Firearms

[+leatherman]

Hmmm -- it seems this conversation is very, very theoretical when it comes to the NEED for guns. It sounds more like the WANT for guns.

 

Need or want, shouldn't matter. I am a reasonable and prudent adult. No person or government should tell me that I can't have or want a legal firearm. None of us deserve the ridiculous condescension and insults of those that disagree, either.

 

In a previous post, I asked if anyone had ever NEEDED a gun while Geocaching -- I got one response.  Gun culture wierds me out.

That sounds like a phobia. A phobia is an irrational uncontrollable emotional reaction. A mental disorder.

Why should my life be regulated by your, and others, disorder.

[+Renegade Knight]

Hmmm -- it seems this conversation is very, very theoretical when it comes to the NEED for guns.  It sounds more like the WANT for guns.

 

In a previous post, I asked if anyone had ever NEEDED a gun while Geocaching ...

Come to think of it I've never needed a first aid kit.

 

However since guns and first aid kits are not about what you 'need now' but what you might need the answer is yes; Need. Stranded need to eat? A rifle would be better, but a pistol is easier to carry. Any survival bug out bag is incomplete without a gun. We can't eat dirt though it's plentiful. Gnawing on pine trees might take the edge off, and I'm sure we can find a couple dandelions but a nice deer would last a spell while waiting for rescue.

 

Of course I haven't needed a rescue either but it sure would be nice when the need arises.

 

Edit: Spelling.

Edited December 28, 2004 by Renegade Knight

[+Mopar]

Good point RK. I've never NEEDED a seatbelt or airbag either, and I try very hard to avoid any situation where I would have to rely on either to save my life.

[SFABobby03]

Good point RK. I've never NEEDED a seatbelt or airbag either, and I try very hard to avoid any situation where I would have to rely on either to save my life.

I think you and RK hit the nail on the head as far as what I was trying to phrase into a response!

[+2dest]

I carry concealed almost always. I have never had to present a weapon while caching or in any other situation. I also have never needed a seatbelt, but they are known to save many lives and I wouldn't consider driving without one. I have never had my life threatened by violent thugs, or had a loved one harmed. That doesn't mean that these horrible things don't happen; they do happen all the time. Personal protection is a personal choice - I protect myself and my loved ones so we won't be victims.

[+El Diablo]

Handguns can keep a situation from escalating at times (these statistics are not usually reported) - the gun is presented and not fired.

Many years ago here in KC we had an incident where a male was following a pick-up truck loaded with six other males. While driving, somehow the two parties became engaged in verbal assault. Eventually, the pick-up stopped in the roadway in a very busy part of the city. The lone male exited his vehicle with a gun and proceded to confront the other six males. The guy with the gun was quickly surrounded by the other six and because the gun wielding male was unable to keep an eye on all six, he was struck in the back of the head with a baseball bat. It turned out to be a fatal blow. As I approached the scene of the crime, the lone male was laying in the gutter of the road being attended to by a good samaritan. The road was a fairly steep incline so all the blood from his head was streaming down the gutter into the sewer approx. 10 ft. away. The man lived for a few minutes but eventually died. The back of his head was mush and the good samaritan held his hand on the back of his head to keep his brains from ending up in the sewer as well ... the gun was not fired.

As a former lawenforcement officer let me say this....don't pull a gun unless you are justified in using it and have full intentions of using it.

 

I'm a great fan of allowing people to carry guns. We all have the right to defend ourselves and others in peril. I only ask that you be trained. There are some people that shouldn't carry as noted by Clearpath. Don't bluff in the game of life.

 

El Diablo

[+EGMUNI]

For the most part...I do not, but there are certain areas that I will carry because of hiking in an isolated area. I feel better knowing that I have a weapon(not my hiking stick) in case I have to defend myself or in a life threatening situation.

[+Green Achers]

I was wondering if anyone other than the law enforcement cachers carry any type of pistol etc. for there protection.

Protection? Heck no! We carry them to celibrate after we find those darn microcaches!! Woo Hoo. [bang. Bang-bang-bang.]

[+Renegade Knight]

... [bang. Bang-bang-bang.]

