If guns are allowed in public parks, no one will be safer
Megan Stewart
Issue date: 3/4/08 Section: Opinion
Plan on doing a little homework in a park when it gets warmer? Then don't forget your semi-automatic - there are crazies out there! Or, at least, that's what the National Rifle Association and 51 senators believe.
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced last week that government officials would review regulations controlling guns in public parks. Currently, only unloaded and inoperable weapons may be carried in public parks, but the Interior Department's review could change that.
The announcement was a response to two letters written by the NRA and a coalition of senators, 44 Republicans and seven Democrats.
Lawmakers argue that the prohibitions on carrying firearms in parks are contradictory and cumbersome. They say that if a state allows a person to have concealed weapons in public, then that person should be able to have concealed weapons on public property - like parks.
A public school is technically public property. But the lawmakers aren't touching the weapons restrictions there. Why are gun regulations in public parks so much more contradictory than those in schools? Public parks have jungle gyms and playgrounds for children. And if guns aren't allowed in schools because of the potential danger to kids, the same rules should apply to public parks.
These weapons restrictions at schools extend to public universities as well. Initially, the Department of the Interior was going to announce its decision to review the regulations on guns in parks earlier this month. But because of the recent shootings at Northern Illinois University, officials postponed the announcement.
New York City has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country: You have to get a special city license to own a gun - a regular state permit is insufficient. And New York is one of the safest large cities in the country, with a violent crime rate that's been decreasing for years. If walking through Central Park was like walking through central Baghdad, I'd understand the need for a little protection. But it's not. The NRA's reasoning is circular and absurd. No need exists to have guns in a public park because of a lack of security. The guns provide the need.
In a Feb. 28 Washington Post article, Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, is quoted as saying, "Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges."
But according to the National Park Service, the probability of being the victim of a violent crime in a national park is 1 in 708,333. What's a gun going to do - protect people from a squirrel gone wild? Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" was only a movie. It won't happen in real life.
A few groups have protested the proposal, mainly park rangers and conservation groups - the people who know the parks better than anyone else. They say that changing the restrictions will be like breaking a good thing. Personally, I'm inclined to side with the rangers who live in the parks over senators and lobbyists.
The Department of the Interior has not yet reached a final conclusion on whether or not it will revoke the ban; it will announce its decision on April 30. But let's assume that the ban on carrying loaded firearms in public parks is lifted. Fast-forward two years and you're walking through a newly renovated Washington Square Park. There's music behind you, children running around the fountain, you're strolling along with a bubble tea in hand. And some random guy walks by twirling a gun. Oh yeah, that sure makes me feel safer.
Megan Stewart is a columnist. E-mail her at opinion@nyunews.com.
Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced last week that government officials would review regulations controlling guns in public parks. Currently, only unloaded and inoperable weapons may be carried in public parks, but the Interior Department's review could change that.
The announcement was a response to two letters written by the NRA and a coalition of senators, 44 Republicans and seven Democrats.
Lawmakers argue that the prohibitions on carrying firearms in parks are contradictory and cumbersome. They say that if a state allows a person to have concealed weapons in public, then that person should be able to have concealed weapons on public property - like parks.
A public school is technically public property. But the lawmakers aren't touching the weapons restrictions there. Why are gun regulations in public parks so much more contradictory than those in schools? Public parks have jungle gyms and playgrounds for children. And if guns aren't allowed in schools because of the potential danger to kids, the same rules should apply to public parks.
These weapons restrictions at schools extend to public universities as well. Initially, the Department of the Interior was going to announce its decision to review the regulations on guns in parks earlier this month. But because of the recent shootings at Northern Illinois University, officials postponed the announcement.
New York City has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country: You have to get a special city license to own a gun - a regular state permit is insufficient. And New York is one of the safest large cities in the country, with a violent crime rate that's been decreasing for years. If walking through Central Park was like walking through central Baghdad, I'd understand the need for a little protection. But it's not. The NRA's reasoning is circular and absurd. No need exists to have guns in a public park because of a lack of security. The guns provide the need.
