Caching with weapons

[Mike Chmi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke_:

 

~shaking my head in disbelief~

Of course the statistics are bunk Mike. Sheash. It was said in jest, to illistrate a point. As flawed as the logic is in the afore quoted statistics, it's not nearly as fanciful as some of the anti gun advocate's statistics.

 

Acts 26:14

---

 

All right so I look like an arse... to be honest I read the stats and then somehow missed this:

 

"Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a Public Health Measure, I have withheld the statistics on Lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical aid."

 

Don't know how I could have missed that last time but I did. And with some of the extreme notions I've scene on both sides of this argument I figured it was possible someone actually bought this. Hanging my head in shame and crawling away.

 

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

[Mike Chmi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Duke_:

 

~shaking my head in disbelief~

Of course the statistics are bunk Mike. Sheash. It was said in jest, to illistrate a point. As flawed as the logic is in the afore quoted statistics, it's not nearly as fanciful as some of the anti gun advocate's statistics.

 

Acts 26:14

---

 

All right so I look like an arse... to be honest I read the stats and then somehow missed this:

 

"Please alert your friends to this alarming threat. We must ban doctors before this gets out of hand. As a Public Health Measure, I have withheld the statistics on Lawyers for fear that the shock could cause people to seek medical aid."

 

Don't know how I could have missed that last time but I did. And with some of the extreme notions I've scene on both sides of this argument I figured it was possible someone actually bought this. Hanging my head in shame and crawling away.

 

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

[+Stl.Parrothead]

This topic has gotten out of hand, lets give it a rest. Only a few of the replies have even answered the original post.

 

[This message was edited by Stl.Parrothead on July 22, 2002 at 10:00 PM.]

[+Stl.Parrothead]

This topic has gotten out of hand, lets give it a rest. Only a few of the replies have even answered the original post.

 

[This message was edited by Stl.Parrothead on July 22, 2002 at 10:00 PM.]

[+pater47]

I, for one, find it VERY fascinating that you ran into her!

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJ_Tonto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beckerbuns:

Good, less competition.

---

 

I met Mitsuko while geocaching this weekend (on my first day of geocaching.) She was very nice, we had a good talk and visit together.

 

NJ_Tonto

 

(Yes, Kimosabe...)

---

 

Ever notice everybody is willing to give THEIR 2 cents worth but only offer a penny for YOUR thoughts?

 

[This message was edited by pater47 on July 22, 2002 at 10:17 PM.]

[+pater47]

I, for one, find it VERY fascinating that you ran into her!

 

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJ_Tonto:

quote:

---

Originally posted by beckerbuns:

Good, less competition.

---

 

I met Mitsuko while geocaching this weekend (on my first day of geocaching.) She was very nice, we had a good talk and visit together.

 

NJ_Tonto

 

(Yes, Kimosabe...)

---

 

Ever notice everybody is willing to give THEIR 2 cents worth but only offer a penny for YOUR thoughts?

 

[This message was edited by pater47 on July 22, 2002 at 10:17 PM.]

[+leatherman]

Automobiles kill thousands of people a year.

I propose that all cars be restricted to no more than 45 horsepower. All automobiles will have gouveners that will limit there speeds to no more than 45MPH. SUVS must be banned.

Should you in anyway be involved in vehicular manslaughter or homicide, you will be sentanced to Life in a federal correctional facility.

Citizens do not have a right to drive, it's a privilage. Citizens have the right to free movement. Just not how they move.

 

Preperation, the first law to survival.

[+ionekoa]

now pater, where did you get that pic??? she is very pretty, must say, a fake mitsuko in the absence of the original

[Mike Chmi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vash the stampede:

now pater, where did you get that pic??? she is very pretty, must say, a fake mitsuko in the absence of the original

---

 

you may want to search the forums a bit more

 

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

[+ionekoa]

well, i know im not in love, dont know her well enough for that, but im seein her face everywhere, i give up, someone spell it out for me,

explain it as you would to a child. whats going on???!!!!

[mtncycler]

a gun while geocaching??

I am definetly more afraid of humans in the wild, then the wild animals!!! especially after some of what I just read.

Jeez, I was born and raised in Canada's Rocky Mountains, which is bear country, as well as cougars, (insane) moose, wolves, etc.

All people have to do is remember not to hike alone, hike in a group, make lots of noise (carry bear bells) stay at least 100metres away. Never approach or feed any "cute" wild animal.

most of the time pepper spray, isn't very effective, because of wind, rain, shelf life, etc.

