Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 55

Thread: Ken Schram: An irresponsible idea

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    250

    Post imported post

    Might want to email this clown.

    By Ken Schram http://www.komotv.com/features/kenschram/17057371.html

    My first reaction was that it sounded sort of reasonable.

    But then I began to wonder: Are national parks so dangerous that people need to be allowed to carry guns in them?

    Statistics don't even come close to holding up that theory.

    So why would republican members of congress, and their NRA puppet masters, be pushing to allow people to pack pistols in their picnic baskets and backpacks?

    Might it be an attempt to force Senators Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to take an "anti-gun" vote before the election?

    Gee, that'd be pretty irresponsible.

    I mean playing the American public for dupes in order to score political points is certainly in the GOP playbook, but would they really stoop so low as to turn armed tourists loose in our national parks?

    Actually, i think they would.

    Never mind that there is not one iotas worth of justification for allowing pistol packing people into our national parks.

    Never mind that national park rangers think the idea is totally ridiculous.

    Yeah, at first i thought it sounded sort of reasonable.

    But I was wrong.

    Allowing guns in our national parks is a really stupid, irresponsible idea.

    Have something to say to Ken? E-mail him at kenschram@komo4news.com.



  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Union, Washington, USA
    Posts
    3,256

    Post imported post

    I e-mail moron Kenny and asked him how he can support the 1st Amendemnt and not the 2nd Amendment. Since the Constitution is not a line item veto document, it's either all or nothing and he deserves "Nothing" with his attitude.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    Hi all, my name is Bobby and i'm a newbie. Been reading the forums for a couple months now. haven't OC'ed yet and haven't decided if i'm going to or not but i thought this thread was just as good of an excuse as any to join in the talk.

    Schram posted his reader's views today as he usually does on fridays and mine was one of them!

    here is today's piece:

    By Ken Schram
    SEATTLE - Judging by the amount of "you don't know what you're talking about" e-mails, my commentary against allowing guns in America's national parks was about as popular as Kentucky Fried Chicken at a vegetarian picnic.

    From Bruce Jackson: "I prefer to have my gun holstered at my side in national parks. The same as when I go to Wal-Mart or Home Depot. Guns save lives!"

    Bobby Williams: "A gun is just a piece of survival gear in the wilderness as far as I'm concerned."

    Ken Jones: "My right to carry a firearm for self defense does not require your permission. (Just as) your right to pen stupid, irresponsible (commentaries) isn't dependent on my permission."

    Bill Maness: "Go backwoods camping sometime ... when you hear the large animal snuffling outside your tent, tell me you wouldn't want a weapon handy, just in case your sleeping bag smells more appetizing than your last commentary."

    Howard Stoppelman: "Lots of people carry guns whenever they go into the woods. … Screw the laws! You want to be eaten by a bear?"

    And finally, from Wayne and Barbara Steen: "Our national parks are full of wild animals. ... Allowing ... guns ... is an ounce of prevention."

    Lions and tigers and bears, oh my.

    Thanks for writing everyone.

    Have a great weekend.

    Have something to say to Ken? E-mail him at kenschram@komo4news.com.


    the excerpt from me (Bobby) was part of this email i sent to him in response to his orginal article in the OP.

    Mr. Schram,

    It appears you don't really care about what the people want. The proposed rule change to allow the LEGAL carrying of weapons in National Parks in in direct response to a citizens letter writing campaign to their respective senators. In response, Senator Crapo wrote a letter to the head of the Department of the Interior, Kirk Kempthorne. The letter was signed by over 50 senators INCLUDING DEMOCRATS. Mr. Kempthorne's response can be found here: http://www.bighammer.net/images/0222...e_response.pdf Those that wrote letters to their senators are fed up with being disarmed in a potentially dangerous environment while we are allowed to legally, with a permit, carry firearms virtually everywhere else.

    Further, I'd sure love to see these statistics you talk about given that this article: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/htm...trails15m.html states: "While neither the U.S. Forest Service nor the National Park Service keeps precise statistics about crime on federally protected lands, officers and rangers in Washington say that crime appears to be on the rise in the backcountry."

    I have personally encountered a meth lab as well as a mother Black bear with cubs in tow on the trails in Washington's National Parks. I was lucky enough to see both before they saw me and high tail it out of there since I was obeying the law and did not carry my firearm with me in the Parks. Do you really think that changing the rules will encourage criminals to carry in the Parks? News flash, Ken. They already do. Illegally.

