Do you feel the need to have a weapon when camping

[R_Lefebvre]

I've got another one. When I was 14, my brother, a younger neighbor and I camped on the small island in front of my parent's cottage without adults. In the middle of the night, some teenagers, drunk, swam across the lake and ended up on my parent's dock. They were being loud, and started talking about breaking into the cottage and doing unmentionable things. My father (who is fairly imposing) went outside and told them to leave, and they headed out back across the water, towards the island. My father went over to the neighbors and woke him and his older son, all 3 jumped in a boat and headed to the island. The older son watched over us, armed with a shovel, while my father and neighbor confronted the 3 teenagers who were on the island. I fight ensued, one of them knocked over the neighbor, but my dad subdued the other 2. We all got back to the cottage safely. It took the police 30 minutes to get there.

It might be a pro-gun story, but what really would you have done. Just up and shot 3 teenagers for being drunk and on your dock? They were 100% unarmed. Would you have ventured onto the unlit island with a weapon? One of them bested the neighbor, now it's a gunfight.

I don't think you should be taking guns into situations like that unless you intend to use them, and the boys were 100% unarmed, they had nothing but swimsuits. I don't think it would be legal to shoot them, even in the US? Yet bring a gun into the situation even for defence, and now it's a much more serious situation for all involved.

Now, this might have been a case where a safely stored weapon, with a possible warning shot into the water might have proved useful. I dunno.

In any case, it still never compelled me to own a gun.

 

[Klierslc]

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?


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?

As far as data goes, do have anything better?

Bad things happen to people, armed or unarmed, it is up to you if you want to be prepared.

The sad reality of your "What iffing" is that you don't know what a criminal is going to do. Your mentality was what the government spewed at us for years..."just comply with the criminals/bank robbers/hijackers, and they will eventually let you go." That worked real well on Sept 11th.

A basic tactical theory is that those who act first always have the advantage. Seize the initiative and make the enemy react to you rather than you having to react to the enemy. Statistically, if you are holding a person at gunpoint within 10 or so feet, you are actually at a disadvantage. You don't know what they will do, and the 3/4 of a second that it takes you to realize that they are attacking you just cost you your life.

Off topic--when holding someone at gun point, make them lay down and put their hands behind their back and look away from you. This will vastly increase your available time to react.

I prefer to act and take my chances rather than to stand by helplessly while things go sideways.

I know very well how long it takes the police to get there.

Years ago I was sleeping over at my wife's parent's house. My FIL is a cop. In the middle of the night, some kids from "the project" went into his back yard and stole his patio furniture. He woke up, and took off after them with nothing but his tighty whities. He caught one and took him down. I was up at this point, and instructed to go back into the house to get his duty belt so he could cuff the kid, and my wife called the police. who instructed them an off-duty officer had detained a theif and needed assistance.

After handing over the cuffs, I realized I was standing there in the open, holding a belt with a gun I didn't know how to use, with an unknown number of delinquent youths lurking around, watching their friend being cuffed by a large naked man. I back up against a wall as my only defence against being jumped from behind.

It took the police 5 minutes to show up.

Even if I'd known how to use a gun and drawn it, I'm still standing there, in the light, them in the darkness, and now it's a gunfight. I did NOT feel safer holding that belt.

As for the Hannah case, I'm working off of local knowledge not yet published in the media.

If you had firearm training, you would have felt a lot safer.

The method of murder in the Hannah case is not an issue. The mutant could have killed them all with a steak knife.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

Whem I'm out in the woods, my kids are never out of my sight, but yeah, if a mtn lion grabbed one of them, I honestly don't know what I could do to stop it...(This is hard to type..what a horrible thought)

I think my best choice would be pepper spray, a handgun or physically retaliating with a knife or my bare hands...anything that I have on my person and can put into play. There would be ABSOLUTELY NO TIME to deploy an unloaded/shouldered shotgun, let alone something that you have "not on your person".

I wouldn't mind at all, if I got tore up in the process of saving my kid.