That will put that darn micro out of it's misery, and everyone elses misery too...

[+ICHTHYS]

I'm new to the sport,in fact I get my Legend Christmas,but I was wondering if anyone other than the law enforcement cachers carry any type of pistol etc. for there protection.There's a lot of crazies out there and also four legged and slithery ones.I don't believe my hiking staff would be enough.

Sorry but I think this is a very stupid question - Guns should be forbidden, period. Guns do NOT save lives, the kill. In countries where guns are not allowed, this would even not cross your mind. I used to leave in France, never in a million years I felt the need to carry a weapon and there are nuts in France as well, unfortunately the US do not have the exclusivity.

Really?

 

Is this why in the UK where they have banned all guns violent crime has skyrocketed? Is this why the most dangerous cities in the US are DC, NY and Chicago, cities that have the most gun control? Is that why those states with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest crime rates?

 

Fact is guns do save lives.

 

Your car is far more dangerous than my gun yet there is no rampant fear of cars.

[+Mule Ears]

Your car is far more dangerous than my gun yet there is no rampant fear of cars.

 

I'm very afraid of other people's cars.

[+Mopar]

Sorry but I think this is a very stupid question - Guns should be forbidden, period. Guns do NOT save lives, the kill.

Awe, what the heck, one more comment on this that hopefully won't take this thread too far off topic.

Kennesaw,Ga

 

Kennesaw should be a gun control nut's dream come true. Since 1982 the city has had an ordinance that says in part:

 

Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

 

Wow! With all those guns out there, Kennesaw must be the murder and violent crime capitol of GA, right? Here's proof positive that guns are bad, right?

Right?

Guns kill! They don't save lives or prevent crime!

Right?

 

According to the Kennesaw City police, the Overall Crime for the City of Kennesaw is approx. half the state and national rates. Burglary incidents are approx. half the state and national rates. Violent Crime incidents are approx. four times less than the state and national rates.

 

But?

But?

But?

How could this be? The city with the largest legally armed percentage of residents in the country is also one of the safest to live in?

Huh?

Wha?

 

Back on topic, I bet lots of geocachers in Kennesaw, GA carry firearms while caching.

Edited December 28, 2004 by Mopar

[+leatherman]

Sorry but I think this is a very stupid question - Guns should be forbidden, period. Guns do NOT save lives, the kill.

Awe, what the heck, one more comment on this that hopefully won't take this thread too far off topic.

Kennesaw,Ga

 

Kennesaw should be a gun control nut's dream come true. Since 1982 the city has had an ordinance that says in part:

 

Sec. 34-1 Heads of households to maintain firearms.

(a) In order to provide for the emergency management of the City, and further in order to provide for and protect the safety, security and general welfare of the city and its inhabitants, every head of household residing in the City limits is required to maintain a firearm, together with ammunition therefore.

 

Wow! With all those guns out there, Kennesaw must be the murder and violent crime capitol of GA, right? Here's proof positive that guns are bad, right?

Right?

Guns kill! They don't save lives or prevent crime!

Right?

 

According to the Kennesaw City police, the Overall Crime for the City of Kennesaw is approx. half the state and national rates. Burglary incidents are approx. half the state and national rates. Violent Crime incidents are approx. four times less than the state and national rates.

 

But?

But?

But?

How could this be? The city with the largest legally armed percentage of residents in the country is also one of the safest to live in?

Huh?

Wha?

 

Back on topic, I bet lots of geocachers in Kennesaw, GA carry firearms while caching.

Good point, but the truth doesn't matter or make sense to PHOBIC mental cases.

[+Green Achers]

... [bang. Bang-bang-bang.]

That will put that darn micro out of it's misery, and everyone elses misery too...

Do you really think it's safe to put the micro's out of our misery?

 

Nice statistics on the wielding world. I think the Swiss model the same indications... They also have a protection requirement.

[madratdan]

I'm new to the sport,in fact I get my Legend Christmas,but I was wondering if anyone other than the law enforcement cachers carry any type of pistol etc. for there protection.There's a lot of crazies out there and also four legged and slithery ones.I don't believe my hiking staff would be enough.

