Do you feel the need to be unarmed and defensless while camping?

[LocoCoyote]

Many of us are of the Malcom Reynolds mindset regarding self-defense: if someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back.

I hope to never be in a situation where I need to use my firearm. Should that ever occur, it would not be as a result of my instigation. As such, I doubt I might feel remorse for defending myself.

I have a wife and family who depend on me and who think my life matters. Should I ever have the misfortune of crossing paths with someone who disagrees about the value of my continued existence and seeks to terminate my consciousness, I will vigorously dispute that point of contention to the best of my equipment. Such is my duty to myself and my loved ones.

Not arguing that assertion...your disagreement was about the presence of a firearm not escalating the situation...

Those what ifs were reasonable assumptions....scenarios I could easily see occurring. Please don't challenge me with "facts" or " the data" that you neither provide nor support... If you have a source of these " facts" or " the data" then by all means provide them and I will happily consider them.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[rayra]

...It's also difficult to conceptualize how pairing an already violent society with even more guns with fewer regulations could be anything other than a recipe for more violence. A lot of this is really just common sense.

...

Then go read John Lott's 'More Gun, Less Crime'. The man is(was?) an Economics professor at a major university. He was examining a premise that opportunistic crime was an economic proposition. A Cost vs Benefit equation. So he started researching crime statistics. Cities, states, federally. As his work progressed he noticed a correlation, that cities and states that expanded lawful self-defense with firearms, CCW permitting, Castle Doctrine laws, ALL of them experienced a decline in violent crime rates and in their homicide rates.
The anti-gun demagogues immediately set about trying to dismantle him and unfortunately he made it easier for them by making some mistakes trying to cheer his own work using sock-puppet accounts online. Now he is roundly dismissed with a grand sweep of the hand by the anti-gun folk and shouted down wherever he appears. No one has every disproven his published studies or showed his analysis to be wrong. The title of his book is the distillation of his conclusions. You should read his book.

Beyond that, 'conceptualize' this -

Over the last 20yrs our national violent crime rate has declined greatly.

Before anyone asserts it, it had jack to do with the passage of the Brady legislation in '94 - which expired 10yrs later btw, with no increase in crime - it had to do with widespread passages of 'three strikes' legislation and the long term incarceration of recidivist / repeat violent offenders.

Don't take my word for it, look up the data yourself(selves)
https://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/crimestats/
http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/homicide.htm

And overwhelmingly - 85-90% - of the violent crimes and homicides in this nation are committed by urban black populations. Black families were gaining in prosperity in the 50s and 60s, especially as the Civil Rights Acts were pushed thru - and that's another thing, you should all go take a look at who provided the majority of votes in both houses of Congress to pass those acts and who opposed them. It isn't who most of you think it was. Anyway, Johnson became president upon Kennedy's assassination - and that's another thing, go look up who all of the presidential assassins have been, what their alignments have been. Anyway, Johnson signed his 'Great Society' legislation and the destruction of the black nuclear family was underway. Go look up 'Fabrini Green' and see what happened in our urban centers as these soviet-style apartment blocks were put up and an entire subculture was fractured and addicted to welfare.

If you go back to the international per capita homicide rate site I linked earlier, look at the bottom of the page and you will see a further breakdown of US data and see individual state data and over time. And you will see the huge murder rates in our northeasten heavily urbanized states and the far lower (as in euro / AUS -lower) per capita rates in our more rural states.

it is NOT our 'national culture' of violence. It is solely the rampant crime and broken cultures of our inner cities, our huge gang subcultures, combined with those local and state governmetns denying lawful armed self defense. No need to look any further than Chicago to see all the problems wrapped into one location. Illinois excluding Chicago / Cook county is a peaceful place. Chicago is on track to cross 3000 shootings by New Year's Day. And about to cross 500 deaths from gunfire. And something like 95% of those are blacks with criminal histories and associations. That's the truth of it.

The caricature of the old white guy clinging to his guns and religion as the problem is a gross inversion. The only problem that group presents is to government tyranny. They aren't committing more than a sliver of our crimes.

