Lemon Fresh Dog

Nor do I yours. (Whoops, wrong one liner.) I suppose if you really wanted what you claim to want you wouldn't be asking it in a geocaching forum, now would you? You just come in with a big ladle--thinly veiled as "personal research"--to stir the pot and have fun at others' expense. I don't believe for one second you are truly concerned and interested. I doubt many others do either. There have been a few more patient than I that have tried to educate you, but there is no changing your mind. The reason I give one liners is because that's all your post deserves. Good day. I'm sorry. Could you please take the time to read my posts before making false comments about what I am/am not promoting? Could you also read the entire thread before you suggest that people have provided me with the facts? I'm not "having fun at others expense". You are simply offended that I hold a view opposite to your own when it comes to carrying a gun caching and have decided to take it as an attack -- which it is not. Not all questions are attacks. I have never, in a single post, claimed that you or anyone else should not carry a gun. I am posting my interest here because I like to know not only WHAT others think, but WHY they think the way they do - especially when it comes to things such as safety and weapons. If that bothers you -- too bad. That's why forums exist and are the free exchange of ideas. I like to question people that have different views than my own in order to better understand ideas. I'm open-minded enough that if I feel proper evidence is forthcoming I may even change my views in light of this evidence. Any evidence provided must pass the filter of logical analysis -- a good book on Informal Logic could help you understand what I mean. These are sometimes titled "How to Think" or "Logical Self-Defense". My request was simple. I am looking for information on the benefits of carrying a gun while caching (or being outdoors). I am suspect of information on the topic provided by pro-gun groups and I am ALSO suspect of information on the topic provided by anti-gun groups. My goal was to find sources that were the result of scientific study, not personal agendas -- so I asked here. Your responce was "use Google". Thanks, but I chose to use a forum and see what and why others thought the way they did. Telling me to go away won't work. You can ignore me if you want, but I have just as much right to be here as you do. You have decided that I am attacking a persons belief to carry and defending mine not to (even though I have never suggested anyone adopt my belief or drop theirs.) You even suggested I was attacking a countries gun policies and people! You are being defensive when there is no battle being fought. You have never provided me with any relavent information on the subject at hand -- others have and I thank them. In fact, you've been nothing short of insulting and I'm surprized your comments are tolerated by the admins. I do respect you as an individual -- because I think it's important to respect one another. I have difficulty respecting your personal attacks that are based in a fictious thought. You seem to think that I am promoting some sort of anti-gun agenda (where? I make my own decisions and leave your own decisions to you. In which of my posts have I ever told someone else not to carry?) This topic all began when the question was asked "do you carry while caching?" I had the audacity to ask why and ask for logical support -- if that offends you I feel very sorry. There will always be people that disagree with you in life - why don't you provide them with actual information rather than attack them? (do you quote any credible sources in any of your posts here? Do you even provide any sources? -- except for you Google suggestion -- thanks for that) This topic has now completely degraded to the point where no new information seems forthcoming on the topic at hand. I thank those that actually took the time to explain their beliefs to me and provided some links to research. I count about 3 links that were especially useful. I have learnt some new and interesting things. I'd also like to apologize to anyone that was offended by my curiosity or posts in response to those attacking my right to question. I won't stop being curious as to why people do what they do, but I also did not intend to make anyone feel I don't repect their rights to a contrary viewpoint to my own. If anyone thinks I was promoting an agenda -- I just have to say you are wrong. If anyone thinks that I don't like to carry a gun, don't like what guns can do, and am nervous about some people with guns -- you are correct. That's only my opinion though and I really respect yours -- even if I don't share it. If anyone thinks I am uninformed, then maybe you could let me know where to find information .... on second thought, skip it.....

I consider an unbiased source to be one in which the research is presented as the result of collecting statistical information without secondary agenda. For example, a source that simply states the facts and allows others to make conclusions. Not present conclusions in support of EITHER side of a debate (pro or con). Quick edit: Research that presents facts allowing readers to draw own conclusions -- UNBIASED Reaserch that promotes a viewpoint which it encourages others to follow -- BIASED It's been stated here that the beast don't exist -- I accept that.

Bald Eagles in Canada?! Must be Democrats. Well, we figure that if we send down those annoying geese every year, the least we can do is feed some of your national birds!

ooooo -- I can't wait.... It's something I think will be fun, frustrating, and more fun! I've been buying "pieces" for about 3 months now!

Well, I don' want to give too much away (because local cachers may read this), but the pieces are part of a manufactured set. I think maybe I'll just have to risk it. I just hope that people understand if things go awry.

Now THAT's what I'm talking about! This looks like a very, very interesting book. Thank you.

