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

[Lynnrb]

Ill have to respectfully agree to disagree with everything you just said. With the exception that acting calmly and collectively will likely solve most social confrontations. I agree with that. Acting calmly and collectively will not solve them all though, so that's why I carry a gun



Statistically you're not likely to ever need a gun for self defense, and one isn't guaranteed to save you even if you need one and have one, however, seat belts aren't guaranteed to save you in a car accident yet we still wear them.

Survival is about putting the odds as much in your favor as possible. The cushy lifestyle of the modern first world has done a lot to cultivate weak minded people.

If people choose not to carry a gun because they don't see a need, that's fine, I'm not going to try and change their minds, but don't try and convince me I don't need one either, and don't try to deprive me of that right.

Man kind and Mother Nature in general has malice. That's something we can't change, ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Seat belt use is not analogous to carrying a gun. There is no down side risk to using them. There are risks with carrying a gun. No one seems to be taking this risk into account. I am hearing that carrying a gun is the magic bullet. Pun intended.
And Mother Nature is a natural force, therefor can not hold malice.

 

[LocoCoyote]

Loco, I pity weak minded people like you who are afraid to protect what you love.
As for me being a sociopath or a psychopath . I don't believe I saw you on the occasions I had to use my weapon.
As I said I served my country and my fellow brothers in arms well. I'm not sorry I did not come home in a casket , or like a few of my brothers with PTSD. I was sent to do a job , when it comes to kill or be killed the choice is very clear in my mind.
You just classified our military personnel as being mentally ill !
I hope to GOD every true American in this forum finds your view of our Mariens and soldiers as being sociopaths or psychopaths as discussing as I do.
Your freedoms come at a cost .

It is strange sometimes what a person will read into a statement you make. I pointed out that taking a life and feeling no remorse is a symptom of both sociopathic (best case) and psychopathic (worst case) behavior. No accusations were made or implied. Folks seem to twist words to fit whatever they need to get riled up about.

As for my " weak minded" service....if you are not carrying a military retiree ID card...well, you may talk to me about my service once you do.

Back to the question at hand.... Of course carrying is a personal choice. No problem with that. What I was exploring with my previous comments is more along why anyone feels the need. Threats of various types have been cited and I do not dismiss any of them. However, these threats exist everywhere. Most people deal with these threats without feeling the need to be armed with a gun.
I have stated that this is a conversation that would probably only be had in America. I stand by that statement.....on the other hand, America is probably the only place you could have this discussion.... two sides to every coin I guess.

In the end, good arguments can be made for both view points...I just hate it when folks get all butt-hurt and stop discussing and start dissing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mvbeggs]

There are a number of issues at play here. As you point out, there is a legal position, but there are also social and moral mores. Just speaking to the social element, some people are a little presumptuous that their right to carry trumps all. Only a few times in the last several years has anyone been gentleman enough to ask if I mind if they join our group with a gun in their possession....

Sorry, but I would never think to ask if someone minded if I joined a conversation around a campfire while carrying a firearm. Maybe it's my bad upbringing, or simply because I am NOT politically correct, or maybe it wouldn't dawn on me that someone is uncomfortable in the presence of a safely holstered firearm. Why should I feel the need to ask, if there was no danger and I wasn't putting anyone at risk? Don't take these as smug comments, I'm truly interested in your response.

Seat belt use is not analogous to carrying a gun. There is no down side risk to using them. There are risks with carrying a gun. No one seems to be taking this risk into account. I am hearing that carrying a gun is the magic bullet.

I think your post and ChristopheNoel's are related.

Lynnrb, not sure what "risks" you are referring. I'd be interested in hearing what "risks" you fear, or think, exist.

 

[LocoCoyote]

Ill have to respectfully agree to disagree with everything you just said. With the exception that acting calmly and collectively will likely solve most social confrontations. I agree with that. Acting calmly and collectively will not solve them all though, so that's why I carry a gun.

Statistically you're not likely to ever need a gun for self defense, and one isn't guaranteed to save you even if you need one and have one, however, seat belts aren't guaranteed to save you in a car accident yet we still wear them.

Survival is about putting the odds as much in your favor as possible. The cushy lifestyle of the modern first world has done a lot to cultivate weak minded people.

If people choose not to carry a gun because they don't see a need, that's fine, I'm not going to try and change their minds, but don't try and convince me I don't need one either, and don't try to deprive me of that right.

