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

[brentbba]

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?

It was called Prohibition and it didn't last. There are laws for drunk driving, drunk in public, gov't regulations and taxes on alcohol, etc. just like there are gun laws...

I wholeheartedly agree with you that more laws to stop what's happening won't do any good because criminals don't abide by laws by definition.

 

[MTSN]

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

I don't understand how creating more laws that will be, as you stated, ignored by criminals will serve as a barrier to criminals. Simple and obvious changes like disallowing someone on a no-fly list from buying guns make sense, but arbitrary laws that effectively only make it more complex and difficult for law abiding citizens to comply serve little purpose.

 

[zigsrig]

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.

There is no amount of legislation that could be passed that would stop someone, so dedicated to afflicting harm, that they drop their 6 month old child off to never see them again just before going and committing an act of terrorism.

Anyone that thinks a law will protect them from a person with evil intent is living life with blinders on.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

There is no amount of legislation that could be passed that would stop someone, so dedicated to afflicting harm, that they drop their 6 month old child off to never see them again just before going and committing an act of terrorism.

Anyone that thinks a law will protect them from a person with evil intent is living life with blinders on.

Hey at least the good guys wont be armed.

 

[I Leak Oil]

Gun laws are becoming like our tax code. Only those who choose to do the right thing get screwed.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

There is no amount of legislation that could be passed that would stop someone, so dedicated to afflicting harm, that they drop their 6 month old child off to never see them again just before going and committing an act of terrorism.

Anyone that thinks a law will protect them from a person with evil intent is living life with blinders on.

That's an odd relationship dynamic between the husband and wife. He thought he was going to get 70 virgins, what was she going to get?

 

[zimm]

1. loco is correct about "insecurities". the odd part about insecurities, is, admitting you have them is in and of itself a weakness people are afraid to admit. he never said anything about whether or not the insecurities had an actual basis or were persevered, so the correct response for those that carry, is, "YES i carry because i feel insecure, and i will continue to do so." the guys that are in a tizzy about being called insecure are judging themselves.

2. loco is correct about the sociopath accusation if the individual felt no remorse or had no reflection on the life of the person taken. i would bet the person claiming he felt nothing, is likely to be to insecure to admit he did think about it. we all think about it. i believe both individuals oversimplified their thoughts and judgements in this conversation, and ended up farther apart in appearance than reality. then again, maybe im giving too much credit.

3. ive been doing some hiking, and ive seen some stuff in remote areas that makes me feel insecure. ive been debating carrying at least my snub 357. since the meth and heroine **** started, theres been an increase in weird **** going on back in there.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

I admitted to the insecurity earlier in this thread. I kinda think its a given. I'm insecure about flying out my windshield in a head on collision, so I wear a seat belt.

 

[MTSN]

Much of this thread relates more to semantics than anything else. It sounds like the word "insecure" is being thrown around quite a bit when the word "unsafe" is more appropriate. I don't walk my dog at night feeling insecure that something bad will happen, but at times I have felt unsafe when I encounter less than desirable characters acting shady. Going back to my analogy of wearing lots of protective gear on my motorcycle, I do so not out of insecurity (or else I wouldn't be riding period) but out of the desire to be prepared if something bad happens and to hedge against the natural risks of an inherently dangerous or unsafe activity. Also being afraid in a circumstance where it's appropriate is not insecurity - it's being human. I think if there were some less polarizing terms being used in this discussion so far it would have been far more productive and less divisive.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Relative to feeling secure or otherwise, somewhere in this thread is my reply relative to perceived risk or threat. That needn't be couched as fear or insecurity. In many cases it is just an experienced response to a given situation. I assess the risk of injury on my motorcycle as great enough to wear protective gear head to toe. I don't assess the risk of drowning in the shower high enough to warrant a life preserver. We all assess risk differently. Just like the guy with a pistol on his hip while riding a motorcycle with no helmet. He clearly made a choice to validate some threats over others.

Given where I travel, daily and in the backcountry, I have put my risk of personal violence behind almost all others. In fact, being untrained in the use of a gun, the risk to me and others is greater than if I don't have one at all.

It's simply an assessment of risks and threats.