 

there are a few diferences between a black bear and a Grizzly, but the easiest to remember is that a grizzly bear has a large hump between the shoulders, which is solid muscle, a black bear does not. They are also almost 400kg.

A black bear weighs about 150kg. A black bear can climb a tree, grizzlies, can't.

 

STAY ALERT TO STAY ALIVE!!

unless you're a hunter, I'd advise to leave the guns at home.

[mtncycler]

a gun while geocaching??

I am definetly more afraid of humans in the wild, then the wild animals!!! especially after some of what I just read.

Jeez, I was born and raised in Canada's Rocky Mountains, which is bear country, as well as cougars, (insane) moose, wolves, etc.

All people have to do is remember not to hike alone, hike in a group, make lots of noise (carry bear bells) stay at least 100metres away. Never approach or feed any "cute" wild animal.

most of the time pepper spray, isn't very effective, because of wind, rain, shelf life, etc.

 

there are a few diferences between a black bear and a Grizzly, but the easiest to remember is that a grizzly bear has a large hump between the shoulders, which is solid muscle, a black bear does not. They are also almost 400kg.

A black bear weighs about 150kg. A black bear can climb a tree, grizzlies, can't.

 

STAY ALERT TO STAY ALIVE!!

unless you're a hunter, I'd advise to leave the guns at home.

[+pater47]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vash the stampede:

now pater, where did you get that pic??? she is very pretty, must say, a fake mitsuko in the absence of the original

---

 

We have LOTS more mitsukos on the way!!

 

Ever notice everybody is willing to give THEIR 2 cents worth but only offer a penny for YOUR thoughts?

[+mtn-man]

quote:

---

Originally posted by vash the stampede:

well, i know im not in love, dont know her well enough for that, but im seein her face everywhere, i give up, someone spell it out for me,

explain it as you would to a child. whats going on???!!!!

---

Well, its like this...

Actually, Mitsuko is my wife. I mean, it must be true because it says so in my profile, right?

quote:

---

Originally posted by NJ_Tonto:

I met Mitsuko while geocaching this weekend (on my first day of geocaching.) She was very nice, we had a good talk and visit together.

 

NJ_Tonto

 

(Yes, Kimosabe...)

---

I was curious what NJ_Tonto was doing talking to her? She is nice, so I guess she was giving him the time of day. Be careful, though, she does have a Colt .38 Detective Special in her purse.

 

I support the Georgia Geocachers Association, or the GGA!

 

[This message was edited by mtn-man on July 23, 2002 at 05:34 AM.]

[+pater47]

I thought she was MY wife! Does that make us husband-in-laws?

 

Ever notice everybody is willing to give THEIR 2 cents worth but only offer a penny for YOUR thoughts?

[Duke of the Desert]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mtncycler:

Jeez, I was born and raised in Canada's Rocky Mountains, which is bear country, as well as cougars, (insane) moose, wolves, etc.

All people have to do is remember not to hike alone, hike in a group, make lots of noise (carry bear bells) stay at least 100metres away.

---

 

Bear Bells? lol, how cute. Now I understand what those bells were doing in that bear crap. That had me stumped for awhile.

 

"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14

[Duke of the Desert]

quote:

---

Originally posted by mtncycler:

Jeez, I was born and raised in Canada's Rocky Mountains, which is bear country, as well as cougars, (insane) moose, wolves, etc.

All people have to do is remember not to hike alone, hike in a group, make lots of noise (carry bear bells) stay at least 100metres away.

---

 

Bear Bells? lol, how cute. Now I understand what those bells were doing in that bear crap. That had me stumped for awhile.

 

"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14

[thrillseeker69]

The fact that crime has been succesfully reduced in over 33 states that allow responsible citizens to carry firearms has me truly thankful. (Facts can be found through the FBI & other sources) I cant imagine being dependant on someone else for my safety, or being at the mercy of a druggie, drunk, mugger, rabid or vicious dog, etc. If I carry, it is not accessable to a child, nor easily obtained by theft.

My right to carry one does not infringe upon your right not to. It wouldn't work the other way around.

A .22 in the pocket is a more effective defense than a 10mmm left at home.

Think about it. cops don't get robbed, raped, mugged or carjacked. Its not because they carry a badge. Why should we be any different because we dont wear a badge?

I respect your choice not to carry one, but dont diss those who do responsibly. Be safe & have fun

[Mike Chmi]

quote:

---

All people have to do is remember not to hike alone, hike in a group, make lots of noise (carry bear bells) stay at least 100metres away. Never approach or feed any "cute" wild animal.

most of the time pepper spray, isn't very effective, because of wind, rain, shelf life, etc.