    This is not just about Washington either. I'm sure you're aware that many of our Nat'l Parks butt up against the Mexican border and is home to or a thoroughfare for illegal immigrants who, as I'm sure you know, aren't always the most law abiding bunch as evidenced by their mere presence on US soil.

    A quick search can turn up plenty of stories like this one: http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0802/p02s01-ussc.html

    If you want to trust your safety and your life to a Ranger miles away, be my guest. No one is forcing you to carry a gun or even visit the Parks. If your life means so little to you that you would turn over your most effective means of defending it to a stranger that you most likely wouldn't be able to call to for help anyway, go right ahead. I'll take responsibility for my own safety and that of those who are with me, thanks.

    A gun is just a piece of survival gear in the wilderness as far as I'm concerned. Did you know that firearm is part of the state required survival equipment for Alaskan Bush pilots? Those who know wilderness, know a gun is a very useful tool when it comes to being attacked by creatures with four legs, or two.

    If you think our Nat'l Parks are safe havens, free from crime and bastions of peace and harmony with nature, you obviously don't get out much. Just ask Julianne Williams, Carole Sund, daughter Juli and friend Silvina Pelosso and Laura Winans. Oh wait, you can't. They were murdered in a National Park

    Sincerely,

    Bobby
    i've written him several time but this is the first time i made the cut. he's still a big blowhard though. his snide comment at the end doesn't surprise me one bit.

    anywho, just wanted to say hello to all. hope to be able to participate in the discussions more.

    Bobby

  4. #4
    Regular Member Mainsail's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Silverdale, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,532

    Post imported post

    I kept mine short:

    I think you should shut up. Your first amendment rights do not apply to the National Parks, and you should, in the future, shut up.


  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    SeaTac, Washington, USA
    Posts
    434

    Post imported post

    e-mail sent.

    I don't think he thought this through very far.

    Mike

  6. #6
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    I emailed him:
    [size=Between 2002 and 2007, there were 63 homicides in national parks, 240 rapes or attempted rapes, 309 robberies, 37 kidnappings and 1,277 aggravated assaults, according to National Park Service statistics.

    His reply:
    ]
    [/size]
    Check your facts.
    I checked mine.
    Ken Schram






  7. #7
    Founder's Club Member OC-Glock19's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Woodbridge, Virginia, USA
    Posts
    561

    Post imported post

    Bobarino wrote:
    Hi all, my name is Bobby and i'm a newbie. Been reading the forums for a couple months now. haven't OC'ed yet and haven't decided if i'm going to or not but i thought this thread was just as good of an excuse as any to join in the talk. (snip)
    Welcome to the forum, Bobby. I liked your letter and thought that it was well written. I look forward to more of your posts on here.

    If you're not comfortable open carrying, nobody is suggesting that you should start, so don't worry about that. I choose to conceal carry most of the time, but that's not always the most convenient way to be armed. I just like having the choice to carry as I see fit.

    Again, thanks for writing.



  8. #8
    Regular Member just_a_car's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Auburn, Washington, USA
    Posts
    2,558

    Post imported post

    Bobarino, glad to have you aboard, welcome.

    Your letter was very well-written and I'm glad you at least made a great point that was published.

    Don't worry about being comfortable with OC just yet, we all have to work into it, it just takes some a little more time than others. It might help to join us at one of our monthly OC lunch/dinner meetings and chat with a bunch of experienced OC'ers to help bolster your confidence; I know it did for me.
    B.S. Chemistry UofWA '09
    KF7GEA

  9. #9
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    "Check your facts.
    I checked mine.
    Ken Schram"

    What arrogance. I suppose he has a better source of National Park statistics than The National Park Service? Like maybe Handgun Control Inc.?

    MD

  10. #10
    State Researcher
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Olympia, WA, ,
    Posts
    3,201

    Post imported post

    First off, welcome Bobarino!
    Second, maybe it's time for a boycott of Fisher Broadcasting?

    I don't own a TV myself so I guess I boycott them all. Also, isn't KOMO an ABC affliate which is owned by Disney?

