Government Pushing Shooters Off Public Lands Because Urbanites ‘Freak Out’ (Update: Interior Backs Down?)
The Bureau of Land Management has proposed curtailing hunting and target shooting on public lands. They claim: “It’s not so much a safety issue. It’s a social conflict issue,” because “urbanites ‘freak out’ when they hear shooting on public lands.”
No statistics or specific anecdotes were offered to corroborate this freaking out allegation, but here’s some hard data that identifies what city dwellers should be freaking out about. That they don’t casts doubt on their ability to judge what is dangerous and what is safe.
Centers for Disease Control (CDC) data shows that between 1981 and 2008 (all data available), accidental firearm death rates declined 76.1%, from 0.82 to 0.19 per 100,000 population. During the same time period, accidental motor vehicle deaths declined 41.6%, from 22.39 to 13.07. (See chart below.)
When taken as a ratio, there were over 67 accidental motor vehicle deaths for every accidental shooting death in 2008.
The CDC reports that between 2000 and 2009 (all data available), accidental firearm injury rates declined 26.6%. During the same time period, accidental motor vehicle injuries declined 22.3%. (See chart below.)
In 2009, there were over 225 accidental transportation-related injuries for every accidental shooting injury.
It appears that urbanites “freak out” when confronted with something different than their normal experience. Yet they’re comfortable with a serious threat of death and destruction because they’re used to it in their everyday experience, since cities are clogged with traffic 24/7.
The issue here is city dwellers’ bigotry towards different lifestyles, and their lack of diversity that renders them intolerant of new experiences.
Update (Bryan): It looks like Interior is backing down.
You know what’s interesting? Urbanites tend not to freak out when we take them to our range (we live on a farm) and put a gun in their hands. Wonder if it’s the 10 minutes of safety talk we make them listen to? Or maybe it’s the explanations of how the guns actually work? Or the no alcohol rule?
In any case, taking a liberal shooting is something all gun advocates should try to do. We’ve turned more than one over to our side!
Good work! Notice I mention the lack of hard evidence regarding this ‘freak out’ allegation?
I get the notion that the Bureau of Land Management and the National Forest Service are very different in attitude and methods of operation. In my area federal lands are under the Forest service. There is an abandoned army base nearby where I have done lots of target shooting over the last 30 years. The last time I went I noticed a Forest service police vehicle leaving out of the area I planned to shoot in. I stopped him and asked him if any other people were around because I planned on shooting. He informed me that the land had been incorporated into the national forest and that because of greatly increased human traffic in the area they no longer allowed target shooting. He was very friendly and professional. I thanked him for telling me ( I had a car full of guns that he plainly saw ) and promptly left the area.
I get the idea that if that had been a Bureau of land management cop, I would have been arrested and had all my guns seized, and probably gotten a knot or two on my head. Are they as arrogant and heavy handed as I think they are? They appear to treat the land they manage as if it were their personal property and not public land.
The Forest Service Ranger might have been polite and all, but the upshot of your episode is still the same as on BLM lands — one less place to shoot.
The key to a safe range is haveing an adequate backstop, where no non-intended targets can enter into the safety zone. Hope you find a new place to shoot.
I agree and wish the forest service would construct a range for shooters. On subsequent visits ( non-shooting ) I did notice that that area did indeed have alot of human traffic. It was prudent of the service to stop the shooting that had been taking place for decades.
I have found a new place to shoot. My wife and I have recently bought a place in the country. When our realtor asked us what we were looking for my wife gave lots of specifics about floor plans and style…I answered ” I want to be able to stand naked on my back porch and shoot my rifle and not bother anyone.” . We both got our wishes.
Like Marcia and Kevin I have also introduced shooting to half a dozen young people ( friends of my son and grandson ) and at least one of them have taken up sport shooting with enthusiasm.
We too have put a gun in the hands of many of our liberal friends since moving to Extreme Northern California. Same story – controlled environment, safety procedures, ear and eye protection at all times, no alcohol. The kids are the BEST part. The kids LOVE it! They get the gun bug and that’s it! It’s Uncle Kevin’s house over Disneyland. And indeed in a lot of cases the parents are initially freaked at the thought then mellow out once in the groove on the range when they understand the process. Heck, we even lay out huge tarps so that brass cleanup is much easier. The look on a teens face when he shoots a 44 mag for the first time is priceless. Plenty of bragging rights too. Yes, they go home with a different outlook hopefully reflected in future voting!
