Do you feel the need to have a weapon when camping

[Lost Canadian]

"Cognitive capacities" are not enough to "facilitate an outcome without violence" if someone/something intends to harm you and yours, especially in the back country far, far away from LE or help.

Big brains and debating skills dont impress those with small primitive brains and mayhem on the mind, 2 or 4 legged.

Trust someone who has seen violence on a massive scale - you can't talk your way out of violence if that's a strangers intent.

If anything a real psycho will get off on your attempt to reason with them once they know you are unarmed... and will most likely move on once they realize you are a hard target.

Dave I'm speaking of those who have a shoot first ask questions later type of mentality. People who lack process of thought, yet hold weapons, quite frankly make me nervous and I'd rather not be around them. Of course this could be made into an argument for the civil minded to carry but I'm not debating why someone should or should not have a weapon.

I answered this thread because the OP simply asked us 'if' we carry while camping and 'why." I gave my reasons. My reasons need not be debated any more then the guy who chooses to carry a weapon. I certainly don't believe the OP asked for a debate on the right to carry, which a few here seem compelled to try and make it, and I'm talking both sides as well. As I said and feel, this is a personal issue, and the only reasonable response to the OP's question is to reflect our own personal beliefs and decisions as to why or why we do not carry a weapon while camping. I think most of us are smart enough to realize that making this thread into someting it is not is a one way ticket to lock down.

If others feel better carrying while camping more power to to them. For me though, personally, I've never felt that having a weapon was a necessity, or would provide much benefit to me. Pesonal choice. For the places I go most often, I'm not sure many crack heads would be willing to follow, but hey, if a crack head wants to follow me on foot or in a canoe for days on end into the wilderness to do me harm, slap me silly and call me snookered but it's a chance I'm willing to take.

 

[Klierslc]

When in Rome.....

If I went somewhere that didn't allow firearms, I would take whatever legal steps I could to protect my family.....Nightstick, golf club, stun gun, pepper spray, knife, paintball gun (you laugh, but this is a surprisingly effective defensive weapon.) If you could get OC paintballs, I would carry one daily. That being said, the old restrictions on having weapons in national parks didn't ever deter me. I made a decision to put my safety above that particular law. I was also willing to deal with the consequences. I ensured that I was discreet, and if I ever needed a weapon, I would be glad to take my lumps in court as long as the family was OK.

That's great and all, but will that hold up in a court of law when I have to explain to the jury why I just shot and killed 2 mutants who have (or had) small primitive brains with diminished "Cognitive capacities"?

Better to have to explain yourself to a Jury than have your eulogy read......or have to read your kid's eulogy. Dead men tell no tales-shoot to kill. It is part of the social contract. If you threaten bodily harm to me or mine, you have given up your right to life.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Wow, I've got a lot of catching up to do... in the meantime:

And anyone who uses (bogus) gun accident statistics on a vehicle forum as an excuse not to carry or have a gun is a hypocrite, pure and simple. There are at least +30K deaths due car accidents in this country every year; using the same logic, these simpletons shouldn't even have a car much less one for a hobby.

Yeah see, the problem with that is that I'm not using statistics to say people should use guns, or label guns as "unsafe", etc. I'm using them simply to prove the point that having a gun, does not make you less likely to die. It does not make you safer.

While it's true that vehicles kill more people (actually... I assume that's true, it's worth checking) what is the alternative? Just not going anywhere isn't much of an alternative. Conversely, you can choose to just not have a gun.

 

[Klierslc]

I'm using them simply to prove the point that having a gun, does not make you less likely to die. It does not make you safer.

It does however, vastly increase your chances of survival in a certain subset of situations...

 

[PhulesAU]

Guns don't kill, only people do that. the gun is just a tool, your willingness and ability to use it will be the deciding factor. my guns have never killed anyone. I have done so in the line of duty twice. You alone are responsible for your own hide. philosophical online debates will not help you, when a scumbag is threatening you. If you never have any trouble in your travels that's great, I wish I'd never had any. Don't confuse the willingness to remain alive and healthy with fear or paranoia.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

On the other hand, 'safely' locking up firearms can result in tragedy: Google Jessica Carpenter and Merced - a 14 year old girl that had been trained to safely handle firearms. She was responsible for her siblings while the parents were away, and the family firearms were legally, and safely locked up.