  11. #11
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    No longer in Alexandria, Egypt
    Posts
    2,798

    Post imported post

    Machoduck wrote:
    "Check your facts.
    I checked mine.
    Ken Schram"

    What arrogance. I suppose he has a better source of National Park statistics than The National Park Service? Like maybe Handgun Control Inc.?

    MD
    He probably got his facts and data from the same guy that proposed "Gun Free Zones" and we know how effective THOSE are!

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Arlington, Washington, USA
    Posts
    374

    Post imported post

    (Off Topic)
    Congrats on your 666th post mainsail. :celebrate

  13. #13
    Regular Member Bobarino's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Puyallup, Washington, USA
    Posts
    295

    Post imported post

    thanks for the welcomes all! i know Mainsail from THR. i've been on there for years. i'm seriously considering picking up a Serpa and OC'ing. i probably will this spring or summer. been CCW'ing for about 9 years or so. i talked to my girlfriend about it and she's on my side and said she'd be ok with it and the possible delays, and repercussions for it so bonus points for her! i'd lve to join in a gathering if its on a weekend. thanks again for the warm welcomes.

    Bobby

  14. #14
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    M1Gunr wrote:
    I emailed him:
    [size=Between 2002 and 2007, there were 63 homicides in national parks, 240 rapes or attempted rapes, 309 robberies, 37 kidnappings and 1,277 aggravated assaults, according to National Park Service statistics.

    His reply:
    ]
    [/size]
    Check your facts.
    I checked mine.
    Ken Schram




    M1Gunr:
    And you got those statistics from ... where?

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...manguns12.html


  15. #15
    Regular Member John Hardin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    Snohomish, Washington, USA
    Posts
    684

    Post imported post

    Dave Workman wrote:
    M1Gunr wrote:
    Between 2002 and 2007, there were 63 homicides in national parks, 240 rapes or attempted rapes, 309 robberies, 37 kidnappings and 1,277 aggravated assaults, according to National Park Service statistics.
    And you got those statistics from ... where?

    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinio...manguns12.html
    Unfortunately the US Park Police annual report seems to dispute those numbers:

    http://www.nps.gov/uspp/Final6a.pdf page 5

    Dave, can you cite the source for those numbers? I've been trying to find National Park Service crime statistics online and the closest I've been able to come is the Park Police data cited above.

    Perhaps the Park Police aren't collecting statistics for all National Parks? It looks like that "annual report" may only be for the Washington D.C. area.


  16. #16
    State Researcher Bill Starks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Nortonville, KY, USA
    Posts
    4,291

    Post imported post

    Dave I used that piece of your article in my email to Ken.

  17. #17
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Lynnwood, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,487

    Post imported post

    email sent


    I just finished reading your piece on how you think that it's stupid to allow guns in national parks. I noticed that you pointed out that there is no reason to allow people to bring their guns with them to a national park, but you didn't mention anywhere in your article why we shouldn't either. Normally I am a very big fan of your commentary,but in this case I am a little concerned with your ideology. I think when people that are not pro-gun think of gun owners they think of us as a bunch of rednecks that can't control themselves. I would like you to know that if you look at some of the pro-gun studies, instead of just falsified statistics from the Brady group (who list anyone up to 24 as a "child" in their "children killed by guns" statistics) you will find that the gun owning population is actually more educated than the non-gun owning population.

    Let me get to my point. I'm sure you've seen on a movie or on TV some slack-jawed redneck saying that it's "my god-given right to own a gun". Well when you show him saying it that way, it sounds a little retarded, for lack of a better word. What that little scene is doing is mocking the NRA and the gun community for saying that self defense and self preservation are god-given rights. This is taken from the founding fathers, from the declaration of independence and the constitution, as well as the federalist papers. Owning a handgun is generally for the preservation of life, and that is what is a god given right. The constitution does not give us rights. This is a common misconception. Again, if you read the federalist papers you may find that the founding fathers have different intentions than we commonly are told. What the constitution does is preserve rights that we already have, or some might call "god-given".

