey said rule.
Your son/daughter is 2 seconds away from being killed by a 'bad guy'.
Which item would you prefer your child to have?
A. Cell phone
B. Gun
Think carefully.
=====
Allowing firearms in National Parks to follow the same rules as firearms in State Parks simply makes the rules the same across the board (per state) and easier for all parties to follow.
This means any state that bans firearms in State parks has also banned them in National Parks. Odd, that doesn't allow firearms in those National Parks.
=====
Another thought... any place that bans firearms is by default creating a criminal protection zone. The logical fallacy groups like the Bradys would have you believe in is the 'Law Abiding Criminal'.
These groups operate under the assumption that everyone, law abiding citizen and criminal alike will follow the laws. They fail to grasp the basic concept that criminals don't follow the law. If they did, they would NOT be criminals.
=====
Prior to this rule change, a criminal (who would likely have a firearm) in a National Park had free reign to shoot and terrorize ANY law-abiding citizen. The law-abiding citizen would have no firearm or defenses on his/her person because they followed the rules. This allows the criminal to freely rape, torture, maim, and kill anyone they wanted.
Post rule change, a criminal will have to be very selective of his targets. Why? **ANY** target might have a firearm and be able to shoot back and hurt/kill the criminal. This is a good thing.
=====
The above line of thinking is supported by the plethora of data available from various sources (including the CDC). Allowing firearms to be in the handsof law-abiding citizens has reduced crime rate. Allowing CCW/CHP has a significant reduction in crime.
Banning them allows crime rates to soar. Want proof that counters the lies and mis-truths given by the Bradys? Google up Australia (or Great Britian) and crime rates along with gun control.
Time and again, it has been proven that if you disarm the populace, crime goes up. Allow the populace to be armed, and crime goes down.
Sure there are bad apples out there. People can (and will) be stupid. You cannot legislate away stupid though.
Here's another question for everyone... who among you has the legally / lawfully granted right to bar me from defending myself?
Before you answer the above question, pay attention to the following text 'We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.'
I have an inalienable right to defend my life from those who would take it from me. That in mind... having a firearm on my person in no way endangers anyone else unless they forced me by their own conscious actions to defend my life from them. Thus if you mean me no harm, I cause no harm. That means my firearm would stay in its holster.
The only people who should have to worry about a lawfully armed citizen is a criminal intent on causing severe bodily injury or death. If you are worried about lawfully armed citizens, does that mean you are a criminal wanting to attempt such mischief?
Which circumstance of death seems more senseless if minding your own business with your family?
A. Eaten/mauled by a wild animal while you're in the wilderness
B. Shot by the wayward bullet of hunter (as just happened in upstate NY) in the (presumed) safety of your own bed/bedroom/home
I stand accused of not understanding how a mother feels when she loses her kid to a mountain lion while out on a nature walk - yet when I cite the death of a 5 year-old in the woods of upstate New York by a hunter who felt the need to pump an extra bullet into his already-incapacitated deer, I am told "swimming pools kill, cars kill, anything can kill - accidents happen."
And then you invoke the word "rational"???
Yeah - but only if you perceive the threat quickly enough to begin with. What happens if someone is behind you and aiming the gun? Or how about someone just driving by and letting loose a couple bullets into your front porch - not really caring if they hit anybody in particular?
You people have this mentality that a robber is going to visibly threaten you, giving you time to grab your weapon.
Well maybe...Yeah - be like that father who shot his own daughter who was hiding in the closet playing a joke on him. He perceived the muffled sounds to be threats and so fired right through the closet door, killing her (boy - he wasn't going to wait for that intruder to have time to pull an illegally-obtained Saturday night special).
More likely, you will end up like the New York City bus driver who demanded that a young man embarking on the bus pay up - instead the kid fatally shot him instead. (Okay - yeah - so they were both Negros - so what's your point????)
How would you have handled "Santa-gun-nut" in Southern Cal?
Scenario:
You are enjoying Christmas with your family in your own home. There is a knock at the door and everyone sees "Santa."
He shoots the little girl who answers in the face.
He starts shooting everyone he can see.
Do you have time to get your gun? (Is it on you?)
Can you flee to get your gun without getting shot in the back?
If you are able to get your gun - but "Santa" knows you have one - how easy is it to approach this armed person?
Go...
"I just really want some honest answers from you people:"
You want answers? We've been trying to get you and the others,like Mr Pennignton to answers ours, but you won't. You haven't answered one dang question we've asked. All you have done, mehmnet is toss spit wad comments that contribute absolutely nothing to the discussion. You don't deserve answers until you can give3 answers yourself.
You remind me of an annoying obnoxious little kid that keeps getting in everyones face, trying to get attention. Too bad we don't have a naughty stool here we could make you go set on.
Most of us that carry know that we run the risk of a bad guy getting the drop on us. But we also exercise "situational awareness" meaning that we are constently assessing our surroundings, which reduces that risk.
The father that shot his own daughter through teh door violated one of the most important rules of firearm safety - KNOW YOUR TARGET. His daughter should have known better than to trying to surpise a gun owner. It's a good way to find yourself looking at the business end of a gun. But I suspect that there were other aspects to this story that weren't reported. Perhaps the neighborhood they lived in had been experiencing some breakins/burglaries.
The hunter must have been shooting across a hill. I learned that was a no-no when I was a kid. I suspect that he will get prison time and never be able to legally own a gun again.
More likely, you will end up like the New York City bus driver who demanded that a young man embarking on the bus pay up - instead the kid fatally shot him instead. (Okay - yeah - so they were both Negros - so what's your point????)
Why did you bring up the shooters race? WHAT'S YOUR POINT???? You a racist or something?
I find "paranoia" an interesting word choice. Isn't it also a little paranoid of Americans to think they have to carry a loaded gun everywhere they go? Especially in the national parks, where crime rates-- and run-ins with wildlife-- are so extremely rare?
I appreciate your viewpoint, and I hope you're right that nothing will change. I just hope this doesn't put even more of a strain on park staff that are already struggling with so many REAL issues-- like invasives, and global warming, and species recovery and conservation...