Man kind and Mother Nature in general has malice. That's something we can't change, ever.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

All good points worth considering.
I would argue that the chance of a car accident (seatbelts) is far greater than the chance of needing to defend yourself with a gun. So by using seatbelt, I am addressing a higher risk (higher probability).

Maybe my hangup here is how I am thinking of the scenario. When I hear "camping" I am considering being out in the boonies.....basically away from most people. I don't fear wildlife (please, let's not open this discussion.....yes, wildlife can be very dangerous and having a firearm MAY help in such a case....but such attacks are not common)..the only thing I would even consider a firearm for is people. People are always the problem. With this being the case, I am baffled at the notion of feeling so threatened that I go about armed all the time. (in the woods)
Granted, there are places where I would be more likely to carry.....the wilds of the AZ/Mexico boarder come to mind... but generally speaking I wouldn't do it.

since it has been brought up, I would like to say this about carrying a firearm in general: I recognize everyone's right to do so. I just wish more people who did were qualified to do so. Having a gun in a crisis situation is one thing....being able to effectively and safely use it is another. The presence of a gun will ALWAYS complicate any given situation. For way too many people, having one will almost guarantee it gets taken out (and used? possibly). You are less likely to confront someone if you think they will best you...if you are armed, you feel better equipped to intervene. Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing..just that it is part of the dynamic.

and once more....I fully support the right to own firearms and to use them in self-defense ...never said otherwise. There is room, however, for sensible and well considered laws in this area. I am not talking about the typical, ineffective, feel good legislation that is currently out there. I think gun owners need to come together and consider how we can enact such laws (and what those laws should be).

so enough! dead horse beaten.....let's move on.

 

[Dr. Cornwallis]

There are a number of issues at play here. As you point out, there is a legal position, but there are also social and moral mores. Just speaking to the social element, some people are a little presumptuous that their right to carry trumps all. Only a few times in the last several years has anyone been gentleman enough to ask if I mind if they join our group with a gun in their possession. I think that takes one helluva good person to take into considerations how others feel about having a firearm present. It's the asking that matters. In all cases whereby I was asked if I'd mind, I knew the gun owner, knew they had been well trained, and didn't mind.

Now, it is my personal opinion, and hopeful wish, that someday our governance will require all gun owners to meet some level of testing standard before being granted the right to carry. We do it to ride motorcycles, fly planes, and even if you want to wax someone's back hair for money, you have to be certified to do it.

For starters, the constitution does not specifically guarantee your right to drive a car, fly a plane or have your back hair waxed.

Also, were never going to stop bad things from happening. All these additional regulations would do is hinder law abiding people from acquiring a means to protection.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[mvbeggs]

Some thoughts for LocoC

....since it has been brought up, I would like to say this about carrying a firearm in general: I recognize everyone's right to do so. I just wish more people who did were qualified to do so. Having a gun in a crisis situation is one thing....being able to effectively and safely use it is another.

Agree. I know way too many CCW permit holders that don't take continual training seriously. Gun handling, like most skills, is perishable. You MUST practice and train to stay proficient. It takes a lot of time and $'s to stay proficient. I've found most are unwilling/unable to make that commitment.

Here's some alarming trivia provided to me during my training: Did you know that it's a typical statistic that law enforcement miss 80% of the time when having to use their firearm in the line of duty? (this amazed me the first time I heard it) Do you know, in a real life situation where the use of a firearm is justified- a person will only be able to shoot at 50% of their best day on the range?

....The presence of a gun will ALWAYS complicate any given situation. For way too many people, having one will almost guarantee it gets taken out (and used? possibly). You are less likely to confront someone if you think they will best you...if you are armed, you feel better equipped to intervene. Not saying this is necessarily a bad thing..just that it is part of the dynamic.

I disagree with just about everything I quoted you saying. Some major misconceptions going on here.

"The presence of a gun will complicate any given situation"...This is an incorrect assumption. This is similar to your earlier statement that a gun will always escalate a situation. Let me explain. Any responsible gun owner should never draw/brandish a weapon unless death or serious bodily injury is imminent to themselves or others. If this is the case, by definition, the situation can not escalate any higher nor get more complicated.

