Ken Schram: An irresponsible idea

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.

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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)

Click to expand...

"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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

And you got those statistics from ... where?

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/354607_workmanguns12.html

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...