 

there are a few diferences between a black bear and a Grizzly, but the easiest to remember is that a grizzly bear has a large hump between the shoulders, which is solid muscle, a black bear does not. They are also almost 400kg.

A black bear weighs about 150kg. A black bear can climb a tree, grizzlies, can't.

 

STAY ALERT TO STAY ALIVE!!

unless you're a hunter, I'd advise to leave the guns at home.

---

 

Just FIY, Mostly correct but; bear bells actually according to most experts are useless for 2 reasons, 1) they are not that loud and the sound doesn't travel well 2)bears don't associate that sound with humans. Talking loudly, Shouting, or singing works best.

There are some reports of juvenile/adolescent grizzlies climbing trees.

Most experts advise carrying bear spray, however as you mention it should be new. A fogger style (I've recently heard that foam is better, but I'm not sure on that) is better then a stream as you don't have to aim. Not much can be done about the wind, but at least if you spray it into the wind you'll taste better for the grizzly

 

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

[Mike Chmi]

quote:

---

All people have to do is remember not to hike alone, hike in a group, make lots of noise (carry bear bells) stay at least 100metres away. Never approach or feed any "cute" wild animal.

most of the time pepper spray, isn't very effective, because of wind, rain, shelf life, etc.

 

there are a few diferences between a black bear and a Grizzly, but the easiest to remember is that a grizzly bear has a large hump between the shoulders, which is solid muscle, a black bear does not. They are also almost 400kg.

A black bear weighs about 150kg. A black bear can climb a tree, grizzlies, can't.

 

STAY ALERT TO STAY ALIVE!!

unless you're a hunter, I'd advise to leave the guns at home.

---

 

Just FIY, Mostly correct but; bear bells actually according to most experts are useless for 2 reasons, 1) they are not that loud and the sound doesn't travel well 2)bears don't associate that sound with humans. Talking loudly, Shouting, or singing works best.

There are some reports of juvenile/adolescent grizzlies climbing trees.

Most experts advise carrying bear spray, however as you mention it should be new. A fogger style (I've recently heard that foam is better, but I'm not sure on that) is better then a stream as you don't have to aim. Not much can be done about the wind, but at least if you spray it into the wind you'll taste better for the grizzly

 

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

[+Rockdoctors]

Tips. You want tips?

Move to a safer part of the country. In fact move up here to ALberta Canada. No one carries guns up here. Don't need to. People are nice, no on e brings crazy dogs with them, and the wildlife has lots of room and generally stays out of your way. Although I did run into a Grizzly Bear last year at one of my cache sites Rugose Coral Cache I was laying down having a rest. When I sat up there was the huge motha' f... bear. We were both scared, but the bear ran away faster than I did, so I didn't have much to worry about. Maybe I'd recommend some bear bangers. Makes a loud noise, or even some bear flares. These would work on dogs too I'm sure. Just my $0.02 worth.

[White Rabbit]

There's no way in hell that we'd carry a gun with us Geocaching. That just seems a little freakin' nuts if you ask me. Maybe we're not as paranoid as the rest of you, but heck, a lot of you say you carry A GUN to protect yourself from a dog. A GUN? On long hikes and long Geocaches, we'll take High Power Pepper Spray, our knife, and our trekking poles. Now, I imagine if a dog (OH NO!! A DOG!!! LOOK OUT!!) was to show up in our path, there's many things to do. First, you can just try to confuse and scare the dog by acting like a freakin' crazy person, waving trekking poles everywhere while shouting and throwing stuff around. If that doesn't work, the dog may approach you. If that's the case, I think that pepper-spray with a 10ft+ spray on it will do fine for protection. I really don't think that dogs like the feeling of thier eyeballs burning out. While the dogs stunned by the ps, you can get away from it, continue to spray it, or beat it down with your poles. If that doesn't work and the dog actually bites onto you, well then, that's what a knife is for. It only takes about 5-10 seconds to kill a dog with a knife.

 

See, there's no need for guns. And if you do run into a grizzly or some big black bear, some of the guns you people carry wouldn't really harm them enough to kill them (could be wrong, but bears are pretty tough).

 

I am the Rabbit King, I can do anything

[+Rockdoctors]

Bears are tough. But, the blast alone would scare them away. Bear bangers work great. Did I mention this already?

 

"Trust me I know what the hell I'm talking about!!!"

[White Rabbit]

Don't mind my stupidity, but what exactly are bear bangers? I can pretty much tell that they make a loud noise that'll usually scare a bear, but all I can picture is a Geocacher running around crashing two frying pans together. Whatever they are, they do sound like a good thing to carry around.