I’ve lived in the Intermountain West for 30 years. I’ve hiked and backpacked in Colorado, New Mexico, Arizona, Utah and Montana. This article invites several comments. First, I didn’t see anything here that would lead to a “liberal” vs. “conservative” discussion. One’s political leanings would appear to have nothing to do with this issue.
The link tries to compare users of guns and ATVs. I can dodge an ATV if I hear it coming; I can’t necessarily dodge a bullet fired from 1/4 mile or more away. The author implies the entire BLM is concerned about “urbanites freaking out;” when the reality is that the quote comes from one individual. I know a fair number of BLM staffers who would disagree with their colleague.
I’m also aware of a number of places just in Colorado where illegal shooting occurs on Forest Service & BLM lands. Gun owners bring in old appliances, junk vehicles, old TVs, etc.; fill them full of holes; and then leave the mess. I’d hope the individuals and entities who are opposing the proposed new rules are aware of this and have some sort of stewardship programs in place to “police the bad apples.”
The general concern is correct, however, as the West has become more urbanized. I would not see shooting as a good activity close to places like Flagstaff, Grand Junction, Moab, etc. That said, there are still plenty of places out here where shooting can be done with a modicum of safety and protecting the public. Given my knowledge of the rulemaking process for the federal land agencies, I suspect the needed safety concerns will be addressed while still preserving the concept /of multiple use of public lands.
In other words, this issue is a real “tempest in a teapot.”
Your comments would carry more merit if they were based on an accurate reading of the article. The first occurrence of “liberal” is in the comments section. Your first comment regarding political leaning was tied to the article.
Second, I did not address the ATV issue, because there is no specific data on ATV accidents. I DID draw a link between motor vehicles in general and their relative lethality in accidental injuries, because urbanites are very heavily exposed to vehicles and apparently that’s not a “freak out.” Curious double standard.
I agree that we should police irresponsible shooters, and that population density affects shooting. However, here in Texas, we have range protection. If city folk want to move to the country, they can’t whine about noise if they move into a new ticky-tacky development next to a range. It’s all called personal responsibility.
Finally, read one of the source documents:
http://www.fws.gov/whhcc/doc/draftBLMshootingsportspolicy.pdf
From page 3 of the PDF:
3. Management of Recreational Shooting, Identification of Shooting Areas, and Closures
“Active management of recreational shooting by identifying areas of low risk or resource conflict that remain open for dispersed shooting activities, and closing areas that are identified as having high risks or conflicts through a temporary or permanent closure are effective ways to reduce risks while preserving recreational opportunities for the public.”
Nice vague criteria, so an anti-2AM bureaucrat can just call it all “high risk.” After all, if it saves one life, it’s worth it!
We must remain vigilant regarding the federal bureaucracy. They surely are vigilant to see if we’re paying attention, which is why they infringe upon our rights whenever we let them through rationalization or inattention.
Living in a rural, mostly smallholder farm and housing area, I don’t “freak out” at all when I hear gunfire in the forested hills.
What freaks me out is if those guns might be in the hands of urbanites who think any old patch of “woods” is a “place to hunt”.
They are FAR more likely to shoot at sounds than actual game.
So your dog becomes a deer, your cat becomes a deer, your car becomes a deer, your kid becomes a deer…
Urbanites should apply for,take a course of classes, and receive a license before being permitted onto Public lands.
And if you want THE prime example of Urbanite cultural bigotry, look no further than their war on “gas-guzzling SUVs”.
When a Prius can haul as much firewood through 10″ of snow as a Tahoe, get back to me, sports fans.
How about including a graph that shows gun and auto accidental deaths on the same scale? The first graph makes it look like prior to 1985 there were more gun accidents than traffic accidents.
Putting the data on the same scale would make the point more forcefully.
They are on the same scale. Those are rates per 100,000 population, not total numbers.
Would love to see a chart showing this data along with data on gun ownership, by law abiding citizens, over the same periods. Now that would really dramatize the point. Everything I’ve read say that gun ownership has definitely increased, to the consternation of the left I’m sure.