Do you feel the need to have a weapon when camping

[KiwiKurt]

Molon Labe

Mike

They have, and will again. No one did anything then and no one will do anything then. Look at the laws of california maryland new york etc. no one resists. They comply.

When the order comes "mr and mrs america, turn them in" there will be a line of people 12 blocks long waiting patiently their turn to comply. A bunch will bury them and claim loss/theft. MAYBE *MAYBE* 1/100 will resist.

You can post molon labe all you want, but when the time comes you will be in your house looking at your family, and curse as you pack them up for turn in, and so will I and 99% of everyone else. The weight of being imprisoned or killed when you have a job a house and a family will be the weight that carries the day.

People forget that during katrina the army national guard and police went door to door, entering residences, flex cuffing occupants, and taking all the guns. No one resisted. It will be the same again.

 

[RoyJ]

To make you guys feel better, we have it a lot worse up here in Canada!

Stupid rules like 5 rnd restrictions on semi auto magazines - put on a 10 rnd magazine you go to jail, but if you use a magazine designed for a .50 and stuff 10 rnds of .223 in it, then it's perfectly legal. They outlawed semi auto rifles that "look" like an AK or AR15, even though barrel is of perfect legal length, based strictly on "resemblance".

I mean ******, if I look like Hitler then I should be hanged for potential genocide?

 

[Christophe Noel]

One of the things a bunch of the anti-gun overlanders earlier in this thread need to realize is that in the Northwestern continental US they only scratch the surface of getting off the beaten path, if they come here at all. This is the land of beating your truck to death on trees and branches, and not little ones. I go places where my Pathfinder's stock roof rack barely clears dozens of huge tree branches.... and then I go 20 miles farther.

Everything is relative. By this logic, I arguably travel to far more remote places than you do. My preferred method of travel, as it has been for the better part of a couple decades, is a bicycle. I use a 4WD vehicle to access my remote starting point where I offload a bicycle and travel where no truck, no matter how burly, can tread. I did this in Alaska for years where my route would take me through some of the most notorious bear country in the entire hemisphere.

I do not carry a firearm. Ever.


For those who say, "I refuse to be a statistic..." That's fine, but you're really hoping to not be a particular category of statistic. You may not go down in a gunfight, but do you exercise daily? Do you smoke? Are you a little heavy in the middle? Eat lots of sugar, do you? Gun owners in that category have simply chosen to lessen the odds of death by violence, but have disregarded death by a much more likely scenario, one of generally bad health.

These seem like far reaching arguments, but the reality is, some people place certain "threats" more likely than others. If you worry about a bear attack but not the effects of the dozen doughnuts you eat every week, you're not a bright bulb.

 

[matthewp]

Look at the laws of new york etc.... They comply.

Pretty sure there are a heck of a lot more "assault rifles" in NY than were registered. Maybe your theory of complicity may be flawed...

http://m.timesunion.com/news/article/New-York-SAFE-Act-gun-registration-numbers-are-6343080.php

 

[Modeler]

As well as the number that did not go through registering their magazines and "assault weapons" in CT. Only 50K rifles and 38K magazines were registered by the deadline.

http://articles.courant.com/2014-02...1_assault-weapons-rifles-gun-registration-law

 

[TheBuddyExpedition]

Everything is relative. By this logic, I arguably travel to far more remote places than you do. My preferred method of travel, as it has been for the better part of a couple decades, is a bicycle. I use a 4WD vehicle to access my remote starting point where I offload a bicycle and travel where no truck, no matter how burly, can tread. I did this in Alaska for years where my route would take me through some of the most notorious bear country in the entire hemisphere.

I do not carry a firearm. Ever.


For those who say, "I refuse to be a statistic..." That's fine, but you're really hoping to not be a particular category of statistic. You may not go down in a gunfight, but do you exercise daily? Do you smoke? Are you a little heavy in the middle? Eat lots of sugar, do you? Gun owners in that category have simply chosen to lessen the odds of death by violence, but have disregarded death by a much more likely scenario, one of generally bad health.

These seem like far reaching arguments, but the reality is, some people place certain "threats" more likely than others. If you worry about a bear attack but not the effects of the dozen doughnuts you eat every week, you're not a bright bulb.

Words cannot express how ignorant the post I quoted is.....

sent FROM HELL!!!

 

[Scott Brady]

Words cannot express how ignorant the post I quoted is.....

sent FROM HELL!!!

Ignorant because he disagrees with you? Ignorance is a lack of knowledge. I can assure you that Christophe is knowledgeable on the subject, but makes a different personal choice than you do.

Ignorance is assuming that because someone else acts or believes different then you, that they are stupid or uninformed.

Christophe and I work in the same office. I carry every day- he never carries. Christophe understands the benefits and risks of daily carry or using a firearm for self-defense. It is simple statistics for him. He recognizes that in Prescott, AZ, the chance of needing a firearm for self-defense is infinitesimal. I respect his choice and perspective. It would be ignorant to dismiss it.

 

[rgallant]

Amazing how fast these threads go off the rails.

I have always looked at the shotgun in my truck like the 1st aid kit, jack, spare tire etc. There if I need it, so far so good in 30 odd years I have never had to use it but there was a time two when it got debatable. I would rather have it than not, although the biggest issue I have had is with a very large bull moose investigating my Pathfinder. Not sure what he found so interesting but I had a nice sit a 100 meters or so away and waited till he got bored and moved off.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Words cannot express how ignorant the post I quoted is.....