In a Feb. 28 Washington Post article, Chris Cox, the NRA's chief lobbyist, is quoted as saying, "Law-abiding citizens should not be prohibited from protecting themselves and their families while enjoying America's national parks and wildlife refuges."
But according to the National Park Service, the probability of being the victim of a violent crime in a national park is 1 in 708,333. What's a gun going to do - protect people from a squirrel gone wild? Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds" was only a movie. It won't happen in real life.
A few groups have protested the proposal, mainly park rangers and conservation groups - the people who know the parks better than anyone else. They say that changing the restrictions will be like breaking a good thing. Personally, I'm inclined to side with the rangers who live in the parks over senators and lobbyists.
The Department of the Interior has not yet reached a final conclusion on whether or not it will revoke the ban; it will announce its decision on April 30. But let's assume that the ban on carrying loaded firearms in public parks is lifted. Fast-forward two years and you're walking through a newly renovated Washington Square Park. There's music behind you, children running around the fountain, you're strolling along with a bubble tea in hand. And some random guy walks by twirling a gun. Oh yeah, that sure makes me feel safer.
Megan Stewart is a columnist. E-mail her at opinion@nyunews.com.
Viewing Comments 1 - 10 of 17
Sulayman F
posted 3/04/08 @ 6:06 AM EST
Maybe if we were discussing Yellowstone National Park, I could understand the need for a gun. As Stephen Colbert says, America needs to wake up to the threat of Bears! However, I don't see the need for a gun in Washington Square Park or even Central Park (though maybe a taser would suffice in the latter). (Continued…)
fsilber
posted 3/05/08 @ 6:27 AM EST
"Plan on doing a little homework in a park when it gets warmer? Then don't forget your semi-automatic - there are crazies out there! Or, at least, that's what the National Rifle Association and 51 senators believe. (Continued…)
SQUANTO
posted 3/05/08 @ 7:12 AM EST
Megan (oh how I love those country day school names)if the truth be known,people have been carrying firearms in the parks forever and no one knows or suspects. (Continued…)
Mike
posted 3/05/08 @ 7:46 AM EST
This is typical sneering by those who don't want anyone to have the ability to defend themselves. The idiocy of their postition is manifested in the last paragraph. (Continued…)
Joe R
posted 3/05/08 @ 7:56 AM EST
The debate is about National Parks -- not Central Park nor Washington Sq Park.
But it is worthwhile to use an analogy to Central Park to explain the debate. (Continued…)
R.J.
posted 3/05/08 @ 9:25 AM EST
First, you gun grabbers tell us we must give up our guns because there are crazies out there who will use them. Then, you pooh-pooh the idea of carrying in national parks because we only THINK there are crazies out there? Get real! You can't have it both ways. (Continued…)
Uncle Lar
posted 3/05/08 @ 12:12 PM EST
In 2006, criminal activity in our national parks included 11 killings, 35 rapes or attempted rapes, 61 robberies, 16 kidnappings and 261 aggravated assaults. (Continued…)
Bill
posted 3/05/08 @ 12:48 PM EST
Megan is crying the same old tune the anti-American crowd always crows; The sky is falling, there will be rivers of blood in the woods, the gun owners cannot control themselves, blah blah blah. (Continued…)
Walter Lee
posted 3/05/08 @ 12:48 PM EST
Parts of this column are simply ignorant. Federal law prohibits carry guns within 1000 feet of school property. However, the same law exempts persons licensed by the State to carry guns at the school from the law. (Continued…)
Wendy Weinbaum
posted 3/05/08 @ 1:14 PM EST
I had to laugh at the ignorance of this author. Is she scared of her own shadow? As a Jewess in the US, I want to remind all that America wasn't won with a registered gun, and that criminals are stopped by FIREARMS, not by talk. (Continued…)
Post a Comment