 

[brentbba]

Life Preserver in a shower - now there's a subject for another thread! :wings:

 

[Longrange308]

Relative to feeling secure or otherwise, somewhere in this thread is my reply relative to perceived risk or threat. That needn't be couched as fear or insecurity. In many cases it is just an experienced response to a given situation. I assess the risk of injury on my motorcycle as great enough to wear protective gear head to toe. I don't assess the risk of drowning in the shower high enough to warrant a life preserver. We all assess risk differently. Just like the guy with a pistol on his hip while riding a motorcycle with no helmet. He clearly made a choice to validate some threats over others.

Given where I travel, daily and in the backcountry, I have put my risk of personal violence behind almost all others. In fact, being untrained in the use of a gun, the risk to me and others is greater than if I don't have one at all.

It's simply an assessment of risks and threats.

And this is why I respect your point of view more than others. You just flat out get it. I have been in armed robbery situations where I was unarmed and felt like nothing more than a defenseless trapped rat waiting to be exterminated. It was a terrible feeling and one that I never want to experience again. I have acquired training through multiple law enforcement agencies and other private avenues and feel confident in my ability to protect myself and my loved ones. My experienced response to that given situation is to carry wherever legal and be prepared and trained well enough to implement my tools of self defense in an efficient manner that will hopefully greatly increase my odds of survival.

I do respect your views Christophe, even though we see things totally different.

 

[calicamper]

Happens all the time. There was a story just recently about how a craigslist robbery scam ended with the bad guy being shot by the intended victims who were able to turn the tide on their attacker.

There are techniques and tactics that can be learned and utilized in such situations. A combination of a well timed distraction with the fact that action will almost always be faster than reaction could very well make it possible to win in such a situation where someone has gotten the jump on you.

Let's face it, sometimes there are situations where the only safe way out for you is violence of action that is so severe it deters your aggressors intent. I'm not saying I won't use my verbal judo first, the last thing I want to do is to hurt someone, even if they intend to do me harm, but I will be dammed if I won't give myself ever opportunity to survive.


Sent from my mobile communicator device.

Off duty cop over confident meeting craigs list person at 10pm at night on a dark street. Yea like common sense some how was ignored in that case.

 

[calicamper]

I do in many circumstances. If I'm in a group camping scenario and I don't know the skill level of people who have firearms, I'd rather they not bring them along. Same for the individuals I see walking the street. With law enforcement, at least I know they have had training. With Joe Blow walking around with a canon on his hip, I haven't a clue if he knows how to use it safely.

Lastly, when I was a business banker, I had to inform a client the bank had called-in his $200k line of credit. When he started throwing things in my office, the gun on his belt didn't make me feel too fabulous. The situation was only compounded when the police came and also saw the pistol.

There are many instances whereby I have a problem with other people carrying. Many.

The unskilled and possibly unrational that view a gun as a problem solver tool are always seen as high risk to anyone around them. Replace the gun with a sling shot and everyone would be happy.

A gun is a tool. The user chooses how it gets used. Wrong tool available at the wrong time results in even bigger problems. How many of you have used a hammer when you couldn't find your clawbar? Most people in every society would rather see people forced to handle situations without the easy ability to use deadly force ie gun on hip for easy access. The less skilled always take what they view as the easy route. They are also the most dangerous people to be armed. Common sense keeps you out of those situations and if your forced to skip common sense ie law enforcement, soldier etc we'll your trained up down and sideways in how to lower your risk.

 

[mvbeggs]

I do in many circumstances. If I'm in a group camping scenario and I don't know the skill level of people who have firearms, I'd rather they not bring them along. Same for the individuals I see walking the street. With law enforcement, at least I know they have had training. With Joe Blow walking around with a canon on his hip, I haven't a clue if he knows how to use it safely....

...There are many instances whereby I have a problem with other people carrying. Many.

I read in your earlier posts that you have no experience with firearms. I understand your apprehension around them. IMHO, and as has been shown in my training, as long as the firearm stays holstered, you are in very little danger. I have yet to see a holstered, or cased, firearm discharge with no human interaction. Most modern firearms have multiple safety mechanisms that block the firing pin from striking the cartridge unless specific actions are taken. This protects the firearm from discharging while holstered, cased, carried, or when dropped.

Here's a link to the Firearm Injury Statistics compiled by the National Shooting Sports Foundation: http://www.nssf.org/PDF/research/IIR_InjuryStatistics2013.pdf

If you will take the time to browse, you will see that firearms are involved in 0.5% of all unintentional fatalities (for all ages).