So, did you bring protection?

[+mrcpu]

I carry a Hiking Stick (either wood or a purchased one) and also a pocket knife. I also tend to be very quiet and avoid people.

 

Rob

[irvingdog]

I find it difficult to believe people like Paul and their elitist attitude. You sound like Rosie O'Donnell. Guns are bad and kill people. You folks should not have one. However, I can afford trained body guards, and they should be armed. Or, I was militar y trained, and therefore, a viable candidate for a right to self protection.

You spend a lot of time defining the obvious. People need to learn about their weapons and the safe use of them with about the same degree of care and respect afforded an automo bile. You may want to rethink your "guns are n ot for everyone unless they've had the same experiences as me" attitude. Will folks need to attend a mandated 3 week course before being allowed to operate a chainsaw? Then surely 6 months of training will be needed to drive a car. And don't break your arm trying to pat yourself on the back, Aussies and Brits. You've seen armed violence RISE EVERY YEAR since you've banned the right for law abiding citizens to bear arms.

People have a right to protect themselves. Cops and EMT's do a great job of mopping up. I know. I've been shot.

And BTW a ported .357 brings everything at 30 feet a bear does not want. A bright flash, a tremendous BOOM, and a heavy chunk of lead traveling at a high rate of speed and pressure. It indeed may not "stop it in it's tracks", but if I get four shots into it's head and body, I've increased my chances of surviving the experience.y

 

›

[mcb]

Paul Morrison WaylandersMA, I thought your comments a few post up were right on the mark, and I didn't really find them anti or pro carry, just good advice. If your going to carry you better know what your doing and be able to deal with the results if you have to use your weapon. It is definitly not for everyone.

 

jfitzpat, my statment in my last paragraph should have been stated more generally and I did not mean to imply you had made any stand one way or the other.

 

rewrite:

Nonetheless all that said I am sorry if I offended you(jfitzpat). The stigma guns carry with them is something that I don't think any comments I make on my beliefs and uses of them will change SOMEONES opinion. I do think that in the woods carring a handgun has save many backwoods hikers and campers.

 

I do agrea that many people see the carrying a gun as an excuse to get stupid in the woods. The gun does not make you invinsible it just puts another tool in your basket of options if you find youself in a bad situation.

 

mcb

[+Rich in NEPA]

Personally, I have little fear of wild animals. I've had enough close encounters with eastern black bears to know that in most cases they are more afraid of me than I am of them. And when I'm in bear country I make a habit of making my presence known should momma and cubs be along my path. If rabies have been reported in the area, I tend to be very wary of smaller animals.

 

My greatest fear, however, is the deranged drug-head who will not think twice about killing me for the change in my pocket! I will be prepared to at least attempt to defend myself, family, friends and property using whatever force is necessary in an apparent, life-threating situation. And the more people who know it, the better.

 

BTW, I find it noteworthy that in States which have enacted "shall issue" laws (for concealed-carry permits), the violent crime rates decline significantly but go up correspondingly in surrounding State which do not have similar laws. Gee, I wonder why!?

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

 

=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

[jfitzpat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

Personally, I have little fear of wild animals. I've had enough close encounters with eastern black bears to know that in most cases they are more afraid of me than I am of them. And when I'm in bear country I make a habit of making my presence known should momma and cubs be along my path. If rabies have been reported in the area, I tend to be very wary of smaller animals.

 

My greatest fear, however, is the deranged drug-head who will not think twice about killing me for the change in my pocket! I _will_ be prepared to _at least attempt_ to defend myself, family, friends and property using whatever force is necessary in an apparent, life-threating situation. And the more people who know it, the better.

 

BTW, I find it noteworthy that in States which have enacted "shall issue" laws (for concealed-carry permits), the violent crime rates decline significantly but go up correspondingly in surrounding State which do not have similar laws. Gee, I wonder why!?

 

_~Rich in NEPA~_

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/1132_1200.jpg

 

__=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===__

---

 

Rich, I have great respect for you and have always found your posts well considered and thoughtful.