Not ignorant. Honest. Everyone makes decisions and preparations to guard themselves against the threats they feel are most real––for them. There are a myriad of things I think are likely to punch my clock, a deadly encounter with another human or animal not among them. Truthfully, I just don't see it happening. But, who knows, maybe someday I'll live in a place where I feel that security is compromised. Until then, a gun is a tool I feel I don't need.

And again, the only reason I participate in these discussions is to represent the non-carrying overlander, and one not campaigning to take away your rights to carry.

 

[GregSplett]

Words cannot express how ignorant the post I quoted is.....

sent FROM HELL!!!

I do not see what is so ignorant about saying a person is more likely to die from a medical condition than a gun shot and that You can make choices that can effect those out comes.

I would say that this man has a serious grasp on reality.

 

[TheBuddyExpedition]

I do not see what is so ignorant about saying a person is more likely to die from a medical condition than a gun shot and that You can make choices that can effect those out comes.

I would say that this man has a serious grasp on reality.

I thought the comment about a person's health and carrying a weapon was foolish...I'm not asking anyone to agree, it's my opinion on what I thought of Christophe's post.
And yeah, I will dismiss it, I guess I'm ignorant as well....

I'm not even sure why I care if you or anyone carries a weapon, to me it's ignorant not to. I can still respect an opinion without understanding the reasoning.

I know 4 brothers that wished they had their sidearm today...

sent FROM HELL!!!

 

[Christophe Noel]

I thought the comment about a person's health and carrying a weapon was foolish...I'm not asking anyone to agree, it's my opinion on what I thought of Christophe's post.

But I think you simply fail to see my point about an individual's perceived assessment of threat.

Life is rife with perceived dangers, but they are often unique to the individual. Nearly everyone in my family dies of cancer or diabetes. None, throughout as many generations as I know of, have died due to a violent encounter that would have been assuaged by a gun.

My personal pursuits put me in line with a number of threats that could end my life. Low on the list is a violent encounter. High on the list are tumors, diabetes and health issues. It's in my interest to guard against those threats first, as they are VERY REAL. Same for many people. Am I as likely to die as a result of a violent encounter? No.

You fail to see that some of us guard against the threats we feel are most real. Health issues, car crashes, and other life threatening instances simply rank as higher probabilities. Things simply not defended against with a weapon.

I could just as easily argue that your fear of violent encounter is statistically unwarranted, but that would only serve to disrespect YOUR feelings of self preservation. And I could go a step further assuming you are foolish by not pursuing the levels of personal health that I strive to achieve.

Slippery slope, eh?

 

[keezer37]

I can agree with carrying a rifle or shotgun where the population density is less than the maximum range of the weapon, on average. My point here is that along with the individual right to carry the weapon is other folks right to be safe from that weapon. Does this seem extreme or do I just have to trust you? When you consider that nearly half of the US population will suffer from some mental illness in their lifetime, I don't think it is unreasonable. This is why I also support psychological testing for anyone wishing to possess firearms. Mind you, the 46.4% of us who will suffer a mental illness should not automatically disqualify the individual. Some of these illnesses are quite mild. Actually, only 6% will suffer from extreme mental illness. But this leave a lot of grey area of the grey matter. Sorry, couldn't help myself. How stable should an individual be to be permitted to possess a firearm? I would even say, how mature should an individual be? For the safety of you and yours, shouldn't the bar be set high? I mean, we're not talking about hammers, reciprocating saws, or lathes, we're talking about guns. All these items have purpose, but to conflate one with another is a fallacy. While they may be used for purposes other than their primary purpose, they should be considered on that basis. We all know what the primary purpose of these items are. I think the error comes in thinking that the handgun's primary purpose is for self defense. I think it is to kill another human being and it should be judged and regulated from this point. To say it is for self defense is extremely subjective, and here's why...
Consider self defense. You are the good guy and the person you have to shoot is the bad guy. Says you. In a black and white scenario, this may be true. But consider how many black and white scenarios you will encounter. Here, things get grey again. You're most always going to think you are in the right, it's human nature. Just as no one reading this would place themselves in that 46.4% of crazies, well over half (depending on what specifically is being evaluated) consider themselves above average. Who here is willing to say they are average or even below average in their job performance, academic abilities, driving skills (80% of us consider ourselves above average), ability to get along with others (25% rate themselves in the top 1%). The numbers are actually comical. It goes by many terms. I like "The Lake Wobegon effect"; where all the children are above average.
It may seem like I am off on a tangent but there is purpose. I shouldn't have to trust you and your psychological baggage and you shouldn't have to trust me and my psychological baggage. There should be standard testing. We cannot judge this for ourselves. Why? Because we all suffer from "Bias Blind Spot". We are the standard by which all others should be judged. And that's just plain crazy.

 

[Tonkatuff]

Just to put in an international perspective, I live in Australia and have grown up with a rifle and hunting since I could walk.

I do not carry a weapon on me, because it's illegal and if it wasn't I see no reason to. As for over landing, I've done my share and this country is a big place I have seen no necessity to carry a gun. I honestly do not understand the need for a gun for self protection, but maybe it's a cultural thing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[GregSplett]

I thought the comment about a person's health and carrying a weapon was foolish...I'm not asking anyone to agree, it's my opinion on what I thought of Christophe's post.
And yeah, I will dismiss it, I guess I'm ignorant as well....

I'm not even sure why I care if you or anyone carries a weapon, to me it's ignorant not to. I can still respect an opinion without understanding the reasoning.

I know 4 brothers that wished they had their sidearm today...

sent FROM HELL!!!

Me and the better talked about this kind of last night.I got to thinking that I do not know anybody that is gone from Being shot..In her family she new one.domestic violence.Gma shot gramps.

I got a good friend that lost his girl friend in a robbery.never been the same since and will go no where with out.