Hello there, I am planning a muti-cache in which each cache will provide the finder with a game-piece that requires assembly at the end of the game. Each piece is unique and cannot be replicated. Has anyone else ever done this? What were the results? My concern is that if one of the caches goes missing, the entire game is then sort of null and void. Is this okay as long as I do my best to hide them well and warn people? I've placed seven caches and have never lost one, but thought I would solicit opions and experiences.

I really enjoyed reading Dave's ideas on cache placement! Good ideas!

For would-be eagle watchers -- check out Squamish, BC There is an annual eagle convergence that has to be seen to be believed. They populate trees like Sparrows and feed off the salmon that are spawning. Link to Bald Eagle Viewing The luckiest I have ever been while caching was to see some big deer and a coyote den.

Right. You just question the belief, not the right to it. You know, Google is a wonderful thing. Why don't you go find some supporting evidence yourself instead of questioning the value of other folks' arguments here. You defense so far has been nothing but dismissive. Go find your own facts and figures that support your argument. Oh, and have fun with that. Exactly! I question the belief and am asking folks why they arrived at their particular belief and if they could direct me to any sites or links that support the belief. I also ask that the sites they provide are from some (at least partially) unbiased sites (NRA or Anti-gun sites are probably trying to promote their view over others) I'm also interested in personal experiences. I think I have been pretty forthcoming in my beliefs and respectful of others views. If you feel slighted in any way I first of all apologize and secondly promise you it was unintentional. As for Google -- thanks for the update. What an amazing and unique idea you've given me! If I had found unbiased information in my searches I would have mentioned it here. The point of a forum is to share ideas and resources -- not personally attack anyone that doesn't share your opinion. It seems you think that I am trying to promote a viewpoint or otherwise trying to get people to change theirs? I'm not really interested in that -- I just want to know how people have logically reached the decisions that they have made. It has become abundently clear to me that this is not a logical, but rather an emtional decision about safety, rights and the like. My reason for NOT carrying a gun relate to the fact that I do not associate the risk to outweigh the reward -- in my area, in my opinion, in my experience. You may have a different environment, a different opinion and different experiences. I try to be open-minded to others situations and have really appreciated the pro-carry folks that have given me some interesting insight. To be honest, I don't particularly find your comments useful, but I do appreciate your taking the time to comment. Maybe I just don't get it? <-- I put this here so you could cut out one line from this entire post and answer with the word "yep." see.... I care. Again, there really is very little new information coming to the discussion. I do appreciate the few that have shared personal experiences or provided links (even to pro-gun sites)

Hello Katie -- I'm not under 14. I just wanted to reply and ask you to please, please make sure that your parents or legal guardian goes with you of someone wants to meet you to go geocaching. Unfortunately, the Internet allows people to be anonymous and they can sometimes lie to you if they want to hurt you. So please get someone older (parent/guardian) to participate with you when/if you go to meet new people. Be safe! Have fun!

I never thought about "public" travel bugs in a "MO" cache -- good point.

Yeah.... I'm going to go ahead and NOT use www.packing.org OR www.stopgunviolence.org as a factual source. Why? becasue they do not fall into the logical test of bias-free analysis. I do appreciate the link though - and it does give me a perspective supporting the pro-carry argument, but not much in the way of what I would consider unbiased factual evidence. Sorry... I really appreciete the link though. Quick add: I understand that there is no such thing as completely bias-free analysis. However, we must acknowledge that bias in our analysis and we must seek the most bias-free source we can locate. Do not ask the butcher about being a vegitarian (or vice-versa)

I'm okay with pictures as a confirmation. If it was something that would compromise the cache (such as a unique container in plain site), then I would place the info in the cache description asking that photos are not posted, but rather e-mailed. Of course, it has been brought to my attention earlier that not everyone reads the cache descriptions......so there be dragons.

The chance of a violent encounter is non-zero; I think we can stipulate that. For most of us, though, the chance can also be expressed as near-zero. This could be discouraging to you, as it leaves you in a statistical no-man's land. This is where philosophy informs your decision more than science (to the extent that social sciences are "science"). For those of us who carry, the weapon is not a burden. We don't buckle it on with a grim Klingon-esque sense of "is today a good day to die?" It's just another piece of emergency gear that requires some training and simple periodic maintenance. We hope never to use it, but it's there if needed. If carrying a weapon would harm your self-image or ruin the enjoyment you get from caching or the outdoors, don't. Odds are good you will not have to regret your decision. If carrying has a neutral or positive effect on your enjoyment of caching or the outdoors, do. It can improve your survival odds and options, and to some extent those of others. .... and THAT I can really respect.