Sorry but I think this is a very stupid question - Guns should be forbidden, period. Guns do NOT save lives, the kill. In countries where guns are not allowed, this would even not cross your mind. I used to leave in France, never in a million years I felt the need to carry a weapon and there are nuts in France as well, unfortunately the US do not have the exclusivity.

Really?

 

Is this why in the UK where they have banned all guns violent crime has skyrocketed? Is this why the most dangerous cities in the US are DC, NY and Chicago, cities that have the most gun control? Is that why those states with the least restrictive gun laws have the lowest crime rates?

 

Fact is guns do save lives.

 

Your car is far more dangerous than my gun yet there is no rampant fear of cars.

This is so classical, I'm printing a copy and framing it. ROFLMAO!!!!

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

I'm not phobic about guns. I'm phobic about people with guns.

 

What country has the most guns in the world? What country has the most gun deaths PER CAPITA in the world?

 

Basically, the societal problem of guns exists and in that context, carrying a gun may make sense in certain areas -- areas I will not cache in.

 

So, my answer the original question: no.

[CoyoteRed]

What country has the most guns in the world? What country has the most gun deaths PER CAPITA in the world?

Yet another example of the misled.

 

"Gun deaths" I would assume this is suicides, right? Yes, it is. Over half of those deaths are suicides. If it's not a gun, it would be something else. Then what about the justified homocides? (That's "self defense" for most of us.)

 

Here's an interesting statistic. Japan is basically a gun-free country yet if you combine all suicides with all gun deaths, Japan has a higher death rate than the US. Go figure.

 

This is not to mention the "statsics" you mention are actually only a select few countries and thus a gross mischaracterization. Saying something like that gives the false impression that the US is a even more violent place than some third world African nation where they are wiping each other out in civil war.

 

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what you think. I know I'm statistically safer around a person who is legally carrying than not. End of story.

[+Mopar]

I'm not phobic about guns.  I'm phobic about people with guns.

 

What country has the most guns in the world?  What country has the most gun deaths PER CAPITA in the world? 

 

How about some more meaningful and comparative stats?

Country with most legally owned guns PER CAPITA: I believe is still Switzerland. Every able-bodied man in the country owns a machinegun. Yet the Swiss have a very low violent crime rate, and the murder rate from firearms is statistically ZERO.

 

As far as murders committed with firearms go, the USA is in a 5 way tie for 8th place. South Africa (#1) has 37 times the PER CAPITA murders committed with a firearm.

 

As far as the USA goes, the cities with the highest PER CAPITA legal ownership of firearms are among the safest to live in, and the cities with very low PER CAPITA legal ownership like Washington, DC and Chicago have the highest PER CAPITA violent crime rates in the country.

 

It doesn't take a scholar to see (forget the 2nd amendment issues here in the US where we have a legal RIGHT to own a gun) that legal gun ownership is not a problem, and is very likely acts as a deterrent against crime. Banning guns only keeps them from law-abiding people who are not likely to use them to commit a crime. Criminals by definition do not follow the law, and do not suddenly stop using guns in crimes and turn them in because of a ban. The rising crime rates in Australia, Canada, and Britain show that disarming law-abiding people does not decrease crime, and probably has played a factor in the increase of violent crime.

 

Instead of making ineffective and expensive laws to disarm law abiding people (LFD, how many BILLIONS of taxpayer dollars is the failed Canadian C-68 ban costing you, and how many crimes has it prevented? I know the answer, do you?), that money should be spent enforcing our current laws and keeping criminals off the streets. Then people like Carlie Brucia would still be alive. You need to fix society, not ban objects. Good luck.

 

Basically, the societal problem of guns exists and in that context, carrying a gun may make sense in certain areas -- areas I will not cache in.

So, you don't cache at all then? I doubt there is ANY place there is a cache that is 100% safe from all dangers.

Edited December 28, 2004 by Mopar

[+leatherman]

Quite frankly, I couldn't care less what you think. I know I'm statistically safer around a person who is legally carrying than not. End of story.

Well said!