The entire gun debate is fraught with misrepresentations, predominantly from those that seek to disarm this nation, in abrogation of the 2nd Amendment. Until people take the interest and time to look at the underpinning real crime and causations, there really cannot be any legitimate political debate or policy about it. Just demagoguery.


back to the 'conceptualizing' of 'more guns less crime' -

Year - Murders with all types of guns - NICS checks
2005 - 10158 - 9M
2006 - 10225 - 10M
2007 - 10129 - 11M
2008 - 9528 - 13M
2009 - 9199 - 14M
2010 - 8874 - 14M
2011 - 8653 - 16M
2012 - 8897 - 20M
2013 - 8454 - 21M
2014 - 8124 - 21M
Go look up these values for yourselves. FBI and CDC crime stats, and the FBI NICS data.

So More Guns Definitely doesn't mean More Crime. Gun sales RATE more than doubled over the period, while the murder rate dropped 20%.
120M guns sold during Obama's presidency and the murder rate went DOWN.



Or consider this, US violent crime vs UK violent crime, from a couple years ago. The UK Violent Crime rate is TEN TIMES higher than that of the USA.

Sources:
FBI Total Violent Crime United States
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/uc...-in-the-u.s.-2011/violent-crime/violent-crime
UK Total Violent Crime
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/crime...arch-2012/trends-in-crime--a-short-story.html

Numbers: United States Population: 314,960,029
Violent Crimes: 1,203,564

United Kingdom Population: 62,698,362
Violent Crimes: 2,090,000

---


220,000,000 firearms sold (NICS checks) in the USA over the last 17 years. Yet homicides have DECLINED over 20% over that period.



(shrug) I can 'prove' that there's no correlation/causation between murder/violence and an hunk of metal all day long. But until people internalize or concede that the problem is PEOPLE and not GUNS, this debate is going nowhere. PEOPLE kill, using whatever they have to hand and with their hands and feet if there's nothing else. Hell a crazy woman just DROVE over two groups of people on the sidewalk in Vegas. Let's ban cars.


But there's some hope, at least from my viewpoint -

Support for Assault Weapons Ban Reaches 20-Year Low
http://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/12/11/support-for-assault-weapons-ban-reaches-20-year-low/

 

[Kevin108]

Those what ifs were reasonable assumptions....scenarios I could easily see occurring. Please don't challenge me with "facts" or " the data" that you neither provide nor support... If you have a source of these " facts" or " the data" then by all means provide them and I will happily consider them.

John Lott has already been mentioned, so I'll link you to these. The answers you seek are contained within.
http://concealedguns.procon.org/sourcefiles/Kleckarmed.pdf
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/7.0/gun-facts-7.0-screen.pdf

Those with concealed handgun permits are one of the most law-abiding demographics, with only about 0.5% of permits being revoked because of a gun crime.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/myth...l-carry-if-you-give-someone-gun-they-will-use

Concealed handgun permit holders are even more law-abiding than the police.
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cp...aled-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/

 

[LocoCoyote]

John Lott has already been mentioned, so I'll link you to these. The answers you seek are contained within.
http://concealedguns.procon.org/sourcefiles/Kleckarmed.pdf
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/7.0/gun-facts-7.0-screen.pdf

Those with concealed handgun permits are one of the most law-abiding demographics, with only about 0.5% of permits being revoked because of a gun crime.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/myth...l-carry-if-you-give-someone-gun-they-will-use

Concealed handgun permit holders are even more law-abiding than the police.
http://crimeresearch.org/2015/02/cp...aled-handgun-permit-holders-are-even-more-so/

All very interesting, though somewhat suspect. This only addresses concealed carry....what percentage of gun carriers are permit holders?

I can see where most cc permit holders are not problematic....after all they had to go through some kind of process to obtain that permit ( I will admit I do not know what is involved here...but one assumes some kind of vetting is done). The thread didn't specify cc though. In fact, I would assume open carry in the boonies.

Anyway, the thread has moved so far away from the initial post that we are having a different conversation.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[KiwiKurt]

Hardly my own facts...consider this scenario:

You are confronted by some attacker...bigger than you and acting aggressively .... He states his intention to kick your butt. You, being the good armed citizen you are, display your gun and tell him that is a bad idea. Guy charges you anyway...so what do you do? Shoot him?

And that is how a situation gets escalated.

Same scenario except there is no talk....he just jumps you. You are getting thrashed, so you reach for your gun....

Escalation

Police arrive after you put your attacker down....you are still hyped up from the fight. Police see the gun in your hand....situation is now escalated as you pose a clear danger to the officers.