 

I am the Rabbit King, I can do anything

[Mike Chmi]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Rockdoctors:

Bears are tough. But, the blast alone would scare them away. Bear bangers work great. Did I mention this already?

 

"Trust me I know what the hell I'm talking about!!!"

---

 

Bear bangers... hmmm never heard of them if I'm ever out in grizzly country again I'll have to check them out, I alway just carried the glorified pepper spray.

 

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

[Mike Chmi]

quote:

---

And if you do run into a grizzly or some big black bear, some of the guns you people carry wouldn't really harm them enough to kill them (could be wrong, but bears are pretty tough).

 

_

---

 

That's actually a very good point, the LAST thing you want to do is injure a grizzly.

 

When Lewis and Clark headed west the Native Americans warned them of a bear that would not die and would attack it's hunters. They didn't believe it much til they tried it, I think 8 direct hits later it was still coming at them (granted those rifles were much weaker but still)

 

"...Not all those who wander are lost..."

[George Leroy Tirebiter]

Wow, I just read this whole (strange?) thread.

 

You guys and gals take your guns (and opinions agains guns) very seriously!

 

I think I will stay out of this one...

 

George Leroy Tirebiter (Movie star)

 

More Sugar!!

[+Rockdoctors]

Bear bangers are cool. They are hand held pen sized launchers that send out a flare about 30 meters(100feet) in the air and then explode sending a lound sound percusion at the bear thus scaring it. It is noted that the user is not to fire it directly at the bear as the explosion might scare the bear toward rather than away. Over the users head is preferred.

 

TRUST ME I KNOW WHAT THE HELL I'M TALKING ABOUT

[White Rabbit]

Nice, I think we'll check those at while we're stalking up on supplies for our camping trip. What's a good price on those bear banger things, just so I don't get ripped off.

 

I am the Rabbit King, I can do anything

[+Budney]

quote:

---

...this person however has come to the conclusion that because seneca is a male pilot who doesnt believe in guns he is either a terrorist or a rapist.

---

 

You don't seem to comprehend what the poster said, so here it is in a nutshell:

 

Seneca reasoned that by equipping yourself with a gun and the ability to use it, you are "prepared to be a killer". The poster replied that the same flawed logic would make Seneca himself a terrorist and rapist:

 

1. Seneca flies an airplane. Therefore he is fully capable of flying it into a building. He is "prepared to be a terrorist".

 

2. Seneca (presumably) has a male organ. Therefore he is fully "prepared to be a rapist."

 

You reply, "having an airplane doesn't make one a terrorist, and having a phallus doesn't make one a rapist." Exactly! And having a gun doesn't make one a killer, either. (Tossing in the phrase "prepared to be" is really a red-herring, designed to obsure the faulty logic at work here.)

 

--Len.

[+ionekoa]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Budney:

quote:

---

...this person however has come to the conclusion that because seneca is a male pilot who doesnt believe in guns he is either a terrorist or a rapist.

---

 

You don't seem to comprehend what the poster said, so here it is in a nutshell:

 

Seneca reasoned that by equipping yourself with a gun and the ability to use it, you are "prepared to be a killer". The poster replied that the same flawed logic would make Seneca himself a terrorist and rapist:

 

1. Seneca flies an airplane. Therefore he is fully capable of flying it into a building. He is "prepared to be a terrorist".

 

2. Seneca (presumably) has a male organ. Therefore he is fully "prepared to be a rapist."

 

You reply, "having an airplane doesn't make one a terrorist, and having a phallus doesn't make one a rapist." Exactly! And having a gun doesn't make one a killer, either. (Tossing in the phrase "prepared to be" is really a red-herring, designed to obsure the faulty logic at work here.)

 

--Len.

---

perhaps you are not getting the premise of the failed logic at work here...

 

airplanes are designed to carry people from one place to another for whatever reason, which is why they have seats instead of explosives (if seneca flew some sort of manned missle that would be a different case and you know what i mean so i dont wanna hear any of that *&^% that a plane can be used as a missle)

 

the "male" is not designed for rape and so being a male by birth does not make one prepared to rape.

 

guns, are designed to kill, not to make tea or bake a cake, or bring people back from the dead, they are designed specifically for lethal capabilities, that is why for nonlethal use we have an entirely different class of weapons, (ie stunguns, tasers, etc etc,) so by carrying a gun you are equiping yourself to kill, as seneca mentioned, preparing.

 

now a note to george leroy tirebiter,

"i think its time you should leave, i'll call you a taxi. if you dont want to leave in a taxi you can leave in a huff and if thats too soon you can leave in a minute and a huff"

 

given your avatar and name that should make a little sense to you, in fact it makes such little sense your probably the only one that will get it.