You're right, it is a horrible thought. But at the same time, I WILL NOT live my life in fear. I roamed the woods freely when I was a kid. My children will do the same. We're talking about 2-3 deaths per year. 90 per year are killed by lightning. 30,000+ or whatever are killed in traffic accidents.

What are the societal costs associated with kids being sheltered in their living rooms in front of the XBOX? Kids growing up with no independence, no self confidence, etc.

I struggle with this question, as we have a nice play structure in the back yard, but there are also coyotes in the bush behind. Is my boy to never be able to play independently? When I grew up, me and my friends spent every sunny weekend playing in the creek, alone, with no parental involvement other than "Pack a lunch" and "be home for dinner".

Are we really going to stop our kids from doing that, because of the risk of 2-3 deaths per year? The reality is, they're at greater risk being driven to soccer practice. And probably at great risk of being struck by lighting on the field. (that happened recently around here, despite the organizers following the 30/30 rules).

I haven't read it yet myself, but will be buying the book "Last Child In The Woods". You might find it interesting too.

And what might I do? Yes, knife, sticks, stones... whatever it takes. I've shot a handgun at 75 feet. Took about 1 minute to take 13 shots, and 12 hit the UNMOVING target. No way I'd ever consider shooting in the direction of a child.

 

[Maximus Ram]

I've got another one. When I was 14, my brother, a younger neighbor and I camped on the small island in front of my parent's cottage without adults. In the middle of the night, some teenagers, drunk, swam across the lake and ended up on my parent's dock. They were being loud, and started talking about breaking into the cottage and doing unmentionable things. My father (who is fairly imposing) went outside and told them to leave, and they headed out back across the water, towards the island. My father went over to the neighbors and woke him and his older son, all 3 jumped in a boat and headed to the island. The older son watched over us, armed with a shovel, while my father and neighbor confronted the 3 teenagers who were on the island. I fight ensued, one of them knocked over the neighbor, but my dad subdued the other 2. We all got back to the cottage safely. It took the police 30 minutes to get there.

It might be a pro-gun story, but what really would you have done. Just up and shot 3 teenagers for being drunk and on your dock? They were 100% unarmed. Would you have ventured onto the unlit island with a weapon? One of them bested the neighbor, now it's a gunfight.

I don't think you should be taking guns into situations like that unless you intend to use them, and the boys were 100% unarmed, they had nothing but swimsuits. I don't think it would be legal to shoot them, even in the US? Yet bring a gun into the situation even for defence, and now it's a much more serious situation for all involved.

Now, this might have been a case where a safely stored weapon, with a possible warning shot into the water might have proved useful. I dunno.

In any case, it still never compelled me to own a gun.

In this case, the intruders left, threat was gone. No force needed.
Now with your Dad and neighbor following them ,they bacame the aggressors. At that point , they would be considered , by law, to be in the wrong.
It's all about knowing when and how to use a firearm. No threat, no need. But I would rather ibeing able to have one in case the need arose.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Maybe I'm just an oblivious dolt, but my hippy family started taking me backpacking in the Sierras, Rockies and desert southwest when I was 5. I grew up scanning my surroundings for cool views and a lucky opportunity to eat a wild berry, not nervously looking about for a lion or bear. For one thing, in most areas that's hardly necessary. Again, I think this is all about risk assessment. Is there much risk of a bear attack (as an example) in most of the areas in the lower 48? Not really. As such, why spend so much energy frettig over a bear confrontation. However, when I lived in AK, there would be big browns in my yard. Certainly cause for a little more caution. It's highly situational.

I have a friend from Florida who came to visit and he was entirely F R E A K E D at the thought of getting mauled by a lion on a mountain bike ride near my house. I'm sure he would have loved to have a gun on his hip. So, in many cases this is about an individuals perception of the risks as much as anything.