 

 

http://www.guncite.com/gun_control_gcgvintl.html

Use their stats against them. Mexico has had a total gun ban for over half a century. However their gun homicide is nearly four times that of th US.

[skillett]

Nice that here in Alaska no permits are needed to carry, concealed or not. I often see hikers on the trails with a rifle slung over their shoulders. And these are established trails. But then again, you can get et by a bear even in town so...

 

Personally I do not, though I do carry a big can of bear spray. I used to have all sorts of weaponry but since having kids, I have gotten rid of them. When they get a bit older I will introduce them to guns and teach them properly.

he Alaska Department of Fish and Game recently issued this bulletin... "Warning: In light of the rising frequency of human/grizzly bear conflicts, the Alaska Department of Fish and Game is advising hikers, hunters and fishermen to take extra precautions and keep alert of bears while in the field.

 

We advise outdoorsmen to wear noisy little bells on their clothing, so as not to startle bears that aren't expecting them. We also advise outdoorsmen to carry pepper spray with them in case of an encounter with a bear. It is also a good idea to watch out for fresh signs of bear activity. Outdoorsmen should recognize the difference between black bear and grizzly bear manure: Black bear manure is smaller and contains lots of berries and squirrel fur. Grizzly bear manure has little bells in it and smells like pepper."

[CoyoteRed]

Grizzly bear manure has little bells in it and smells like pepper.

ROFLMAO!

[RenoRat]

I've carried legally here in Nevada for a number of years, under their ccw [or Carry Concealed Weapon] w/o any problems, and yes, I take it with me into the Great Outdoors. Just as I wouldn't leave my first-aid kit at home simply because I've taken it along trip after trip without ever needing it, I wouldn't leave my "5-shot S&W J-frame 357" at home either. But to reduce the chance of ever using it, I had a grip-mounted laser installed. Any cop will tell you the little red dot on a man's chest is more deterrent than a room full of drawn guns. And should the undesireable occur, that little red dot will increase my chances of hitting only what I want to hit.

Sorry, but if your friends weapon blew up in his face, the odds are it hadn't been cleaned properly and the cyllinder jammed on dirt.

I probably won't carry on local, short-distance cache's, but if I'm going any distance at all the 357 will most likely come along.

 

Thanks for starting this thread... I think it's something everyone needs to think about.

 

Rat

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Um....you're making assumptions. When I asked which country had the most gun deaths I wasn't trying to point any fingers. I just wanted to know the answer. The analysis of how these deaths occur (suicide vs. homicide vs. self-defense -- whatever) would also interest me.

 

You're assuming I am asking because I am "attacking" a specific country's gun policies -- not the case.

 

As for not caring what I think -- too bad. I care what you think (hence I participate in the forums) -- I just don't always agree. Sorry if alternate opinions offend you. It's part of a free country to listen to and analyze discenting opinions. I don't care that you disagree -- it sadens me slightly that you are unable to take alterate opinions as nothing short of a personal attack -- which they are NOT.

 

I still haven't read any convincing aurguments that have compelled me to re-think my opinions. I'm also not so close-minded as to think I wouldn't change my opinions. I just need better arguments or some examples based in fact.

 

So, I still remain -- gun-less.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Mopar -- thank you for your intelligent and well-put post. This is the type of discussion I enjoy.

 

Couple of things you asked:

 

Gun Registry in Canada -- waste of time in my opinion, waste of money -- won't work. How many crimes has it prevented? -- let's go for ZERO!

 

Violent Crime -- I'm intereted in these stats. Specifically, I am interested in violent crime using guns versus other violent crime. If you have these stats or can refer me to a website re: these stats I am interested. There are many factors that cause rises in crime. Although you may have figured out I'm not a big gun fan -- I also would never equate gun ownership as the sole source of all violent crime. I actually am much more of the opinion that drug-use if a bigger driver of violence.

 

I'm not sure that an armed population versus an un-armed population provides any statistical correlation one way or the other. Your city analysis for the US is interesting, but I have a problem in that these cities still exist within an armed nation. Is it fair to limit the crime analysis to the single factor of gun laws. I don't know and am interested in knowing.