 

However, I must disagree with you two points. First, the statistics point appears to be false. Both sides of the gun debate are in the habit of clouding the air with 'bull-istics'. Trying to connect crime rate to "shall issue" requires pretty dubious math, as does trying to connect a 10 year decline in violent crime to assault weapons bans and Brady bill type cooling off periods. Both only work if you pick and choose your numbers to fit the result you want to get.

 

I'm not saying you made it up, just that virtually no one, on either side, can be blindly trusted to get the facts right.

 

The second issue is personal. I have no problem with "any" force necessary when it comes to protecting self, family, or fellow members of a community. However, I have a real problem with the concept of lethal force to protect property.

 

Think of it as a golden rule sort of thing. I know, in my heart, that my children are a lot more important than your TV, car, or even your house. Conversely, I then accept that your children are a lot more important than my TV, car, or house.

 

Everyone has to have their own set of moral standards, but, for me, being willing to kill someone for stuff is the problem that I expect a gun to help protect my family from from. Not a moral code that I want a gun to enforce.

 

-jjf

[markl32]

Fact: every city or state that permits concealed carry experiences a drop in violent crime.

 

Fact: every city or state that prohibits lawful concealed carry is riddled with violent crime.

 

Fact: a gun CAN NOT kill someone, only the person operating it can.

 

Will you be available to me with your cell phone when I am faced with a violent animal or god forbid a violent person while geocaching in the remote wilderness? No. So stop trying to prohibit law-abiding citizens from protecting themselves. Its common sense to carry adequate tools for your environment. Thankfully most Americans feel that way.

 

I find it hard not to take your offensive comments personally. I start feeling like momma bear when people tell me I am safer with out the means to protect myself and my cubs. I find the whole anti gun agenda morally and intellectually bankrupt.

 

Lastly, I totally agree with your advice on training. I’d like to add to the list a class on the legal ramifications of a violent encounter. Your civil and possible criminal liability. You absolutely have to know the laws of your state or the state you are in when you are lawfully carrying a concealed weapon.

[+VentureForth]

I remember an email circulation a while back about this. The following was from E. Drew Britcher, Attorney:

 

quote:

---

A Harvard Medical Practice Study published in 1990 found that in New York hospitals in 1984, there were...nearly 7,000 deaths... If one assumes that medical care provided in New York State hospitals is comparable to the Nation as a whole, than more than 80,000 Americans a year are killed by the negligence of their doctor...

 

To place this in perspective, while [an estimated] 80,000 Americans are killed by their doctor's malpractice each year, according to Uniform Crime Reports published by the FBI, 15,000 Americans are killed by a firearm each year. Thus, while nearly five times more Americans are killed each year by medical malpractice than by guns, the medical lobby has managed to hide this from the public.

---

 

Venture Forth, out to the wild, wet forest...

 

[This message was edited by VentureForth on March 12, 2002 at 11:07 AM.]

[+Rich in NEPA]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jfitzpat:

Everyone has to have their own set of moral standards, but, for me, being willing to kill someone for stuff is the problem that I expect a gun to help protect my family from from. Not a moral code that I want a gun to enforce.

---

 

JFitzpat, I don't want to get into a debate over statistics. Obviously, anyone can use/manipulate statistics to "prove" their case. As far as violent crime rates after the enactment of "shall issues" laws, these have been pretty well established. But, the point I really want to get back to is the one dealing with the protection of property. What I am talking about is the "justifiable" use of lethal force. If I'm being robbed at the point of a gun, I'm not about to believe for one second that the robber is only going to take my wallet and simply leave. Nor do I care to end up being a dead hero--whether that happens during the crime, or as the result of a trial where I'm accused of murder.

 

Many States do not limit the use of lethal force to exclude the protection of personal property. You might want to check if you are living in one of them. In most States there is a clear line between defense against an armed robber and shooting a burglar as he absconds with your TV. Also, I know of no State that doesn't distinguish the difference between "reasonable force" and "excessive force." I am not so stupid, and I don't believe any jury would be, either, to think that I can get away with using lethal force to protect my TV. My earlier statement about the protection of life and property is meant as a generalization, and of course is not applicable in all instances or in all States.