 

[BIGdaddy]

I've got another one. When I was 14, my brother, a younger neighbor and I camped on the small island in front of my parent's cottage without adults. In the middle of the night, some teenagers, drunk, swam across the lake and ended up on my parent's dock. They were being loud, and started talking about breaking into the cottage and doing unmentionable things. My father (who is fairly imposing) went outside and told them to leave, and they headed out back across the water, towards the island. My father went over to the neighbors and woke him and his older son, all 3 jumped in a boat and headed to the island. The older son watched over us, armed with a shovel, while my father and neighbor confronted the 3 teenagers who were on the island. I fight ensued, one of them knocked over the neighbor, but my dad subdued the other 2. We all got back to the cottage safely. It took the police 30 minutes to get there.

It might be a pro-gun story, but what really would you have done. Just up and shot 3 teenagers for being drunk and on your dock? They were 100% unarmed. Would you have ventured onto the unlit island with a weapon? One of them bested the neighbor, now it's a gunfight.

I don't think you should be taking guns into situations like that unless you intend to use them, and the boys were 100% unarmed, they had nothing but swimsuits. I don't think it would be legal to shoot them, even in the US? Yet bring a gun into the situation even for defence, and now it's a much more serious situation for all involved.

Now, this might have been a case where a safely stored weapon, with a possible warning shot into the water might have proved useful. I dunno.

In any case, it still never compelled me to own a gun.

See I'm a californian. I have no instinct to protect property outside my home, or "chase anyone down"...Not worth it to me.

I've never been in a fistfight either, not to say I haven't been threatened...

I've pointed the ouchy end of a shotgun at a man looking in my living room window, though. My wife was up feeding our first kid, and woke me to tell me that a man was watching her.

I stood in our living room, finger on the trigger, shell in the chamber, waiting to see what he was going to do. (My house is always darker than my porch. it keeps me in the shadows, and them in the light, he was clearly not someone that should have been there like a relative, etc...)

At that point it stil wasn't in my right to shoot him...and I had the frame of thought to understand that at the time.

I think this temperment makes me the ideal gun owner. Instinctive, effective de-escalator of sticky situations, but ready and willing to end a threat that is clearly demonstrated.

 

[Klierslc]

There's the rub. It has nothing to do with the State. I don't feel the need to carry around a useless tool for an eventuality that isn't going to happen. I don't carry around a operating system install disk when I'm at the race track.

I honestly hope that the "eventuality" doesn't happen to you. But it WILL happen to somebody. You have no control over others and you don't live on a deserted island. Saying that it will never happen to you is simply sticking your head in the sand.

I've got another one. When I was 14, my brother, a younger neighbor and I camped on the small island in front of my parent's cottage without adults. In the middle of the night, some teenagers, drunk, swam across the lake and ended up on my parent's dock. They were being loud, and started talking about breaking into the cottage and doing unmentionable things. My father (who is fairly imposing) went outside and told them to leave, and they headed out back across the water, towards the island. My father went over to the neighbors and woke him and his older son, all 3 jumped in a boat and headed to the island. The older son watched over us, armed with a shovel, while my father and neighbor confronted the 3 teenagers who were on the island. I fight ensued, one of them knocked over the neighbor, but my dad subdued the other 2. We all got back to the cottage safely. It took the police 30 minutes to get there.

It might be a pro-gun story, but what really would you have done. Just up and shot 3 teenagers for being drunk and on your dock? They were 100% unarmed. Would you have ventured onto the unlit island with a weapon? One of them bested the neighbor, now it's a gunfight.

I don't think you should be taking guns into situations like that unless you intend to use them, and the boys were 100% unarmed, they had nothing but swimsuits. I don't think it would be legal to shoot them, even in the US? Yet bring a gun into the situation even for defence, and now it's a much more serious situation for all involved.

Now, this might have been a case where a safely stored weapon, with a possible warning shot into the water might have proved useful. I dunno.

In any case, it still never compelled me to own a gun.

Your Father shouldn't have let them leave. He knew that you kids were out there and by merely asking them to leave, he put you, himself and the neighbor in harm's way. He should have greeted them with a shotgun and made them sit and stay until the police arrived.