[mtncycler]

Bear bangers work pretty well, but are a tad expensive, since the only place I've seen them were at camping type stores....I carry an air horn, used for boating. They are light, compact and not very expensive......They also work in an emergency, since the sound travels up to 3miles.

I have mine on a strap, for my wrist or my back pack, for easy access.....

Happy caching

[mtncycler]

Bear bangers work pretty well, but are a tad expensive, since the only place I've seen them were at camping type stores....I carry an air horn, used for boating. They are light, compact and not very expensive......They also work in an emergency, since the sound travels up to 3miles.

I have mine on a strap, for my wrist or my back pack, for easy access.....

Happy caching

[+Budney]

quote:

---

Perhaps you are not getting the premise of the failed logic at work here...

---

 

Actually, logic is my business. That's why I have got a PhD in it.

 

quote:

---

...airplanes are designed to carry people...guns, are designed to kill...

---

 

Yup--that's the standard flawed logic. First, the statement that "guns are designed to kill" is untrue: you are trying to say that their sole purpose is to kill humans. That's nonsense. Your mistake is twofold:

 

First, a self-defensive use of guns almost never involves killing. In almost all cases, brandishing the weapon causes the attacker to flee. In many of the remaining cases, warning shots suffice. In the REMAINING cases, the attacker is often wounded--not killed. So if the sole purpose of the gun is "to kill", then guns are pretty terrible things--they fail to fulfill their "Sole purpose" over 98% of the time.

 

Second, your use of the word "kill" is what's called equivocation. To say "guns are designed to kill" as if that told the whole story is nonsense even *if* taking life were their actual primary purpose. Why? Because you are using the word to include all taking of life: a pig; a victim; an attacker; an enemy in wartime; etc.

 

So people hear "guns are designed to kill", and feel that guns must be very immoral--because they equate "kill" with "murder". But of course that's nonsense: guns are certainly NOT designed for the purpose of committing murder.

 

If you said, "guns were designed for the purpose of taking the life of an enemy invader in times of war," then people might actually think a little and have an interesting discussion, because that use is at least arguably moral. And by the way, it would be the most accurate statement historically: the history of firearms invention is basically a military history.

 

Then again, if you said, "guns were designed to kill animals for food," you'd again raise a thoughtful (and semi-relevant) issue. We could discuss the morality of hunting, and people on every side would confess that it is at least arguably moral.

 

So you get the point, I hope. To say "guns are designed to kill," is (1) a lie, and (2) if it weren't a lie, it would still be intentionally misleading.

 

--Len.

[solohiker]

Wow I guess I lit the fuse on this topic.

 

I think folks from both sides of the gun issue have forgotten a key fact. Guns are fun! Shooting coke cans, skeet, and edible animals can be very entertaining.

[mtncycler]

THE HUNT "ever been turned away from a cache by a bull?"

tells of a few stories and animals while caching

[mtncycler]

THE HUNT "ever been turned away from a cache by a bull?"

tells of a few stories and animals while caching

[GlfWrVt]

As I've said.. I Always carry a gun while Geocaching.. You'll never know. But just so I am very clear.. I never shoot to kill. I shoot to live.

 

Tango Down!!!

[GlfWrVt]

the only "bear banger" I'll trust is a .375 H&H Magnum and my skill as a marksman to hit it in the right place.

[thrillseeker69]

Solo- An answer to your original question-

Stay away from small-of-the-back type holsters, as injury to tha back may occur if one falls and lands on whatever you may have in there.

A strong-side hip holster (I like inside-the-pant type) is probably the best way to go, concealed or not, depending on your laws, and quick accsess should the need occur. Fanny pack type holsters are also great.

A belly-band (thunderwear) or ankle type would be other good consideration.

Where are you? City or Country? What are you most likely to be facing? Bears or hooligans? This may also be a factor in which way to carry.

Keep fatigue in mind when considering the weapon of choice, and comfort. Heavy weapons increase fatigue, but there are plenty of lightweights that pack plenty of punch without being overbearing.

[+seneca]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Budney:

To say "guns are designed to kill," is (1) a lie, and (2) if it weren't a lie, it would still be intentionally misleading.

 

--Len.

---

 

My comments made on this thread have not been directed at guns. They are directed at the posters who made it abundantly clear that they were carrying weapons so that they would be prepared to kill "just in case" - those are the nutcases that I am worried about. Those are the people who disgust me. People unneccesarily going about their day to lives, mentally prepared to kill, and equipping themselves to do so - that to me is a very disturbing scene.