And we could go on and on with the examples. The presence of a weapon in any situation will tend to escalate that situation. Certainly it could go the other way, but I expect that is the exception and not the rule.

As far as a causal, calm mindset....maybe initially....but most people don't act calm and rational when under stress. Overreaction is common and staying calm when the body is flooded with adrenalin is difficult even for trained professionals.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think the first question I would ask you is this: Do you believe there is an inherent right to defend yourself? The first scenario you presented would lead me to believe you don't, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. You could be an ardent pacifist, which is a different mindset all together. There are people who deeply believe that no use of force is ever justified, even to defend yourself...I don't agree, but I "get it". But if you are just naive to think "if i stay calm, everything will turn out alright. I'm sure of it.", that is outright foolishness. I've been presented with exactly the situation you describe, at I time I was not the individual I am now, and I can tell you that waiting to act was a life changing moment for me. I waited too long to use my weapon and paid the price. In those kinds of situations, that individual shot themselves. I just carried the bullet for them. Why would you estimate its not reasonable to shoot someone who is on top of you pummeling your head into the pavement? I've had it happen. It isn't pleasant. Its certainly scary. And it can certainly cause death or serious injury. Using a weapon is perfectly reasonable in that scenario. There is no moral or legal obligation to let someone pound you to a pulp. That isn't even remotely in the realms of reasonable, and no one should have any moral reservation to someone doing that getting shot.

I would also offer, that based on my experiences nearly a decade on the street as a cop, none of the concerns you raise are really valid. In that time I've had ONE legal fire arm owner (they did not have a carry permit, but were not 'prohibited' from firearm ownership) unreasonably escalate a situation. I never had a case of a justified shooting where the 'good guy' was so brain-panned that they couldnt follow our instructions when we got there. I think what we have here is a classic case of projection. You have your own fears and reasons why you dont (which is fine) and you are projecting them onto what 'other people' might do, and I dont think that's reasonable.

The other thing we need to consider, and recognize, is that the choice to carry a weapon is a deeply personal one. Just because I choose too, doesn't mean I expect everyone else to. There are people that, as I mentioned, are ardent pacifists. That is their right and their choice. But in that same vein, they have to realize that their beliefs are not required by the law or my morality.

 

[Dalko43]

I'll just use this as an example of context and how projection factors into these discussions. If you make that statement above within the context of someone couched as "pro gun," then you get a pass. If I say it, under the auspices of being "anti-gun," then I'm vying for the banishment of guns with little restrictions one by one. The reality is, that statement above is more of the common ground both sides like to pretend they don't share, or are afraid to cop to.

I'm probably not too unlike Kiwikurt. Within the scope of this discussion, I genuinely do not feel a need to defend myself with a deadly weapon. My opinion could very well change. If the day comes when I decide I need a gun, if I have to jump through endless hoops to do so...who cares. I won't. I've had to jump through plenty of hoops in my life for all sorts of nonsense. What's a few more?

No doubt that I have previously agreed with you and acknowledged common ground on certain issues regarding firearms.

But you have also made vague references to enacting tougher legislation and restrictions for firearm ownership. In this very post, you've said you don't have a problem with having to "jump through hoops" to own a firearm. I do have to jump through hoops to own certain types of firearms in my state of NY; it's to the point where a lot of people in NY simply choose to forgo getting a pistol simply because the process is fairly long, obscure, overly bureaucratic and, in some counties, costly. It definitely seems like prohibitive effort on the part of local governments and it certainly doesn't seem fair that an active or retired police officer can avoid all of that.

Does that seem fair to you? Could you please explain your views on gun legislation in greater detail? Specifically, what types of laws do you think will cut down on gun violence? I don't think that I've stereotyped your stance on gun control. But I have asked you repeatedly to clarify the details regarding your views and I've gotten very little feedback from you.

There is a watershed of difference between an ar15 and a belt fed machine gun, javelin missile system, mortar tube, mk19 auto grenade launcher, dillon m134 gatling gun etc etc etc....those are military weapons.

I wasn't referring to crew-served weapons....I'm saying that there really is no functional difference between most of the semi-auto rifles used in both military and civilian environments, like a "civilian" M4 carbine and a "military" one. With the exception of the sear and a slight tweak to the bolt, they both operate in the same manner, despite what some gun rights activists will argue.