A pitchfork-wielding mutant broke in after cutting the phone lines, and proceeded to start stabbing the kids in their beds. Jessica tried to call 9-1-1, the statist clown's answer for this situation, but the lines were cut. She tried to get to the families guns, but they were locked up in accordance with California's laws. She ran next door and asked the neighbor not to call 9-1-1 (since her siblings were ALREADY being killed), she asked that the neighbor get HIS gun and kill the guy.

After all, when you have only seconds to live, dial 9-1-1: The police are only MINUTES away.

William and Ashley Carpenter were dead. Anna was wounded, but survived.

The State of California put Mr. Carpenter into an untenable situation. He could leave the tools available for his qualified family members to defend themselves and each other....or he could go to jail. Thanks to the California legislators desire to prevent people from defending themselves.

I wonder how Mr. Carpenter feels about his 'lawful' choice today?

Oh please. For somebody so intelligent to submit such annecdotal evidence for consideration in this debate... It's rididculous.

How about this, you Google Shannon Hannah. This story is still unfolding as it only occured last Friday. Dean Brown dated Shannon for 4 years before breaking up with her a month ago. On Thursday night, for reasons as-yet unknown, the mother let Dean into the house to stay over. Shannon's father was working the midnight shift. Shannon's father is a hunter and presumably had guns in the house.

Something happened that night, and Dean shot and killed Shannon's mother and sister, and shot but did not kill Shannon, then fled. The father came home from work and discovered the scene. It is believed that Dean used the father's gun to commit the crime.

I wonder how Mr. Hannah feels about his 'lawful' choice today?

 

[93BLAZER]

Oh please. For somebody so intelligent to submit such annecdotal evidence for consideration in this debate... It's rididculous.

right back at you... Your poor example does little to make a point or establish any kind of credibility on your part. In fact, your remark:

I wonder how Mr. Carpenter feels about his 'lawful' choice today?

really makes you shine. according to the article (take that for what is worth) he was at work and had no control what's happening at home at that time.

Put yourself in that position. Lemme guess, your family would have killed him, skinned him alive, ate him, and then had time to have the house clean by the time you got home, right?

Listen guy, I'm not here to get in a pissing match with you... but c'mon...

 

[john101477]

I was taught at a very young age to respect firearms. that every firearm is to be considered loaded until it is checked otherwise. that the only way to be consistent with any firearm is lots of practice. from a personal defense position, i have never had to shoot anyone, but i have detoured incidents that where headed the wrong direction. I also hunt. so i have my firearms for that as well. It is simply a personal choice. the people that live behind me just got busted for meth and illegal firearms. they were out on bail the next day. the man has also been to jail for theft. If you think we are not Locked and loaded now your off your rocker.

 

[Christophe Noel]

At the root of it, as I sift past the threads including pitch fork wielding maniacs and car crash statistics, this isn't really a discussion about how to defuse a confrontation, this is a discussion about how different people assess the possibility of being in a dire situation that would involve the use of a gun.

That's somewhat at the core of this. The word "tool" has come up a number of times, so I'll go with that. I've got a ton of tools and I decide each trip which tools will need to stay home and which will likely see use on a trip. The circular saw stays home with the belt sander, but I certainly take a jack, lug wrench, etc. Same for a weapon, or even a Jet Boil stove. If I don't see a potential need for a tool, why bring it? I don't travel to places that have spooky beasts out to eat my head. I seldom travel where the threat of late night hooligans keep me skeeered. If anything, I'm more likely to carry an extra six pack for the dozens of nice people I've met on my travels.

So, this isn't about "what would you do if...." This is about how likely it is to get into that situation in the first place. As others have said, this discussion is almost silly for an "Expedition Overlanding" audience as it's only relative within the US, and travel as much as you might within the states, that's hardly an "expedition."