 

I support the right to own guns (are you surprised?). I support the right to hunt (although I would never do so myself). I support the right to participate in gun related sports. In fact, my son is an avid archer and owns a weapon that I purchased for him which could easily kill if that was his intent.

 

If you are carrying a weapon for legitimate hunting - no problem with me. If you are carrying a weapon for target practice - suit yourself. If you are carrying a weapon just to scare an attacker (it would therefore be unloaded)I don't mind. But when you are carrying it with a mindset that "I will use it to kill if I have to" then I think you are a whole lot of trouble. We would be better off without that sick attitude.

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

[+niskibum]

I used to use a hip holster, but when I use a fanny pack it is not comfortable. I switched to a shoulder holster, much more comfortable and just as accessible. I use one for both a large 44mag and 40 s&w. The 44mag with a scope is a bit too heavy to carry on the hip, but is a lot nicer than a rifle for deer hunting or hiking in bear country.

 

On a side note, I remember something from a military strategy class. It is much more preferable to wound an enemy in combat than kill him. Kill him and you take one person out of the war, wound him and you take out three because it takes two people to take care of him. Just a little bit of trivia.

[+Budney]

quote:

---

My comments made on this thread have not been directed at guns. They are directed at the posters who made it abundantly clear that they were carrying weapons so that they would be prepared to kill "just in case" - those are the nutcases that I am worried about...

---

 

Except that you're misrepresenting those people. They are NOT arming themselves "so I can kill somebody if I need to". They are arming themselves "for self defense". Self defense does not equal killing. It might involve the use of lethal force, but in fact that is vanishingly unlikely. Some people who use firearms for self defense are in fact unwilling to use lethal force.

 

So you are calling them "nutcases" based on a gross misrepresentation of what they are doing.

 

quote:

---

Those are the people who disgust me. People unneccesarily going about their day to lives, mentally prepared to kill...

---

 

You keep using emotionally loaded phrases (on purpose?) like "mentally prepared to kill". You aren't stating in a rational way what you actually believe. Are you saying that it is immoral to defend yourself? Or perhaps, are you saying that lethal force is always immoral even in self defense? Your professed "disgust" gives me the impression that you believe this: that you equate "killing" BY a murder with "killing" OF a murderer.

 

If so, you should be able to rationally explain why it is moral for your wife to be raped or murdered rather than defend herself. I recognize there is an argument that you can make, so I would NOT call your view "whacko" or even "disgusting". But YOU don't seem to admit that the contrary argument can also be made--since you find anyone who takes that view "disgusting".

 

quote:

---

But when you are carrying it with a mindset that "I will use it to kill if I have to" then I think you are a whole lot of trouble.

---

 

Try this thought experiment. Imagine coming home and finding a rapist in process of attacking your wife. Would you stop him? If necessary, would you use lethal force?

 

If you answer "yes", then by your argument "you are a whole lot of trouble", because you have the mindset that you might possibly, conceivably someday use lethal force.

 

But even if you answer, "no, I'd let my wife be raped", I can't possibly see how you would consider others "disgusting" or "whackos" for making a different decision.

 

--Len.

[+seneca]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Budney:

Imagine coming home and finding a rapist in process of attacking your wife. Would you stop him? If necessary, would you use lethal force?

---

 

Len, of course I would... and if that unlikely, unfortunate situation arose - it would be fortunate if I had a gun, wouldn't it? (I suggest you re-read all of my comments on this thread to answer all of the questions you have posed.) But are you saying that in your country, if I don't carry a gun I am somehow letting my wife and family down? If you are, then my alternate conclusions asserted in my first post to this thread are totally substantiated.

 

In my neck of the woods I do not need to be prepared and equipped to kill. I don't believe your society has got to that point either. Killing is pretty serious business in my book --- and when someone has an unreasonable, unnecessary, and irrational need to be prepared to kill - then in my mind that is an inhuman, hidious state of mind. Emotional words - dadgum rights - but its about time you hear the real reasons why so many people want to take your guns away.

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

[Duke of the Desert]

quote:

---

Originally posted by White Rabbit:

On long hikes and long Geocaches, we'll take High Power Pepper Spray, our knife, and our trekking poles.

---

 

Pepper spray? A knife? Trekking poles? Good grief! Are you goint out prepared to kill or what? I mean seriously, do you really need those tools to defend yourselves? Good grief, if I happen to stumble out on the trail in front of you, are you going to spray that pepper spray in my eyes? are you going to stick me with that knife? are you going to stab me with that trekking pole? Good grief man, what are you, paranoid or something? Why must you insist on carrying those offensive weapons out into our peaceful wilderness?