There is nothing unreasonable about someone owning an individual rifle of any length. Every policeman in america has one -usually fully automatic- in their patrol car. Its just not unreasonable.

Agree 100%.

 

[LocoCoyote]

I think the first question I would ask you is this: Do you believe there is an inherent right to defend yourself? The first scenario you presented would lead me to believe you don't, but I don't want to put words in your mouth. You could be an ardent pacifist, which is a different mindset all together. There are people who deeply believe that no use of force is ever justified, even to defend yourself...I don't agree, but I "get it". But if you are just naive to think "if i stay calm, everything will turn out alright. I'm sure of it.", that is outright foolishness. I've been presented with exactly the situation you describe, at I time I was not the individual I am now, and I can tell you that waiting to act was a life changing moment for me. I waited too long to use my weapon and paid the price. In those kinds of situations, that individual shot themselves. I just carried the bullet for them. Why would you estimate its not reasonable to shoot someone who is on top of you pummeling your head into the pavement? I've had it happen. It isn't pleasant. Its certainly scary. And it can certainly cause death or serious injury. Using a weapon is perfectly reasonable in that scenario. There is no moral or legal obligation to let someone pound you to a pulp. That isn't even remotely in the realms of reasonable, and no one should have any moral reservation to someone doing that getting shot.

I would also offer, that based on my experiences nearly a decade on the street as a cop, none of the concerns you raise are really valid. In that time I've had ONE legal fire arm owner (they did not have a carry permit, but were not 'prohibited' from firearm ownership) unreasonably escalate a situation. I never had a case of a justified shooting where the 'good guy' was so brain-panned that they couldnt follow our instructions when we got there. I think what we have here is a classic case of projection. You have your own fears and reasons why you dont (which is fine) and you are projecting them onto what 'other people' might do, and I dont think that's reasonable.

The other thing we need to consider, and recognize, is that the choice to carry a weapon is a deeply personal one. Just because I choose too, doesn't mean I expect everyone else to. There are people that, as I mentioned, are ardent pacifists. That is their right and their choice. But in that same vein, they have to realize that their beliefs are not required by the law or my morality.

You are missing my point. The only thing I am saying here is that the presence of a firearm will always escalate the situation. The fact that a firearm is in the hands of one of the parties makes the potential outcome fatal....more serious if you prefer. You, as a street officer...do you feel any more or less comfortable when the person you are confronting is armed? Which would you prefer?

As for your pop psychology and attempts to get into my mind....stick to your day job. . Self defense is a right. Defense of those who cannot defend themselves and your family is a duty. Never called that into question. What I did question ( and the original idea behind this thread) was the feeling that you need to be armed....even if you are way out in the boondocks. I have traveled widely without being armed ( this is a overland themed forum after all )and have never felt threatened to the extent that I wished I had a firearm. Many overland traveling friends I have met also share this view. The only ones I ever hear stating the need to be armed are my American colleges.....and I wonder why this is. What does it say about your worldview if you feel like you have to be ready to shoot it out at any given moment?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dalko43]

I'm in CA nothing prevents me from getting a firearm anymore than the next guy. Your watching too much media propaganda.

There is propaganda on both sides of this debate. There are some very real hurdles to firearm ownership in many states, including CA. If you haven't heard about them, then I'd suggest changing up the source material that you use for your research.

 

[Dalko43]

You are missing my point. The only thing I am saying here is that the presence of a firearm will always escalate the situation. The fact that a firearm is in the hands of one of the parties makes the potential outcome fatal....more serious if you prefer. You, as a street officer...do you feel any more or less comfortable when the person you are confronting is armed? Which would you prefer?

A firearm will not escalate a situation. A person will. An armed and lawful person is much less likely to start or take part in a conflict because he/she knows, as you pointed out, that the consequences could be fatal. Criminals are much less likely to target an armed person or household because they don't want to get shot. Lawful firearm ownership carries a whole bunch of responsibility for sure, but it also makes people a whole lot more inclined to avoid violence or conflict of any sort, which I would consider a good thing.

As for a street officer's comfort level when dealing with armed citizens...that's the thing about individual rights, they are not to be trumped by the state. The police force of New Orleans got a whole bunch of crap thrown their way for proactively confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens during and after Hurricane Katrina. The average police officer has a very tough and dangerous job to do; but his/her desire for safety doesn't supercede a citizen's right to self-defense. And at the end of the day, a police officer is a human being just like the rest of us, capable of evil and criminal acts. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the American citizenry from such failings and overreach by the state more than anything else.