 

[93BLAZER]

At the root of it, as I sift past the threads including pitch fork wielding maniacs and car crash statistics, this isn't really a discussion about how to defuse a confrontation, this is a discussion about how different people assess the possibility of being in a dire situation that would involve the use of a gun.

That's somewhat at the core of this. The word "tool" has come up a number of times, so I'll go with that. I've got a ton of tools and I decide each trip which tools will need to stay home and which will likely see use on a trip. The circular saw stays home with the belt sander, but I certainly take a jack, lug wrench, etc. Same for a weapon, or even a Jet Boil stove. If I don't see a potential need for a tool, why bring it? I don't travel to places that have spooky beasts out to eat my head. I seldom travel where the threat of late night hooligans keep me skeeered. If anything, I'm more likely to carry an extra six pack for the dozens of nice people I've met on my travels.

So, this isn't about "what would you do if...." This is about how likely it is to get into that situation in the first place. As others have said, this discussion is almost silly for an "Expedition Overlanding" audience as it's only relative within the US, and travel as much as you might within the states, that's hardly an "expedition."

Wow... your way off...

I hope this is the appropriate forum to discuss this. I did a search and found a lot of posts in the gun forum, but I'm not necessarily thinking of guns per se.

When I'm camping in the backcountry I sometimes wonder if I'm being naive for not having some sort of defense mechanism other than my fists or whatever crude object I may be able to scramble if awoken to some threat. I generally like to live my life free of fear but I also always like being prepared.
I've been researching guns, stun guns and knives recently and I'm curious what others are doing.

I know this is a touchy subject but I value all the input on other gear and usefulness of it, so thought I'd see what you guys are doing. I really never felt the need for any kind of weapon when I was by myself or with friends camping, but now that I have a family, protection comes to mind.

Feedback is much appreciated.

Thanks,

Kye

According to the OP, he basically just wants to know if anyone carries a gun while camping or what not.

 

[Hilldweller]

My Dad was an AF (Korea) vet and cop in my home town. As a kid all my camping was with vets and cops --- lots and lots of guns, all shapes and flavors.
We shot cans and logs; never had a bear attack or pitchfork-wielding lunatic.

As an adult I continued to camp, usually just with an axe and hunting knife. I traveled and camped mostly by motorcycle in the old days.
Until that one time when I was by myself in a secluded coastal section of Florida and a sow with two cubs wandered into my camp. She charged at me and made all sorts of noise; I ran around and got the bike between us and hit the starter. Bless that Kawasaki for firing up on the first try --- and the header for being loud enough to scare the poop out of the sow for a minute. She and the cubs backed away about 10 yards and stayed there, hollerin' and groanin', standing on their hind legs and waving those ponderous claws around.
I pulled up stakes and lit out. She chased me for a little bit after I whizzed by.

Would I have shot her if I had the 12 gauge? I hope not.
But it could have gone a lot worse...

 

[Lost Canadian]

Here's what I think, this thread does not need to be twisted this into some kind of pro/anti gun debate. Personal choice and select circumstance is all we really need to address and discuss with regards to why we choose to take or not to take weapons with us while camping. Diatribes and impositions are not required to answer the simplest of questions like the one the OP presented are they?

 

[SunTzuNephew]

The machete should only be used for decapitating coconuts

But isn't it nice to know it's there, just in case?

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Crime rates in many of the "unarmed" countries are quite a bit higher than the US....http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_tot_cri_percap-crime-total-crimes-per-capita

Sorry, but that Data is bordering on useless, as there is no information reported on the source of the data. Is it all for the same years? What is the break-down of the crimes, violent crimes vs.... speeding tickets?

Most importantly, these statistics do not actually represent the actual crimes being committed. "Crime statistics are often better indicators of prevalence of law enforcement and willingness to report crime, than actual prevalence. "

Does anybody really believe Mexico's crime rate is 7 times lower than the US?

Yeah, thats the first bad study that Kellerman did. He stacked the deck there too - comparing slums in Seattle (poor, criminal elements, lack of education) with very nice neighborhoods in Vancouver.

He eventually had to 'adjust' his data, at first he made some claim about 30-40 times greater.

Thats why Kellerman isn't particularly credible.