 

"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14

[Duke of the Desert]

quote:

---

Originally posted by seneca:

But are you saying that in your country, if I don't carry a gun I am somehow letting my wife and family down?

---

 

I am so thankful that my forefathers did not have Senaca's attitude. I mean seriously, we could all stand in front of the ferur and raise our hands and say, I'm sorry sir, we are not really prepared to kill.

 

Thank God there are real men out there that are "prepared to kill", and to defend freedom. Yes, I am prepared to kill. I will defend freedom to the end. I'll not lay down my arms because some spineless fellow thinks that we can solve our problems by laying down our arms. Trust me, it is better to be feared than to be loved. I suppose it's easy to be in Canada and expose such a belief, knowing that your neighbors to the south have the balls to pick up where you left off, and insure your "domestic tranquility"

 

"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14

[+seneca]

In Perry Mason style legal jargon, I say:

 

I rest my case.

 

You may not agree with what I say, but I will defend, to your death, my right to say it!(it's a Joke, OK!)

[Duke of the Desert]

Comments by Senaca "My comments made on this thread have not been directed at guns. They are directed at the posters who made it abundantly clear that they were carrying weapons so that they would be prepared to kill "just in case" - those are the nutcases that I am worried about.""

 

Reading those comments, I would deduce that Senaca believes that every person who carries a firearm, including law enforecement agents, including the RCMP, are "nutcases". If logic were to prevail, it can not be argued that any RCMP does not go out every day "prepared to kill".

 

Are the RCMP "nutcases"? Not by any stretch of the imagination.

 

Somehow Senaca equates "defend" with "kill". I am indeed going out every day, equiped to defend, and, if neccessary, to kill. That should not scare anyone, except those that are intent on causing harm to the innocent.

 

 

More Quotes by Senaca "Those are the people who disgust me. People unneccesarily going about their day to lives, mentally prepared to kill, and equipping themselves to do so - that to me is a very disturbing scene"

 

You know what is a a very disturbing scene to me? The idea that someone is willing to allow a crime to occurr, including allowing someone to be killed, raped, or maimed, because they were not willing to "be prepared to kill"

 

A good husband and father should be prepared to defend his family, even at the cost of using lethal force. If that makes you uncomfortable Senaca, I'm sorry. As for me, to defend my family, myself, and those in my charge, I am proud to say that I am "PREPARED TO KILL" and I don't lose a wink of sleep over it.

 

 

"it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" Acts 26:14

[+Budney]

quote:

---

Originally posted by seneca:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Budney:

Imagine coming home and finding a rapist in process of attacking your wife. Would you stop him? If necessary, would you use lethal force?

---

 

Len, of course I would...and if that unlikely, unfortunate situation arose - it would be fortunate if I had a gun, wouldn't it?

---

 

Okay then. You concur with the original posters that self-defense is moral; you also concur with them that lethal force in self defense is moral. In that case you agree with their actual position.

 

quote:

---

But are you saying that in your country, if I don't carry a gun I am somehow letting my wife and family down?

---

 

No, I'm not--in fact I have taken no position whatsoever on the use of deadly force. I have only described your position and that of the persons you've misrepresented.

 

In fact you just did it again: you suggested that the two possible positions are (1) that anyone who doesn't carry a gun is negligent, or (2) that anyone who DOES carry a gun is a sicko. Those are NOT the only two viewpoints by a long shot. Many people would state that carrying and not carrying can both be rational decisions, and take various positions about which decision makes sense when.

 

(Interestingly, you DO take position #2, that anyone who carries for self defense is a sicko. Your disputants do NOT take position #1: they respect your decision not to carry.)

 

quote:

---

In my neck of the woods I do not need to be prepared and equipped to kill.

---

 

You're misrepresenting the other side again. They are prepared and equipped to scare off an attacker, and they are willing--if force to it--to use lethal force.

 

Since you are also willing to use lethal force, the only difference is that you do not choose to prepare yourself to threaten an attacker. They may be willing to kill if forced, but you've admitted that you are as well.

 

Finally, you are not being honest when you suggest that arming oneself is a baby step away from actually killing somebody. These people know that actually using lethal force is about as unlikely as getting struck by lightning, and that fact is an important part of their calculations. They are not walking around poised to blow people away left and right, as you falsely insinuate.

 

quote:

---

Killing is pretty serious business in my book...

---

 

In theirs to. It wouldn't be honest to suggest otherwise.

 

quote:

---

...and when someone has an unreasonable, unnecessary, and irrational need to be prepared to kill...