 

To all -- please be fully aware that I am NOT attacking your right, desire or need to own a gun. I just don't share the desire or need (I have the right because I can go buy a gun if I wanted). If you think I am attacking your opinion or person -- you are wrong.

[+El Diablo]

I stopped carry a firearm once I started making hiking staffs. I can use one of those and just as easily revoke someone's birth certificate.

 

There is an old saying...If guns are outlawed...only outlaws will have guns.

 

States with a strong stance agaisnt guns have a higher crime rate. That's a fact. Check out the stats.

 

I know on the surface that it dosen't make sense. Consider this....if criminals know that their intended victims might be armed, they go someplace else. Criminals prey upon the weak and the unarmed. They have no desire to face a person that might be armed or that will put up a fight.

 

El Diablo

[RenoRat]

My apologies, Lemon Fresh Dog,. Even tho I wasn't the one who responded to your post, I, too, read it as an implied attack on gun owners.

 

As for the stats, I don't have them at hand, but I can probably get them, for Nevada both before and after the state approved CCW's. One of our local news stations did a follow-up to the CCW enactment with the report that 'street crime' had significantly reduced and was still decreasing. Either they didn't give the actual percentages or I wasn't listening that closely, but that particular station has always been against the CCW's, so it's gratifying [and to their favor]they admitted the decrease.

But even if I HAD the stats on hand, would the results of only this one state be enough to influence your beliefs?

I agree I wouldn't be posting this if I cared nothing for what you thought, even if I may not agree with it. If none of us cared what another thought, chat rooms and forums wouldn't exist.

 

Anyway...seriously... what would it take to convince you that carrying a handgun was, at some moments, a good thing? To me, it's all a matter of training. Whether it's a gun, a car, or a hammer, the most dangerous person to use it or own it is the one with the least training and experience. Here in Nevada [probably most other CCW states also] it's required you pass both a written and oral exam, and then prove your expertise with your weapon before they will issue the CCW.

 

I doubt the most persuavesive argument will change anyone's mind, since I can't imagine any argument changing MINE, but I do hope we can all present our opinions calmly and w/o rancor.

Thanks...

 

Rat

[+BadAndy]

but I do hope we can all present our opinions calmly and w/o rancor.

Thanks...

 

Rat

In related news, 4 people suffered frostbite after a freak snowball fight broke out in hell.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

I agree that if you outlaw guns then only outlaws will have guns. The genie is out of the bottle and, especially in the case of the US, there is a cultural and historical context to gun ownership that would be very hard to change (assuming that a majority ever would even want to).

 

As the discussion seems to have evolved into an analysis of whether guns are useful or not outside of geocaching, my opinion is that we should all exercise a little caution when expressing our opinions.

 

First. It was suggested in a response to one of my earlier posts that I am trying to tell people how to live. I'm not. My personal opinion is that guns and the surrounding culture around guns is weird. You may see guns as the ultimate expression of freedom - I do not. I've just never been facinated by the things. It's not a phobia -- it's an opinion. Different then some, yes. Right or wrong -- obviously I think right, others think wrong. I respect that. I wish others would.

 

Second. Some statistics have been quoted as to the incidence of violent crime in areas where guns are controlled. Please source your stats - I'm sincerely interested in a website or source. Mostly, I am interested in whether people here are comparing apples to apples. I think I am safe in stating that not all violent crimes involve guns, guns are not to blame for all violent crime. What are the percentages of deaths in violent crimes involving guns versus deaths in violent crimes where guns were not involved? Statistics require context to have any relevance.

 

Third. You cannot separate the part from the whole. If a city within a state has rigid gun laws, it still exists within that state, and more globally the country in question. Statistics from the city may not be indicative of a norm. Again, it is a logical falicy to mis-use statistics out of context. Even country-to-country statistics are suspect. For example, Canadian culture is much different from US culture - Canada did not have a Revolutionary or Civil War and we tend to be less individualistic as a whole. Population density is also much different. (Plus many more things). Canada is also experiencing a move to urbanization which tends to increase violent crime. As for statistics about a specific town or region, there may be other factors separate from gun ownership that lead to safer or riskier environments. I have yet to find a source to confirm my thought that drug-use and the activities surrounding it may be a bigger indicator of risk of violence in an area. Does anyone have a source for stats on this?