 

There is a huge amount of responsibility that comes with carrying a weapon for self-defense and it is important to know the laws in your State. Even the simple act of brandishing a firearm in a confrontational situation can literally backfire on you!

 

One of the best books on the subject of the moral and ethical consequences of the use of lethal force is "In the Gravest Extreme" by Massad F. Ayoob. I would very STRONGLY suggest that anyone who keeps a gun for self-defense read this book.

 

You may not agree with all of this, but, frankly I don't really care. Don't take this as an attempt at disparagement directed to you personally. None of the people I know that "carry" are out there specifically looking for trouble ... on the contrary, they make great efforts to go out of their way in order to avoid it, and so do I. To me this means that the use of lethal force is a last resort and a desperate one. It's so much easier and safer to train yourself to be constantly aware of your surroundings, to sense when things don't seem right, and to take the steps needed to stay away from trouble. Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

 

=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

[+WaylandersMA]

Mark132

 

Everything read on an internet site is not a fact. If you have reputable citations for those facts I would like to see them and please don't send me NRA or any shills to the gun lobby linked facts.

And if I refute them with Center for Disease control Data please don't mention black government helicopters or I'll tell you your aluminum foil is on too tight.

 

VF: that's a good one I've seen that one too although the 80,000 malpractice seems to get higher and higher.

 

But just for fun let us take your numbers as fact and mix with some data.

 

The CDC says around 2,300,000 million Americans die each year. This is total. A good thing because if we didn't get rid of that 1% each year it would get crowded real fast.

That number is a fact beyond dispute.

(700,000 or so heart disease, 500,000 cancer a couple 100,000 by stroke etc..) just doing this from memory so don't quote me .

 

Believe it or not most of these people die in hospitals under the care of a physician. (Not most of the 28,000 by firearms, some make it to an ER before cashing it in but most don't). When those 2.3 million people died there was likely a physician present trying to prolong the persons life. It's that Hipocratic oath or something that makes them do this not so pleasant job.

 

Your quote:

According to E. Drew Britcher, Attorney, 80,000 of those deaths are malpractice.

 

My conclusion: 3.8% of the deaths in the United States happened within earshot of an attorney.

Wow, I did not know there where that many lawyers.

 

[Warning: this post is laden with sarcasm and half truths, you work it out.]

 

[jfitzpat]

"JFitzpat, I don't want to get into a debate over statistics. Obviously, anyone can use/manipulate statistics to "prove" their case."

 

Well, I would say that most people selectively cite quotes and random data as "proof" of what they already believe. Properly applied, statistics is a good tool for science. But, I agree that it is grossly miss-applied much of the time.

 

"If I'm being robbed at the point of a gun..."

 

If you are being robbed under threat of physical harm, I agree you have every moral and legal right to protect yourself.

 

"I am not so stupid, and I don't believe any jury would be, either, to think that I can get away with using lethal force to protect my TV..."

 

I don't think you are stupid, and never meant to imply as such. But, I am not talking about legal standards, but a personal moral one. The Supreme Court has made it clear that lethal booby traps (window sash guns, rigged shotguns with trip wires, etc.) are illegal.

 

Some people think that the Supreme Court is wrong. I, in turn, think those people have questionable moral compasses.

 

"Even the simple act of brandishing a firearm in a confrontational situation can literally backfire on you!"

 

I couldn't agree more. Just displaying a concealed weapon takes a situation to Defcon 4. Once the sharp end is pointed at a human being, everyone involved is in true peril, in many ways.

 

"It's so much easier and safer to train yourself to be constantly aware of your surroundings, to sense when things don't seem right, and to take the steps needed to stay away from trouble."

 

That is what I have said all along. So, what can I do but agree?

 

-jjf

[+WaylandersMA]

"2,300,000 million Americans die each year."

 

Oops.

