Statistics
Feb
25
Obama Interior Department may spike concealed guns in national parks
February 25, 2009 | Tagged Concealed Carry, guns in national parks, self-defense in national parks | 1 Comment
The Obama Administration is looking at the Bush regulation that allows concealed carry permit holders to exercise their government-limited Second Amendment right to armed self-defense in national parks. The Obama Justice Department apparently actually defended the Bush rule, saying that it “does not alter the environmental status quo, and will not have any significant impacts on public health and safety.”
However, the Interior Department, led by former Colorado Senator Ken Salazar, wants to review “environmental impacts.” I’m not sure what impacts they are looking for, since according to the recent article in The Washington Post, “Justice Dept. Defends Bush Rule on Guns,” there were only about four hundred violent crimes and animal attacks out of 270 million nationwide park visits in 2006.
Let’s say for the sake of argument that every one of those human and animal attacks was met by an armed citizen firing a gun. That would be somewhere between four hundred and twelve hundred bullets fired per year in the park system. (Many full-blown shooting incidents seem to involve the firing of about three rounds, although there is probably no “average” gunfight.) Of course, most of the human attacks would be fended off according to research done by Professor Gary Kleck without a shot being fired. That cuts the absolute maximum estimated numbers down to about four hundred defensive shots fired per year across the National Park System, if every victim were armed and prepared for self-defense.
The actual numbers would be much lower, because every potential victim would not have bothered to get a concealed carry permit and could not legally carry in a Park. Some of the lead would stay in the bodies of the attacking humans or animals, reducing the environmental impact still further. We’ll see what the Interior Department has to say about the potential remaining lead and noise pollution. But, “if it only saves one life,” as the the other side is fond of saying, it would probably be worth it to allow citizens a reasonable chance to defend themselves in “their” national parks.
According to research by Wright and Rossi and John Lott, other park visitors would benefit from the deterrent effect. Criminals would be less likely to attack anyone in the park system, if there were an increased risk that a potential victim might be armed. (See my post under the Category: “Research,” “Gun Control Research-Wright and Rossi-armed citizens deter criminals,” 01-29-09)
Interestingly enough, there is no mention in The Washinton Post article about the concealed carry permit requirement. If you read the story, you might well get the idea that the gates of the parks were being thrown open to any citizen who might decide to exercise his natural right to armed self-defense. It is this kind of media bias that makes it so difficult to get the truth out in the debate on guns. (See my post, “Brady Campaign may abort self-defense in National Parks,” 01-04-09, Category: “Concealed Carry.”) (See also, “Will volunteers abandon national parks due to legal concealed carry?” 12-25-08, Category, “Concealed Carry.”)
We must set aside the fact that concealed carry permit holders have an overall excellent record of sobriety and decorum with regard to bearing and using firearms in self-defense. That informational tidbit didn’t make the article either.
You might want to contact the Department of the Interior and encourage them to continue to extend this limited Second Amendment protection to the National Park System.
Def Mech
Comments
1 Comment so far
Van Jones is a complete nut job, I don’t get how Pres. Obama can just turn his face and look the other way when there are so many obvious radical red flags going on. Um… maybe it’s because Obama is a bit of a radical himself; who knows…