Also, failing in that course, he could have taken a shotgun to the island. Drunks sober up fast when confronted with imminent death. I would have also carried a flashlight to the "unlit island"

I understand the want to fire warning shots, but personally do not believe in using them.

Deadly force is called deadly for a reason. If it is serious enough to use deadly force, it is serious enough to kill. A warning shot will get you an attempted murder charge in some places....

Also, if you fire a warning shot, you have just wasted one round. That could be one enemy (or two depending on how talented you are) that is neutralized--instead you are just short on ammo....

Please forgive the military references, being a Marine amplifies my views at times....

 

[R_Lefebvre]

As far as data goes, do have anything better?

How about just simple homicide rate?

Amongst industrialized nations, the numbers should be reliable because the occurance is a yes/no thing, and reporting should be near 100%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homicide_rate

USA: 5.4
Canada: 1.8
Australia: 1.2
UK: 2.0
Germany 0.9
Japan 0.4

Etc. etc.

The only "G20" nation on the list higher than the US that I can see are Brazil, Russia, Turkey and Mexico.

 

[baca327]

You're right, it is a horrible thought. But at the same time, I WILL NOT live my life in fear. I roamed the woods freely when I was a kid. My children will do the same. We're talking about 2-3 deaths per year. 90 per year are killed by lightning. 30,000+ or whatever are killed in traffic accidents.

What are the societal costs associated with kids being sheltered in their living rooms in front of the XBOX? Kids growing up with no independence, no self confidence, etc.

I struggle with this question, as we have a nice play structure in the back yard, but there are also coyotes in the bush behind. Is my boy to never be able to play independently? When I grew up, me and my friends spent every sunny weekend playing in the creek, alone, with no parental involvement other than "Pack a lunch" and "be home for dinner".

Are we really going to stop our kids from doing that, because of the risk of 2-3 deaths per year? The reality is, they're at greater risk being driven to soccer practice. And probably at great risk of being struck by lighting on the field. (that happened recently around here, despite the organizers following the 30/30 rules).

I haven't read it yet myself, but will be buying the book "Last Child In The Woods". You might find it interesting too.

And what might I do? Yes, knife, sticks, stones... whatever it takes. I've shot a handgun at 75 feet. Took about 1 minute to take 13 shots, and 12 hit the UNMOVING target. No way I'd ever consider shooting in the direction of a child.

I have never been afraid of coyotes or smaller animals nor my children. I have never been afraid of other larger predators and its not the firearm that does that. I am an avid hunter and have seen many animals. It is the understanding of the animals and respecting them. It seems as though debating on the sheltering of children is once again veering from the OP. This video is of a teenager. I'm sorry but if you shoot that slow and let your children get 75 feet away from you before you take a shot you need to practice and learn how to use that handgun. If you wanna be one of those 2-3 people that you speak of be my guest. It is ALWAYS better to be proactive instead of reactive. Have you practice with your sticks and stones? I know I cant hit a damn thing at 25 feet throwing a rock, but have roughly a 6 inch group in speed drills with a .40. See how long it takes you to throw 13 rocks at a target 75 feet away tell me if you hit the target more than once.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

In this case, the intruders left, threat was gone. No force needed.
Now with your Dad and neighbor following them ,they bacame the aggressors. At that point , they would be considered , by law, to be in the wrong.
It's all about knowing when and how to use a firearm. No threat, no need. But I would rather ibeing able to have one in case the need arose.

Hang on a sec. They did not "follow them" to press some sort of attack. They went to the island to get us off.

I think this temperment makes me the ideal gun owner. Instinctive, effective de-escalator of sticky situations, but ready and willing to end a threat that is clearly demonstrated.

I would agree. I wouldn't have any problem camping with you, with your gun. In fact, I would be comforted by it. You sound reasonable.

Some others definitely seem to have a "shoot first, ask questions later" mentality that scares the crap out of me.