 

 

[+Rich in NEPA]

The one important thing that you are forgetting in all of this is that the possession of a lethal weapon is meant primarily to be a deterrent. As members of a "civilized society," we don't put people to death for capital crimes because we like to see them die or even that they deserve it, we do it because it serves as a most effective deterrent to future crimes. The problem with this, however, is that the criminal Justice system has gotten so far out of whack that it's easier to get off for murder than it is for stealing a bicycle! Most rational citizens are getting fed up with the fact that this kind of deterrent isn't working anymore. The reason that violent crime rates go down (whether anyone chooses to believe it or not) in "shall issue" States is not because gun owners think of themselves as vigilantes, but because criminals are afraid to take the chance of getting shot. Plain and simple. Not knowing whether a person is "carrying" is a dadgum good deterrent! So they go where the pickings are easier. For your sake, I hope you live in a "shall issue" State because even if you don't own a gun (for whatever silly reason), you are much safer because of those that do! Cheers ...

 

~Rich in NEPA~

 

 

=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===

[husqui]

Well, not exactly. Sure, they look like wolves but guard dogs they ain’t! Watch dogs, yes --- they’ll watch with playful amusement as the burglar ransacks my house. Nonetheless, having these two rambunctious brats with me on the trail will more than likely discourage wild animals from coming too close and MAYBE intimidate any would-be human predators. In either case, they’re tons of fun and I never go hiking without them.null

[+planetrobert]

Yeah I carry "protection." The majority of the caches in my area are out in the woods and require a hike. I always on these hikes and out of town caches take my friends Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson Them and a half dozen 44mag shells.

 

I have come across both an angry ber and a VERY angry badger while caching. Fortunatly a close shot toward them made them retreat.

 

Now where did I set my GPS???

[+Gliderguy]

This thread has been one of the most level-headed discussions on the pros and cons of firearm carry I have ever had the honor to witness. That alone speaks volumes for the quality of people on this board.

 

Personally, I am pro-right to carry. I have been around firearms for both hunting and target practice since I was in grade school. I know what happens when large animals are hit with powerful rifles, and it isn't always instant. I have never shot a bear, but expect that unless you brained him he would be alive for between 60 seconds and two minutes, with a good SOLID chest cavity hit or two. I would rather get off one good shot at extremely close range than empty a magazine at him from 20 yards or more and only piss him off more. Kind of hard to claim self-defense if he was that far away, even if acting very threatening. Most pistols one would carry for self defense arent worth a crap accuracy-wise beyond 25 yards under ideal conditions, never mind while you are stumbling over boulders and cactus with a bear charging at you. Good hunting revolvers excluded from the above generalization.

 

With the above in mind, I have only carried on two separate caches of the 10 I have attempted. I also happened to be caching alone for those two. Both were in bear country. Albuquerque had a real problem with bears last year, something like over 100 bears had to be put down for walking right into town and breaking into peoples houses for food. There was even one elderly lady killed by a bear. If not for this extreme circumstance I probably wouldn't have bothered.

 

If I were going to an extremely remote area, I would carry. but like Jeremy said, for the local park?! No. A remote cache with one or two other people with me? Maybe, maybe not.

 

Given the choice between a big stick and even a .22 pistol against something that wants to kill or maim me, I would take the pistol. (what I did carry on those two caches was a .40 with non expanding bullets.) Personally I would take a decent sized knife over the stick. I would trust good quality pepper spray over the knife.

 

If a bear is going to maul me, and I have the choice of letting him finish when he gets bored, or when he bleeds to death 2 minutes after I have fired, I like my odds better of surviving a couple of minutes over who knows how long.

 

I respect those who chose otherwise. I tried not to stray off topic into the legal aspects of this lest a small fire break out in this thread, but I suppose anyone who reads this has a pretty good idea where I stand.

 

[This message was edited by Gliderguy on March 12, 2002 at 06:50 PM.]