Second, a responsible gun owner should NEVER brandish a weapon to intimidate another party into submission. This IS a recipe for disaster. A firearm is a tool to do one thing, destroy and inflict serious damage to anyone or anything it is used against...period. IMHO, personal property, real property, one's ego, etc. are not to be defended with the use of deadly force. If one does, it is very likely that person will be charged with a felony.

Third, private citizens, unlike police, are under no obligation to intervene to stop a crime or intervene on the public's behalf. Most do not feel better equipped to intervene just because they carry a firearm. Very few will risk everything they own, which will likely happen if they use their firearm, to intervene on a strangers behalf.

..and once more....I fully support the right to own firearms and to use them in self-defense ...never said otherwise. There is room, however, for sensible and well considered laws in this area. I am not talking about the typical, ineffective, feel good legislation that is currently out there. I think gun owners need to come together and consider how we can enact such laws (and what those laws should be)......

I would disagree that we need more laws. We have plenty, more laws only complicate matters for lawful firearm owners. Although I am no lawyer, the laws for the use of deadly force for self defense are very simple, use a firearm for something other than to prevent the death or serious injury to yourself or others, and it is very likely you will be charged with a serious crime. FYI, this is the same rules law enforcement live by as well.

I'm curious, what additional laws do you think would be good?

 

[LocoCoyote]

I disagree with just about everything I quoted you saying. Some major misconceptions going on here.

"The presence of a gun will NOT complicate any given situation"...This is an incorrect assumption. This is similar to your earlier statement that a gun will always escalate a situation. Let me explain. Any responsible gun owner should never draw/brandish a weapon unless death or serious bodily injury is imminent to themselves or others. If this is the case, by definition, the situation can not escalate any higher nor get more complicated.

Second, a responsible gun owner should NEVER brandish a weapon to intimidate another party into submission. This IS a recipe for disaster. A firearm is a tool to do one thing, destroy and inflict serious damage to anyone or anything it is used against...period. IMHO, personal property, real property, one's ego, etc. are not to be defended with the use of deadly force. If one does, it is very likely that person will be charged with a felony.

Third, private citizens, unlike police, are under no obligation to intervene to stop a crime or intervene on the public's behalf. Most do not feel better equipped to intervene just because they carry a firearm. Very few will risk everything they own, which will likely happen if they use their firearm, to intervene on a strangers behalf.



I would disagree that we need more laws. We have plenty, more laws only complicate matters for lawful firearm owners. Although I am no lawyer, the laws for the use of deadly force for self defense are very simple, use a firearm for something other than to prevent the death or serious injury to yourself or others, and it is very likely you will be charged with a serious crime. FYI, this is the same rules law enforcement live by as well.

I'm curious, what additional laws do you think would be good?

Your assumption is that everyone is a responsible gun owner.... many are not. But neither is every gun owner a frothing at the mouth fanatic looking for a fight... Let me restate my thought about the presence of a gun escalating a situation: instead let me say that the presence of a firearm makes any situation more serious. i.e. now the threat of mortal harm is real. That may not have been the case before. Again I cite the Zimmerman incident (the first one..not all the ones that followed): Would Zimmerman have engaged the person if he wasn't armed? or would he have done as instructed and wait for the authorities? of course we don't know, but I can't help but feel that the presence of the gun enabled Zimmerman to feel confident enough to engage.

Conjecture? sure....I don't think anyone can truly predict what will happen in any given situation...but the presence of a weapon (gun especially...) will escalate a situation.

I find the sentiment that a private citizen is not under any obligation to intervene to stop a crime, etc.....very strange. Firstly, I think every able bodied person is morally (certainly not legally) obligated to intervene. Being a bystander is one of the biggest social failures we have. How often do people just look the other way because it is none of their business? or they don't want to risk themselves or their well being? That is why so much bad always happens...

secondly, one of the loudest points being made on this and other forums is that an armed citizen would have prevented.....fill in X. Which is one of the things I happen to agree with. A properly trained and stable (best way I can describe what I am thinking here) person who is armed can be the thing that stops a bad thing from becoming a worse thing.

