homicide-erumpent
Notebook
November 26th, 2006 by Double Tap

The New York Times has declared that the Second Amendment does not apply to National Parks. You know, those parks run by the federal government, and funded by taxes paid by you and me.

In an editorial dated 22 NOV, the Times said that outgoing Sen. George Allen’s proposed legislation to allow for the carry of concealed firearms in the national parks was based on a false interpretation of the Second Amendment, which they claim the gun lobby has been promoting for years.

America’s confusion about the Second Amendment is now nearly total. An amendment that ensures a collective right to bear arms has been misread in one legislature after another — often in the face of strong public disapproval — as a law guaranteeing an individual’s right to carry a weapon in public. And, in a perversion of monumental proportions, the battle to extend that right has largely succeeded in co-opting the language of the Civil Rights movement, so that depriving an American of the right to carry a gun in public sounds, to some, as offensive as stripping him of the right to vote.

The Times goes on to say that a better way for people to be protected in National Parks is to - wait for it - increase funding. Yes, the typical liberal response to any problem - throw money at it.

If Americans want to feel safer in their national parks, the proper solution is to increase park funding…

How you would hire enough park rangers to stand watch over some geographically enormous areas is beyond me. Plus, even if there were more park rangers standing around, how does the typical camper contact them in an emergency? And, even if they were able to contact them, how quickly could those park rangers get to the scene in time to do anything but pick up the pieces (or the bodies)?

The Times concludes by saying that the public would only be placed in greater danger by this legislation, rather than safer. Let’s examine that argument for a moment.

Steve Chapmen, in an article found here, does an excellent job of picking apart the anti-gun arguments about concealed carry. According to Chapman…

Today, some 40 states have such “shall-issue” (concealed carry - ed.) laws. They’ve become the norm, and the fears they inspired have proved unfounded.

As it happens, serious crime has waned in the intervening years. Murders are now at their lowest level since the 1960s. Violent crime has been cut by nearly 60 percent since the peak year of 1994. Gun crimes have plunged as well.

Chapman admits that concealed carry may not be the reason for the decline, but it also hasn’t promoted crime either. Chapman goes on to point out the people who apply for concealed carry permits are generally law-abiding and maintain their law-abiding nature after they get the permit.

A report by the Texas Department of Public Safety found that in a state with more than 200,000 people licensed to carry guns, only 180 were convicted of crimes in 2001, and most of those crimes didn’t involve firearms. Only one licensee was convicted of murder. Florida, which has nearly 400,000 permit holders, revoked only 330 licenses last year — about one out of every 1,200.

Now, you ask, why would you need to “pack heat” in a National Park? Think about this scenario. You are out camping with your wife and little child. Everything is peaceful and idylic. Not a soul around for miles. Then, a couple of drunken ne’r-do-wells drive up and decide that since you are out in the middle of nowhere, with no one there to be a witness, you will be easy pickings for a little criminal activity. Or maybe, a lot of criminal activity.

How do you defend yourself? According to the Times, we are supposed to call the Park Rangers. Oops! I can’t get a cell phone signal. Perhaps if I just talk nice to them, they’ll go away and leave us alone.

No thanks, I think I’ll be prepared to defend my family.