What are you talking about? The referenced posting has nothing to do with any study by Kellerman. It shows gross, nationwide child gun deaths.

It also references a report on bear spray, which doesn't seem to have any link to Kellerman.

You'll never find a gun that has an "absolute safety," whatever that is.

What I mean is a lever or button that safties the weapon.

FYI, fear has very little to do with it. As I stated before, it is in a gun owner's best interests to de-escalate a situation so he doesn't have to use a gun. However, when you get to the end of your go/no go chart, you will be left with an angry criminal who wants to kill you for trying to talk his ear off. I am left with a very polite criminal who will do what I say.

Why the assumption that bad things will happen to unarmed people, but not to armed people? In the afformentioned drunk criminal situation... There's a number of things that might have happened.

Let's say things did escalate, and the criminals did unmentionable things to the unarmed poster's wife and family. Horrible, but they are still alive.

What if the poster was armed, and the same escalation occurred? The poster draws his gun, so does the criminal. Criminal is faster on the draw, or lucky, and shoots the poster. Then commits unmentionable acts, then kills the rest of the family.

This is better how?

I don't think most drunk crazy people are homicidal. Put them in a position where they have to defend themselves, and you're now in a gunfight.

It's absolute stupidity to not carry a weapon and know when not to use it, when to use it, and how to use it when you do. Especially when you're putting yourself in a situation where you're going to be the only person capable of defending yourself.

I can't completely disagree with this statement... except why is it in the US, it seems the only "weapon" considered is a firearm?

Canuck here and yes, I do bring the guns camping. 12 gauge shotguns.

For the rest of my Canadian friends, here's a link to RCMP site you want to read

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/f...auvage-eng.htm

"However, in a remote wilderness area, non-restricted firearms do not have to be made inoperable or locked up. They must be unloaded, but the ammunition can be kept handy."

Good info. I wasn't even aware that the guns must be kept unloaded. That's interesting. Another point for bear spray in Canada. You'll definitely be quicker on the draw with a can of spray. At the very least, it would make sense to have a can of spray *in addition* to a gun.

right back at you... Your poor example does little to make a point or establish any kind of credibility on your part. In fact, your remark:

You've COMPLETELY taken my post out of context, and THEN put words in my mouth to finish the job. Nice work.

The point of my post, is that for every annecdotal case of a firearm being used in defence, or locked up firearms NOT being used for defence, one can find a story where firearm possession did not yield the desired outcome.

Annecdotal evidence is useless to the discussion, and is just reinforcing the fear mongering that got us here in the first place.

The last sentence was reworked in order to juxtapose it against the statement originally made by Nephew. Did you come to a similar conclusion about his posting? I doubt it, because he is obviously pro-gun, and you perceive me to be anti-gun.

The fact is, that couldn't be further from the truth. As stated, I am not anti-gun. Rather, I seek only safer alternatives. The requirements to render a firearm safe and legal (in Canada) greatly reduce it's effectiveness.

"Excuse me Mr. Drunk Jeep Dude with an illegal handgun on your hip. I'm just going to slip back the truck, unlock my gun, and load it. Just... hold that thought, back in a sec."

I have fired guns, I find it's fun. I think they're interesting technical devices. I think they're cool. I'd own guns just for fun if I had a bit more money lying around. But they would be locked up safely.

I need to go back and read my old crazy-ATV-driver thread, and see if anybody there criticizing me for "using my vehicle as a weapon" are also loudly pro-gun here.

 

[baca327]

http://www.kpho.com/news/15557876/detail.html A firearm may have saved his life. Like many, my little ones are worth more to me than my own life. A firearm is a tool yes a tool to respond quickly to a life threatening situation. A firearm is worth its weight in gold in the wilderness when your families life is in danger. A full grown couple is less likely to be attacked than say two adults and their two children. I know we have all seen animals hunting and well I have never seen them attack a healthy adult its always a adolescent, weak, or injured. I hope those of you that don't carry a firearm and have children never encounter a large predator.

Edit another link to this story
http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/23592238/ns/today-today_people/ If you read you will see his uncle fired one shot with his handgun, killing the animal.