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
"I would be willing to bet that overall crime against persons has dropped [because of folks carrying handguns in the parks?]"
I doubt it. Doesn't make sense.
Makes perfect sense to me and the work of Gary Kleck at the Florida State University College of Criminology supports that contention. What doesn't make sense is to think that someone that is going to use a gun criminally would refrain from using it if it weren't allowed.
"What doesn't make sense is to think that someone that is going to use a gun criminally would refrain from using it if it weren't allowed."
That same person now won't use a gun criminally in the park because they are allowed?
Anon @ 4:32,
Are you really suggesting that in the mind of a criminal about to use a gun, the consequence of going to prison and law enforcement rangers are not deterrents, but the off-chance that a random hiker or family on vaction might be armed is a deterrent?
Anon - 10:10
What I am stating is that there are far more "random hikers" and "families" on vacation than there are law enforcement rangers and so they are a more likely deterent. Furthermore, they will be more able to defend themselves should a criminal approach them. Research has shown that 1.5-2 million people use a gun in self defense every year. Research has also shown that having a CCW does not increase the likelihood of using a gun criminally. Again, I point you to the research of Gary Kleck at the Florida State University College of Criminology.
I am unaware of any research that supports your claims that allowing the carrying guns in the parks would increase risk to park visitors or wildlife.
"What I am stating is that there are far more "random hikers" and "families" on vacation than there are law enforcement rangers and so they are a more likely deterent."
I'm not sure why the "number" of visitors to the parks are a more likely deterrent. Does a criminal intent on using a gun think that because there are more people in the park they are more likely to be armed? I don't follow the logic. That criminals would be more likely to use a gun because of the change in the law seems dubious.
"Research has shown that 1.5-2 million people use a gun in self defense every year."
I'm not sure why that stat is relevant. We could also quote stats on the number of accidental shootings that occur every year.
"Research has also shown that having a CCW does not increase the likelihood of using a gun criminally."
And I doubt it would prevent anyone one else from using a gun criminally. Why would it?
"I am unaware of any research that supports your claims that allowing the carrying guns in the parks would increase risk to park visitors or wildlife."
I haven't made this claim. I have different objections to carrying guns (openly) in the parks.
Meant to say, "That criminals would be less likely to use a gun because of the change in the law seems dubious." Oops.
Yes - it is the uncertainty of not knowing who is or is not armed that is the deterent. If there are 50 people "visitors" around that is far more deterent than no law enforecement officers.
Because it shows the positive aspects of citizens carrying guns
Go ahead - give us the statistics. I think you will find that tricylces typically cause more accidental deaths.
Pretty simple - Because the victim might shoot back -
OK - those were the claims of NPS Retirees. What exactly are you objections?
And yet research has shown just that. 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? To me, that is only common sense.