    But the constitution aside, I think that you are looking at the wrong things when making this judgement. Statistics of people harmed in national parks by crime or wildlife are not jusification for carrying guns, sure. I carry a gun with me every day, everywhere I go. I don't shoot people, or have any intention of shooting people. Most people wouldn't guess that I have a gun. I don't carry it because I'm going somewhere dangerous and I'll need it, I carry it because I am responsible for my own safety. The supreme court has ruled several times that it is not the responsibility of law enforcement to protect you. What? Does that sound surprising? There was a case in DC where 3 girls had called the cops and they never showed up. They were raped for 14 hours. When they went to court to sue the cops, the supreme court ruled that the police have no duty to protect them. And they're right! The only person responsible for your safety is you. You feed yourself, clothe yourself, keep yourself sheltered, and keep yourself alive. No one else is responsible for this. That is why I carry a gun. Because no one else should have to run to my rescue. It's the same thing in a national park. I want to go to the park and enjoy myself, have a good time with my family, roast some hot-dogs and enjoy the outdoors. I want to do it without fear of bears, cougars, rapists or murderers, and I don't want to have to wait three hours for a park ranger if I find myself in danger (and with cell phone reception). It's not because I want to be able to go shoot up our national parks, it's just because I want to be able to enjoy myself without putting myself in a helpless position.

    Now I don't think an email is going to change your mind about anything, but I did want you to know that a current reader and fan of your work is very disappointed with that piece. I also would like to invite you to come out to the range and experience shooting first-hand. I would be more than willing to show you what guns are really capable of and what they are not, as well as how safe and fun target shooting is. I would like to give you an opportunity to see things from all the angles, so if you are at all interested, I would be more than happy to take you shooting at a local range.

    So please, don't brand us all as rednecks who want to go to the park with a pistol in our picnic basket. Thank you for taking the time to read my response.

    Aaron Lynch

  18. #18
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Aren't these Park Police the same smarmy Fosdicks who decided that Vince Foster's death was a suicide?

    MD

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    John Hardin wrote:
    Unfortunately the US Park Police annual report seems to dispute those numbers:

    http://www.nps.gov/uspp/Final6a.pdf** page 5

    Dave, can you cite the source for those numbers? I've been trying to find National Park Service crime statistics online and the closest I've been able to come is the Park Police data cited above.

    Perhaps the Park Police aren't collecting statistics for all National Parks? It looks like that "annual report" may only be for the Washington D.C. area.

    Originally, I found the data on a page in the Washington Post, and went back through some stats to confirm it. All those notes are at my office, but the Post did an excellent graph and numbers by numbers chart. Just take out a calculator and do the math, like I did.

    The numbers are startling.


    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...022800363.html

  20. #20
    Regular Member Machoduck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Covington, WA & Keenesburg, CO
    Posts
    566

    Post imported post

    Dave, here's that chart as a .jpg for everybody.

    MD
    Attached Images Attached Images

  21. #21
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Blaine, WA, ,
    Posts
    1,315

    Post imported post

    You can find some of the info on the NPS website in a study they put together on park rangers http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/documents/IACP.pdf . This has the statistics from 1995 to 1999. My guess would be that you would need a FOIA request to get the rest as it doesn't appear to be readily available. Not a surprise as the website is designed for people who want to visit, not researchers.

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post




    I'll postmore information, soon as I can figure out how to convert it from a Microsoft chart to something more easily readable here.





  23. #23

  24. #24
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Lacey, Washington, USA
    Posts
    151

    Post imported post

    Whoa! From that Seattle Times article:
    In the summertime, Mark O'Neill, who patrols Olympic National Park, parks his patrol car along Highway 101, the main drag between Port Angeles and Forks, to catch speeders. During these traffic stops he often finds fugitives wanted on arrest warrants.

    'We take weapons off people all the time,' O'Neill said.
    That's something to bear in mind before you take a road trip round the Olympic Peninsula: there are two stretches of US 101 that pass through the Olympic National Park, to wit the aforementioned bit between Port Angeles and Forks, and a stretch along the coast just north of the Quinault reservation. The regs, to the best of my understanding, is that firearms are only permitted in National Parks if they are being transported in a vehicle on Park roads, provided they are rendered unsuitable for ready use (e.g. locked in a case) and stowed out of sight.

    So the question then becomes: is US 101 legally a "Park road" where it passes through the Park?


  25. #25
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    , ,
    Posts
    1,863

    Post imported post

    Euromutt wrote:
    So the question then becomes: is US 101 legally a "Park road" where it passes through the Park?
    That depends upon whether the highway was there before the park, or vice versa. If the park was created after the highway was built, it's a highway. If the park existed before the highway was constructed, it's a road through the park..

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •