Seattle Times Calls for Ban of Guns in City Parks

Following a recent shooting at Lake Sammamish State Park, guest columnist Ralph Fascitelli writes for The Seattle Times that guns should be banned in all public places, and offers a triad on how “gun control” is the answer. His idealized view on gun control argues that it will “reduce the chances of another shooting like the one at Lake Sammamish.” But we ask whether it really would?

Fascitelli calls for several things:

“(A) ban guns in all state, county and city parks, where we have now seen more than once that a toxic combination of alcohol, firearms and elevated testosterone on a sunny day can have deadly consequences… Let’s make our parks gun-free zones where families can gather with peace of mind without the worry of sudden death to innocent loved ones (and let’s have our park rangers make spot checks to ensure that no one does indeed have a gun in their possession). “

Would a criminal follow the ban? Wouldn’t this just put law-abiding citizens at risk if a criminal did have a gun? Oh, but Fascitelli saw our question coming, so he offers the “let’s have our park rangers make spot checks.” Yeah, as if park rangers don’t have enough to do already, and if any city or state budget could handle such a move.

Furthermore, this is nonsense. Park rangers are not exactly law enforcement and can’t deal, nor should they deal with situations that could turn violent and deadly. What happens when a park ranger does do a spot check and finds someone with a gun? Does Mr. Fascitelli suggest arming – and training – park rangers? Wouldn’t this bring the very guns back into the park?

But Fascitelli further proves his ignorance on the issue when he writes:

“Second, let’s close the gun-show loophole and insist on mandatory background checks on all gun purchases. More than one-fourth of juvenile crimes involve guns procured from gun shows, according to a survey by the Portland Police Department. Insisting that felons, the mentally ill and underage juveniles do not have easy access to handguns or military assault weapons is not an infringement on Second Amendment rights.”

Is that statistic on sales even accurate? We did a search online and all that was found was “A Report by Americans for Gun Safety Foundation” dated April 2001. This would confirm Fascitelli’s statement, but this report is nearly a decade ago. For the record it states:

“Over a two-year period, Portland police confiscated several hundred guns from area gang members. 73 of the 265 successful traces indicated that the guns originated from gun shows.”

The other point that needs clarification is the use of “military assault weapons.” This is a term that is thrown around considerably by the anti-gun crowd, but it is far from accurate and far from fair. A semi-automatic AK-47 is not, repeat not a “military assault weapon,” of the type used by military forces around the world. Nor are the various commercial versions of the M-16/M-4/AR-15. These may look like a military weapon but they function very differently. What is the big deal we ask with guns that look like military guns? They’re no more accurate than many semi-automatic hunting weapons, and in the case of some firearms – such as the AK-47 – the hunting versions are often vastly more accurate and powerful.

Fascitelli’s group has previously called for a ban on “military assault weapons,” but this group should already know that true military weapons are banned in most private hands. It is virtually impossible to buy a military version of current issue weapons, unless you are in law-enforcement. But that clouds the facts.

Finally it is hard for us to believe Fascitelli’s statements in general. He states:

“We need to cut through the emotional and irrational rhetoric about Second Amendments rights and find the middle ground between personal freedoms and public safety.”

We’d like to know what the “middle ground” actually is, especially from the president of Washington Ceasefire. Is their motives really about reducing gun violence or is it just about reducing guns?