[jfitzpat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rich in NEPA:

The one important thing that you are forgetting in all of this is that the possession of a lethal weapon is meant _primarily_ to be a _deterrent_. As members of a "civilized society," we don't put people to death for capital crimes because we like to see them die or even that they deserve it, we do it _because it serves as a most effective deterrent_ to future crimes. The problem with this, however, is that the criminal Justice system has gotten so far out of whack that it's easier to get off for murder than it is for stealing a bicycle! Most rational citizens are getting fed up with the fact that this kind of deterrent isn't working anymore. The reason that violent crime rates go down (whether anyone chooses to believe it or not) in "shall issue" States is not because gun owners think of themselves as vigilantes, but because criminals are afraid to take the chance of getting shot. Plain and simple. Not knowing whether a person is "carrying" is a dadgum good deterrent! So they go where the pickings are easier. For your sake, I hope you live in a "shall issue" State because even if you don't own a gun (for whatever silly reason), _you_ are much safer because of those that _do!_ Cheers ...

 

_~Rich in NEPA~_

 

http://img.Groundspeak.com/user/1132_1200.jpg

 

__=== A man with a GPS receiver knows where he is; a man with two GPS receivers is never sure. ===__

---

 

Wow, now we are really out there. I sometimes wonder, do people actually read one another's posts, or do they just assume that they are talking to a stereotype?

 

I don't mean that personally, I'm just amazed at how my comments - which have so far ranged from:

 

'Do not let a gun give you a false sense of security, you still need good planning and good sense...'

 

To, 'I, personally, do not believe in lethal, or potentially lethal force solely for the protection of personal property...'

 

Have led to comments on capitol punishment and a lecture on what I don't understand.

 

I must admit that I dropped my NRA membership in the '80s. The whole "jackbooted... fascist..." diatribe just rubbed the Irish-Catholic-USMC part of me the wrong way. Paramilitary uh, 'folks', deserve a voice, but they don't speak for me.

 

Still I shot competitively through high school, was an avid hunter until the early '90s, and still get to the range (indoor and outdoor) pretty regularly.

 

My views are undeniably moderate, but they are certainly not the views you seem to ascribe to me.

 

-jjf

[+Hawk-eye]

quote:

---

Originally posted by jfitzpat:

Originally posted by mcb:

.....I have only stated that, should a person carry a gun, they should not let it give them a false sense of confidence. That is, a gun is no substitute for good planning and prevention. Because, a gun cannot always deal with every potential danger.

 

Since you mentioned that bears should be avoided in the first place. It seems reasonable to suppose that you at least sometimes heed my suggestion, even if you vehemently argue against it here.

.... having hunted bear, I could go on and on about why bears are hard to kill.

 

Bottom line, any creature that can take a large bore rifle shot to the head and have the shot bounce off without measurable cranial damage is, as you mentioned a creature best kept out of handgun range...

 

-jjf

---

 

I'll stand behind everything said ... I personally have seen an eastern black bear ... much less of a bear than most of those found in the west ... with half it's heart gone, lung collapsed ... go down, get up and go over 600 meters. From what I've read and from discussions with those who've had the experience out west ... the best defense is to avoid the bear .... give them their due.

 

[jfitzpat]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hawk-eye:

 

I'll stand behind everything said ... I personally have seen an eastern black bear ... much less of a bear than most of those found in the west ... with half it's heart gone, lung collapsed ... go down, get up and go over 600 meters. From what I've read and from discussions with those who've had the experience out west ... the best defense is to avoid the bear .... give them their due.

---

 

FWIW, the hunter I mentioned earlier was named Alexei Pitka. I used collect clippings, etc. on bear attacks (sort of compulsively, actually).

 

Again, people should not suddenly be terrified of bears. Ursus Americanus, or the common black bear, is generally very timid. There are at least 500,000 in North American, human encounters are common, but there are only about 25 reported "attacks" a year. Most of the "attacks" do not result in serious injury - warning scratches or a light bite (well, light for a bear). Still, they are wild, amazingly strong animals and serious attacks happen. They should be respected and given a wide berth.

 

Admitedly Ursus Horribilis, or Grizzlies, are well named. Still, they are very rare in the lower 48, and don't range east of the Mississippi (lucky for us western states).

 

But, I can attest, they are really bad tempered creatures. If you go north to hunt a Grizzly (though I am told that the permits are now obscenely expensive), be forewarned - they have been known to stalk back.

 

-jjf

[+ED634]

carry protection all the time...hehehehehehe