As for your pop psychology and attempts to get into my mind....stick to your day job. . Self defense is a right. Defense of those who cannot defend themselves and your family is a duty. Never called that into question. What I did question ( and the original idea behind this thread) was the feeling that you need to be armed....even if you are way out in the boondocks. I have traveled widely without being armed ( this is a overland themed forum after all )and have never felt threatened to the extent that I wished I had a firearm. Many overland traveling friends I have met also share this view. The only ones I ever hear stating the need to be armed are my American colleges.....and I wonder why this is. What does it say about your worldview if you feel like you have to be ready to shoot it out at any given moment?

There you go again stereotyping us "tigger-happy" Americans. You have your very unique view on this topic, while admittedly you see nothing of value in the viewpoints contrarian to your own. There are a plethora of world views held by American citizens. But one concept that unites us all is that there is a legal document which guarantees our legal rights, and it is only by a thorough system of checks and balances that those rights can be revised or changed. Though there are many other democracies in the world, there are very few which have such a formal and vetted system for safeguarding individual rights.

Forget gun rights for a moment and go read up on any number of instances in Canada, France, UK, and Sweden where individuals have been punished for simply expressing opinions...In that regard, I think it is very fair to say that many Americans have a "world view" that is different from those views held by the citizens of most other countries.

 

[LocoCoyote]

A firearm will not escalate a situation. A person will. An armed and lawful person is much less likely to start or take part in a conflict because he/she knows, as you pointed out, that the consequences could be fatal. Criminals are much less likely to target an armed person or household because they don't want to get shot. Lawful firearm ownership carries a whole bunch of responsibility for sure, but it also makes people a whole lot more inclined to avoid violence or conflict of any sort, which I would consider a good thing.

As for a street officer's comfort level when dealing with armed citizens...that's the thing about individual rights, they are not to be trumped by the state. The police force of New Orleans got a whole bunch of crap thrown their way for proactively confiscating firearms from law-abiding citizens during and after Hurricane Katrina. The average police officer has a very tough and dangerous job to do; but his/her desire for safety doesn't supercede a citizen's right to self-defense. And at the end of the day, a police officer is a human being just like the rest of us, capable of evil and criminal acts. The 2nd Amendment was written to protect the American citizenry from such failings and overreach by the state more than anything else.



There you go again stereotyping us "tigger-happy" Americans. You have your very unique view on this topic, while admittedly you see nothing of value in the viewpoints contrarian to your own. There are a plethora of world views held by American citizens. But one concept that unites us all is that there is a legal document which guarantees our legal rights, and it is only by a thorough system of checks and balances that those rights can be revised or changed. Though there are many other democracies in the world, there are very few which have such a formal and vetted system for safeguarding individual rights.

Forget gun rights for a moment and go read up on any number of instances in Canada, France, UK, and Sweden where individuals have been punished for simply expressing opinions...In that regard, I think it is very fair to say that many Americans have a different "world view" from the citizens of most other countries.

Not sure how you get this from my comments....I respect every opinion. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

Oh, btw: I am as American as anyone else...just have been around and not within US borders all the time. That gives me a wide worldview and allows me to see some things about the US that perplex me. If I had never ventured out into the rest of the world, I would probably share many of the same views as you guys ( gals) . I believe this because I have, in the past, made many of the same arguments. The exposure to things other than the US way have caused me to reevaluate some of these things.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dalko43]

Not sure how you get this from my comments....I respect every opinion. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion.

Oh, btw: I am as American as anyone else...just have been around and not within US borders all the time. That gives me a wide worldview and allows me to see some things about the US that perplex me. If I had never ventured out into the rest of the world, I would probably share many of the same views as you guys ( gals) . I believe this because I have, in the past, made many of the same arguments. The exposure to things other than the US way have caused me to reevaluate some of these things.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You and I have had this same exact conversation before.

When you refer to American gun owners as "ready to shoot at a moment's notice" you don't sound very respectful; you sound like you are stereotyping and miss-characterizing gun owners from a place of ignorance and blind ideology.