What? Questioning the validity of the one's choice of whether to legally carry a firearm? Nope. No actually, I was wondering if anyone was interested in finding FACTUAL evidence one way or the other -- thanks for asking though. I would never, ever, question ones right to a personal belief. (although I may disagree with them)

Yep. This quotation and response does nothing to promote the conversation here. It is out of context and, in my opinion both rude and uncalled for. Of course, so is my reaction to it -- but it has happened to me and I think should be discouraged.

If anyone wants to -- you're all welcome to go and mark the caches I've placed as finds. I placed them there for people to physically find and sign, but it really doesn't offend me one way or another how you choose to play. Marking them as a find doesn't even change them or the perception of them (marking them SBA would and I'd have to go and confirm they are still there or hunt you grrrrrr) Of course, it would be pretty boring to mark finds you have not found (seen, touched, etc). One day I'm sure we'll have someone sign-up here and mark all the caches in the world as found under their account .. oh well, small things amuse small minds. As a cache owner, one thing I plan to do when the logbooks are full in a cache is to compare the physical logs against the online logs and then will have a better idea of a "confirmed" find versus a online find. Photos would also "confirm" a find in my opinion -- where the container was frozen etc. If someone prefers not to sign the physical log I cannot confirm or deny whether they were at the cache site. I also suppose I don't care that much - those that have visited my caches had fun. From what I have read in the forums, there are some folks that just can't accept the fact that they are unable to physically locate a cache - they log as SBA's or found -- the truth will come out when the cache is checked and the logbook reviewed. (or look at their photo of the cache). I've never had this problem though. I don't think we need a rule or new type of "find" though.

Then we are left with an unknowable thing. I'm okay with that. I was hoping that someone had some insight that was new which I could look at. I know that figures can be used to promote a bias (lie?) -- that's why the source of those figures becomes so important. I tend to dismiss information provided by completely pro- or anti- anything. However, if we do not accept some validity from some sources that have proven to have followed a scientific methodology, we run the risk of the argument simply degrading into a "I know that the numbers say that, but I don't want to believe that, so the numbers must be a lie" Anyhow -- this has become the "dead-horse" of the forums I think. Anyone else still interested in this?

I agree -- I should have used the phrase "I choose to purchase a membership to ensure that the business of www.geocaching.com generates revenue to remain viable so that others and I may continue to partake of the services that it provides." (I'm not being sarcastic or anything, I hear what you are saying -- I do not see the site as a charity -- I see it as a business and should not have used the word support without clarification) Business or charity -- revenues are required through some form. I notice few advertisements on the site, so I cannot imagine they are making millions. Not that it would matter to me -- they deserve to! As for MO caches - I have a *slight* problem with them because they are exclusionary by nature -- but that is up to the cache owner to decide. It's like bringing beer to a party: you can drink it alone (boring), you can share with friends (nice), you can give beer to all! (please invite me!)

Ummm... www.packing.org may be *slightly* biased in their analysis. They appear to be a pretty pro-carry organization and hence, not the *best* source for unbiased opinions in my opinion. That would be like me telling you to go to Stop Gun Violence for information. I tend to try to find sources with a minimal bias. (govenment stats bureau info is generally good) I'm not looking for geocaching stats in particular. I'm looking for outdoor and rural crime stats related to random victim information (as opposed to domestic and crime-partner violence). This is just curiosity that has gotten a bug in my bonnet. I just want to understand what the real danger is one way or another. The link on the A.T. was great!

Thanks! I will check it out.

No guns in National Parks? Then a gun wouldn't have been much use for the women killed in Yosemite. Again, part of a larger debate about bearing arms and all that. Maybe I *am* asking for something that doesn't exist. People have been telling me I'm statistically safer with a gun. There does seem to be *some* evidence that this may be the case in an urban US setting, but the only article that provided some input to this in this forum was both an opinion piece and based on a study that was deemed inconclusive. I do really appreciate the link to it however. My problem isn't with opinions contrary to my own -- I have issues with logical falicy such as "Appeals to Authority" and "Thin-Leading Wedge" arguments. On BOTH sides of a debate. Oh well..... I guess it's a matter of faith and not fact at this point. If it is a matter of factual evidence, I have yet to see any links, stats, or studies that are conclusive (for EITHER side) of the carry/not-carry question. Especially while geocaching. (I feel I should mention the word geocaching every few posts to avoid the topic as being shut-down for off-topicness)

duplicate post cleared

Before the flames start -- I KNOW that we are not able to place caches in National Parks, but I thought they would be representative of outdoor areas in general.