Last thing: I believe you misunderstand my point about the laws..... what I was trying to convey is that many of the laws on the books are not effective. I believe that is mainly because they are that feel-good kind of laws that I was talking about. What we need is a review of the laws....keep what is sensible and good, trash the rest. Then have people who know the subject (I am thinking that gun owners should be the bulk of this) address the areas (if any) that are still lacking. Sensible gun laws that are effective and do what they are designed to do ..but without adding unfair or useless restriction on legitimate gun owners.

what those laws would look like? no idea....but I think it is high time we review and fix the system (which can be said for all aspects of the system, not just gun laws)

 

[Lynnrb]

Sorry, but I would never think to ask if someone minded if I joined a conversation around a campfire while carrying a firearm. Maybe it's my bad upbringing, or simply because I am NOT politically correct, or maybe it wouldn't dawn on me that someone is uncomfortable in the presence of a safely holstered firearm. Why should I feel the need to ask, if there was no danger and I wasn't putting anyone at risk? Don't take these as smug comments, I'm truly interested in your response





I think your post and ChristopheNoel's are related.

Lynnrb, not sure what "risks" you are referring. I'd be interested in hearing what "risks" you fear, or think, exist.

Mvbeggs, Reread my posts, I have explained my concerns several times.

 

[zigsrig]

I think the point that always gets missed is this... One bad egg typically ruins it for all of the other eggs.

Sadly, each and every one of the "negatives" seems to revolve around these bad eggs.

 

[mvbeggs]

Let me restate my thought about the presence of a gun escalating a situation: instead let me say that the presence of a firearm makes any situation more serious. i.e. now the threat of mortal harm is real. That may not have been the case before...

No, I would have to disagree again. A firearm does NOT automatically turn a "non-serious" incident into a serious incident. That is always determined by the players in the incident. If a firearm is only drawn/brandished when there is an imminent threat of death or serious bodily injury to yourself or others, the incident has already escalated to the "serious" category.

In an open carry scenario, it is even more prevalent. I would seriously doubt any criminal would choose to attack someone that is practicing open carry. Just the presence of a firearm would de-escalate the situation before it even started. Don't see many active shooters choosing a police station to attack. Could it be all those darn guns?

Again I cite the Zimmerman incident (the first one..not all the ones that followed): Would Zimmerman have engaged the person if he wasn't armed? or would he have done as instructed and wait for the authorities? of course we don't know, but I can't help but feel that the presence of the gun enabled Zimmerman to feel confident enough to engage.

I think everyone agrees that Zimmerman, regardless of the court's decision, did not act prudently. Most would agree that we should all learn from Zimmerman's actions, and NOT emulate.

Conjecture? sure....I don't think anyone can truly predict what will happen in any given situation...but the presence of a weapon (gun especially...) will escalate a situation.

I will disagree whole heartedly with this "escalation" statement. None of my training, or reading, has shown this to be the case.

I find the sentiment that a private citizen is not under any obligation to intervene to stop a crime, etc.....very strange. Firstly, I think every able bodied person is morally (certainly not legally) obligated to intervene. Being a bystander is one of the biggest social failures we have. How often do people just look the other way because it is none of their business? or they don't want to risk themselves or their well being? That is why so much bad always happens...

From a social/moral perspective, I am not saying we don't help. We SHOULD do everything we can to help, up to the point of applying deadly force. Application of deadly force is irreversible. You can not recall that round after it's sent downrange. You must be absolutely sure of the situation at hand, know all the players and their roles, and know that your actions will not create more risk to bystanders and/or create more damage. Unless you are directly involved in everything that is going on, you seldom have all those answers at hand.

Recently, in Texas I believe, a woman shot the tire our of a fleeing shoplifter's vehicle. IMHO, totally irresponsible. She had no idea who was in the car, crime committed- if any, and probably put innocent shoppers in the parking lot at risk. What if a stray round had hit a small child crossing the parking lot. And for what?

secondly, one of the loudest points being made on this and other forums is that an armed citizen would have prevented.....fill in X. Which is one of the things I happen to agree with. A properly trained and stable (best way I can describe what I am thinking here) person who is armed can be the thing that stops a bad thing from becoming a worse thing.

"would have" and "fill in X" is too broad a stroke. I don't know where to start. Because law enforcement can't be everywhere, I also believe a "good guy" with a gun is the only way to stop a "bad guy" with a gun. Especially in crowds, the problem comes when identifying the "bad guy". The "bad guy" may NOT be the only one with a gun. There may be several "good guys with a gun" in the crowd. Maybe we should all start wearing white hats?? :ylsmoke: Good in theory, and I'd rather have a "armed good guy" there than not, but still not a slam dunk in stopping the bad guy or reducing casualties.