---

 

You're intentionally pretending that "prepared to kill" is almost the same thing as "killing". That's not honest: you are exactly as prepared to kill as they are, no more and no less. (Namely, when your life is in jeopardy.)

 

quote:

---

but its about time you hear the real reasons why so many people want to take your guns away.

---

 

You're ranting, I'm afraid. I do not own defensive weapons--only an old 20 gauge for hunting. In fact I am a conscientious objector to military service, and am bound by my religion not to defend myself using force. (I would probably defend my wife or child, so I just pray I never face that situation.)

 

All I've done is point out that your "moral" argument is nonsense. You've conceded that lethal force is justified in self-defense, and in fact you've stated that you yourself are willing to use lethal force to defend yourself or others. In so doing, you have conceded their entire position: they are neither more nor less willing to kill than you are. They are neither more nor less violent than you are. They do not fantasize about killing bad guys, and they don't walk down dark alleys packing heat and hoping for a chance to shoot somebody.

 

You have tried to suggest that they are "sickos" while you are not, but not very rationally: you are taking the ridiculous position that preparedness is itself immoral. You can't rationally defend such a position, so you do it by suggesting that people need a shrink because they choose to be rationally prepared to frighten off thugs.

 

--Len.

[+Budney]

quote:

---

Originally posted by seneca:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Budney:

Imagine coming home and finding a rapist in process of attacking your wife. Would you stop him? If necessary, would you use lethal force?

---

 

Len, of course I would...and if that unlikely, unfortunate situation arose - it would be fortunate if I had a gun, wouldn't it?

---

 

Okay then. You concur with the original posters that self-defense is moral; you also concur with them that lethal force in self defense is moral. In that case you agree with their actual position.

 

quote:

---

But are you saying that in your country, if I don't carry a gun I am somehow letting my wife and family down?

---

 

No, I'm not--in fact I have taken no position whatsoever on the use of deadly force. I have only described your position and that of the persons you've misrepresented.

 

In fact you just did it again: you suggested that the two possible positions are (1) that anyone who doesn't carry a gun is negligent, or (2) that anyone who DOES carry a gun is a sicko. Those are NOT the only two viewpoints by a long shot. Many people would state that carrying and not carrying can both be rational decisions, and take various positions about which decision makes sense when.

 

(Interestingly, you DO take position #2, that anyone who carries for self defense is a sicko. Your disputants do NOT take position #1: they respect your decision not to carry.)

 

quote:

---

In my neck of the woods I do not need to be prepared and equipped to kill.

---

 

You're misrepresenting the other side again. They are prepared and equipped to scare off an attacker, and they are willing--if force to it--to use lethal force.

 

Since you are also willing to use lethal force, the only difference is that you do not choose to prepare yourself to threaten an attacker. They may be willing to kill if forced, but you've admitted that you are as well.

 

Finally, you are not being honest when you suggest that arming oneself is a baby step away from actually killing somebody. These people know that actually using lethal force is about as unlikely as getting struck by lightning, and that fact is an important part of their calculations. They are not walking around poised to blow people away left and right, as you falsely insinuate.

 

quote:

---

Killing is pretty serious business in my book...

---

 

In theirs to. It wouldn't be honest to suggest otherwise.

 

quote:

---

...and when someone has an unreasonable, unnecessary, and irrational need to be prepared to kill...

---

 

You're intentionally pretending that "prepared to kill" is almost the same thing as "killing". That's not honest: you are exactly as prepared to kill as they are, no more and no less. (Namely, when your life is in jeopardy.)

 

quote:

---

but its about time you hear the real reasons why so many people want to take your guns away.

---

 

You're ranting, I'm afraid. I do not own defensive weapons--only an old 20 gauge for hunting. In fact I am a conscientious objector to military service, and am bound by my religion not to defend myself using force. (I would probably defend my wife or child, so I just pray I never face that situation.)

 

All I've done is point out that your "moral" argument is nonsense. You've conceded that lethal force is justified in self-defense, and in fact you've stated that you yourself are willing to use lethal force to defend yourself or others. In so doing, you have conceded their entire position: they are neither more nor less willing to kill than you are. They are neither more nor less violent than you are. They do not fantasize about killing bad guys, and they don't walk down dark alleys packing heat and hoping for a chance to shoot somebody.

 

You have tried to suggest that they are "sickos" while you are not, but not very rationally: you are taking the ridiculous position that preparedness is itself immoral. You can't rationally defend such a position, so you do it by suggesting that people need a shrink because they choose to be rationally prepared to frighten off thugs.

 

--Len.