I understand the want to fire warning shots, but personally do not believe in using them.

Deadly force is called deadly for a reason. If it is serious enough to use deadly force, it is serious enough to kill. A warning shot will get you an attempted murder charge in some places....

So we're camping nearby, and I walk up to your campfire holding a knife which I used to cut the raspberry pie I'm about to offer you, and you shoot me dead. :Wow1:

I would have also carried a flashlight to the "unlit island"

Of course they brought flashlights. Flashlights are near useless in dense brush.

 

[Root Moose]

I honestly hope that the "eventuality" doesn't happen to you. But it WILL happen to somebody. You have no control over others and you don't live on a deserted island. Saying that it will never happen to you is simply sticking your head in the sand.

I disagree.

Quite honestly, I'm more likely to be hit by a meteorite or struck by lightning up here in the bush.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

This video is of a teenager. I'm sorry but if you shoot that slow and let your children get 75 feet away from you before you take a shot you need to practice and learn how to use that handgun. If you wanna be one of those 2-3 people that you speak of be my guest. It is ALWAYS better to be proactive instead of reactive. Have you practice with your sticks and stones? I know I cant hit a damn thing at 25 feet throwing a rock, but have roughly a 6 inch group in speed drills with a .40. See how long it takes you to throw 13 rocks at a target 75 feet away tell me if you hit the target more than once.

That target was 21 feet away. Not 75. Let's see that excercise at 75 feet and see how fast he shoots, and/or how often he hits. That was ~1 minute, to put 12 of 13 shots on mass, for a beginner with less than 100 shots ever. Yet, I was told by a rangemaster that I was better than many LEO's. Scary.

And that guy was not "unprepared". He was standing there, looking at a target, with his safety glasses on.

As for my children being 75 feet away... Read my other post. I will not live in fear, nor my family. My kids are likely to be 75 feet away from me to start with. Do you shackle your children to yourself? Is that what freedom is all about?

 

[baca327]

So we're camping nearby, and I walk up to your campfire holding a knife which I used to cut the raspberry pie I'm about to offer you, and you shoot me dead. :Wow1:.

Maybe my marine mentality but I would not fire a warning shot at a human threat either. Would you rather have a warning shot. I would asses the threat get between you and my family a calm assertive manner and ask your business if you held that knife in a threating manner and kept moving toward me and not standing there like Martha Stewart then I would make you aware I was carrying by putting a hand on the grip and ask you to leave if you kept coming I would command you to stop and if you didn't then yes I would shoot you dead...

 

[DurangoSteve]

I've backpacked, rafted and car camped across the Western U.S. for several decades and have never felt compelled to carry a gun. That said, there are many "weapons" at my disposal in camp... first and foremost, my brain.

 

[R_Lefebvre]

http://www.amazon.ca/Risk-Things-Sh...=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1268754818&sr=1-3

In the tradition of Malcolm Gladwell, Gardner explores a new way of thinking about the decisions we make.

We are the safest and healthiest human beings who ever lived, and yet irrational fear is growing, with deadly consequences — such as the 1,595 Americans killed when they made the mistake of switching from planes to cars after September 11. In part, this irrationality is caused by those — politicians, activists, and the media — who promote fear for their own gain. Culture also matters. But a more fundamental cause is human psychology.

Working with risk science pioneer Paul Slovic, author Dan Gardner sets out to explain in a compulsively readable fashion just what that statement above means as to how we make decisions and run our lives. We learn that the brain has not one but two systems to analyze risk. One is primitive, unconscious, and intuitive. The other is conscious and rational. The two systems often agree, but occasionally they come to very different conclusions. When that happens, we can find ourselves worrying about what the statistics tell us is a trivial threat — terrorism, child abduction, cancer caused by chemical pollution — or shrugging off serious risks like obesity and smoking.

Gladwell told us about “the black box” of our brains; Gardner takes us inside, helping us to understand how to deconstruct the information we're bombarded with and respond more logically and adaptively to our world. Risk is cutting-edge reading.