Last thing: I believe you misunderstand my point about the laws..... what I was trying to convey is that many of the laws on the books are not effective. I believe that is mainly because they are that feel-good kind of laws that I was talking about. What we need is a review of the laws....keep what is sensible and good, trash the rest. Then have people who know the subject (I am thinking that gun owners should be the bulk of this) address the areas (if any) that are still lacking. Sensible gun laws that are effective and do what they are designed to do ..but without adding unfair or useless restriction on legitimate gun owners.

what those laws would look like? no idea....but I think it is high time we review and fix the system (which can be said for all aspects of the system, not just gun laws)

Agree with that to a degree. The problem comes in that the criminals don't follow any laws, from homicide to lifting a package of gum at the local convenience store. Look at Mexico, or other countries, that make it illegal for citizens to own firearms. The only people that end up with firearms are the bad guys, military, and police. Great thought, just not sure how you make that work.

 

[mvbeggs]

Mvbeggs, Reread my posts, I have explained my concerns several times.

Sorry LynneB. Went back and reread. It appears you are worried about accidental injury caused by firearms. I got it now.

To your point, in my experience, negligent discharges (unintentional firing of a firearm) are relatively rare.

Here's a case in point, real world stuff:
I've spent an entire week training with 20 men and women who's firearms were carried with a full magazine, a round in the chamber, hammer cocked (if equipped), and safety on- this was 100% of the time. (in this condition, the only thing required to fire the firearm is to click the safety off and pull the trigger. This is referred to as carrying your firearm in Condition 1) This particular training facility also ran a "hot" range, meaning that even during breaks and lunch, firearms were carried in condition 1. As a group we probably fired 30,000 rounds of ammo that week and spent probably a total of 700-800 combined man hours together.
Guess how many negligent discharges we had during the week? None
Guess how many people got shot? None
(To be fair, this facility has had some negligent discharges although I don't know of any injuries. But again, the incident rate is extremely low.)

My class was not unusual. They have this class 2-3 times per month, 12 months out of the year. This is only one training facility out of many throughout the country- and I am one shooter out of millions.
Now add to that all the law enforcement man hours that walk around with guns holstered, and in this condition, for 40 or more hours per week.
You can do the math. (I saw your earlier post ) IMHO, firearms are a relatively safe endeavor.

To pile on top of the above- the exercises we practiced were not all on from a stationary position on a square range. Some of our exercises included movement, rotating, distractions, and applying psychological pressure to induce errors. (and to think Mom was worried about me running with scissors!) :Wow1:

So that said, I feel if you look at the statistics of firearm injuries, even the subset of hunting, you will find a very low rate of incidence. Hopes this shines some light on your concerns.

 

[Christophe Noel]

For starters, the constitution does not specifically guarantee your right to drive a car, fly a plane or have your back hair waxed.

This argument seldom survives scrutiny. Although gun ownership is ostensibly protected by the Constitution, gun ownership already carries limitations. Regulations already exist. We're simply talking about better, more effective regulations, and understanding criminals don't abide by them. But, we already have that particular "right" interpreted through laws as it is. Same for the First Amendment. You have freedom of speech, but you can't say anything without repercussions. Threats, libel and slander come to mind. So, the use of the word "rights" has some inherent framework we have to work within.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

This argument seldom survives scrutiny. Although gun ownership is ostensibly protected by the Constitution, gun ownership already carries limitations. Regulations already exist. We're simply talking about better, more effective regulations, and understanding criminals don't abide by them. But, we already have that particular "right" interpreted through laws as it is. Same for the First Amendment. You have freedom of speech, but you can't say anything without repercussions. Threats, libel and slander come to mind. So, the use of the word "rights" has some inherent framework we have to work within.

IMO that's a poor analogy. You can say whatever you want, something or someone has to be on the receiving end for it to be an issue. That's why the constitution guarantees the right to carry. The issues start when you pull the trigger.

 

[LocoCoyote]

Interesting discussion

 

[Joker]

We're simply talking about better, more effective regulations, and understanding criminals don't abide by them.

You do understand that this statement is an oxymoron. If you know criminals wont abide by them then what good will more laws do.

Funny how there are more deaths related to alcohol than any other substance/object in the US today yet no one or even one single politician is outraged over alcohol. It contributes to heart disease, cancer, drunk driving, obesity, depression/suicide and yes even gun violence yet no open fear of alcohol especially from the left, why is that?