I also think you take it for granted that you are the only one on this forum who has traveled the world extensively.

Your views are no more noteworthy or refined than anyone else's....you have your own personal experiences which have formed your belief system....other people have had different experiences which have formed their own beliefs. Just because someone has a different opinion from your own doesn't mean that they have a narrow world view or limited exposure to outside ideas/cultures....in fact to suggest that would indicate to me that you, as a person, have a very shallow grasp of how ideas/cultures/concepts truly permeate our world.

 

[LocoCoyote]

You and I have had this same exact conversation before.

When you refer to American gun owners as "ready to shoot at a moment's notice" you don't sound very respectful; you sound like you are stereotyping and miss-characterizing gun owners from a place of ignorance and blind ideology.

I also think you take it for granted that you are the only one on this forum who has traveled the world extensively.

Your views are no more noteworthy or refined than anyone else's....you have your own personal experiences which have formed your belief system....other people have had different experiences which have formed their own beliefs. Just because someone has a different opinion from your own doesn't mean that they have a narrow world view or limited exposure to outside ideas/cultures....in fact to suggest that would indicate to me that you, as a person, have a very shallow grasp of how ideas/cultures/concepts truly permeate our world.

Ok, I am done.... Either you are purposely misunderstanding my comments or you are reading into it and drawing conclusions from words I have not said.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Dalko43]

Ok, I am done.... Either you are purposely misunderstanding my comments or you are reading into it and drawing conclusions from words I have not said.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

You stated your views pretty clearly, so I don't think there is anything to misunderstand.

You've characterized us Americans as needing to "be ready to shoot it out at any given moment" (that's what you said verbatim).

And you've implied that us Americans have the views that we do on firearms because we haven't traveled as extensively as you.

You said this stuff; I responded to it, not because it made much sense but because it came across as very elitist and snobbish. If there was another way I should have interpreted these statements you made, let me know. Otherwise, I do agree that you're much better off taking a leave of absence.

 

[slimtwo]

In all my camping experiences, I have never really felt the need to have a firearm with me for the sake of protection due to concern for our safety, however, we have had guns with us on certain trips where the opportunity to shoot clays or general target practice on the trail would be an option for anyone interested.

I will say though, that I am definitely a supporter of our 2nd amendment rights to bear arms, and would not hesitate to carry if I felt the need. I kind of look at it this way; our country has an arsenal of nuclear weapons that acts as a deterrent to other countries who might otherwise try to take advantage of us if we didn't have them. I think the same is true for law abiding citizens who exercise their right to bear arms. A criminal might be less likely to do something if he thought there were armed citizens in the group or facility thus being a deterrent (exception being a hardened criminal who either doesn't care, or that are desperate, in which case it wouldn't matter either way).

But as a former LEO, I understand the concern that current LEO's have with PC's who are licensed to conceal carry, and who, with good intentions get in harms way trying to assist in a potentially dangerous situation. It would just make the officers job that much more difficult. So it is imperative that a person considering a CCW, thoroughly research the ramifications of that before they take that step.

 

[jeep-N-montero]

You are missing my point. The only thing I am saying here is that the presence of a firearm will always escalate the situation. The fact that a firearm is in the hands of one of the parties makes the potential outcome fatal....more serious if you prefer. You, as a street officer...do you feel any more or less comfortable when the person you are confronting is armed? Which would you prefer?

As for your pop psychology and attempts to get into my mind....stick to your day job. . Self defense is a right. Defense of those who cannot defend themselves and your family is a duty. Never called that into question. What I did question ( and the original idea behind this thread) was the feeling that you need to be armed....even if you are way out in the boondocks. I have traveled widely without being armed ( this is a overland themed forum after all )and have never felt threatened to the extent that I wished I had a firearm. Many overland traveling friends I have met also share this view. The only ones I ever hear stating the need to be armed are my American colleges.....and I wonder why this is. What does it say about your worldview if you feel like you have to be ready to shoot it out at any given moment?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Have you ever actually lived in America? I have lived in both the USA and Germany and can say without a doubt that many europeans have a false sense of security, so I am not at all surprised by your resistance to understanding the opinions and feelings on the topic. Do you know the difference between an informative discussion and an argument, in a discussion both parties validate and acknowledge the opinion of the other, while in an argument each party feels that only their individual opinion matters.... so let's try to keep this a constructive discussion.