 

Forth. False analogy does not make me believe you. Comparing a gun to a first aid kit or seatbelt fails to compare purpose or use. I didn't ask how many people had stuff they didn't use or didn't need with them. I asked ... how many people have actually, honestly used a gun for defense? Many people seem to have used it to provide a sense of security (which I am NOT judging the validity of! - I suppose if I took a stroll into a warzone or an area that I knew to be dangerous I'd want to carry a gun too!).

 

Fifth. Hypothetical situations are not reality. Separate what could happen from what actually happens and I'd be more apt to find interest in views contrary to my own. I still lack evidence of the positive use of a weapon other than theoretical ("I know that IF I had a gun IF this happened then ...") Personally, I have never been in a situation I felt I needed a gun to resolve. That's just me though.

 

Mostly, I respect people's right to their beliefs. Even if I completely disagree. What gets my underwear in a knot is when people do not respect my right to a contrary belief and attempt to use logical falicy to justify their sense of philosophical superiority or to suggest I am advocating something I am not.

 

Based upon my culture, experience, location, and knowledge - I do not and have no plans to ever carry a gun. Furthmore, I have no love for guns and see them as causing more harm than good based on how I have actually seen them used (yes - I am anti-hunting too). Sorry if that offends you, but that's MY opion. I'm open-minded to hearing other's views, but I recognize that it would take some pretty convincing evidence to make me change my mind. Maybe you can give me some examples of how guns saved the day for you! (law enforcement would be one area I think guns are useful -- I'm still not on-board with geocaching guns)

 

Again -- I respect your views. I just may not agree -- okay!?

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Thanks for the post Rat! I was busy typing my post above and didn't see your post until I submitted.

 

I would definately change my mind given proper evidence. In fact, I have! If I ever cache in a US area where there are a large number of gun-owners I would probably seek to cache in a group where someone was both in possession of, and well-trained to use a gun. Possibly a LEO. Especially if some of the people that responded to my previous posts knew I was in town!

 

That stated, I also cache for fun and would have second thoughts about even caching in such an area. I realize I am naive in the security of where and how I live. Thankfully naive.

 

I had one of my cache placements in an area where drug use was discovered and moved it to prevent possible harm to fellow cachers. If I lived in an area where there were potentially dangerous people I might not place a cache. (percentages....I KNOW that crazy people are everywhere, but there has to be a reasonable risk of encountering them to make me question cache placement).

 

I prefer to live and play in as safe an environment as I can -- I don't feel safer with a gun in most cases. BTW - I have used both rifles and assorted handguns for target shooting and have had some training in their use. So I'm not phobic - I just cannot understand the absolute LOVE that people have for them -- stopping power, rate of fire, caliber, etc, etc.

[skillett]

Actually, I just carry my light sabre.

Edited December 29, 2004 by rbezell

[+Renegade Knight]

Lemon Fresh Dog.

 

The rate of crime and the availability of tools to do the job (guns, lock picks, knowing your neighbor is on vaction) is more endemic to the culture.

 

The USA has always been higher than most of Europe. Europe varies widely with Nordic countries having low crime rates.

 

Ignoring the gun debate entirely I'd like to know the root cause. What makes the USA have more crime than a lot of other countries? What makes the Nordic Countries have such a low rate? What's the Swiss secret?

 

I'd bet if you waltzed in to Norway, handed everyone the equipment needed to be a crack commando. Life would go on about like before because that's the culture.

 

If we ever did know the root cause governmetns could actually do something meaningful. California Bans guns because of a higher crime rate. Crime didn't jump up because of guns. Take two towns with the same population. One has a 50 person police department, one a 100 person police department. The only impotant difference is the number of police. Which is safer? The one with 50. The other town has a problem and had to hire more to deal with it. Enough rant.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Good points. My theory has always been that guns and crime do not correlate. However, guns can be used to commit some very nasty crimes (as can other "tools").

 

One idea that I have is that the cultural history of a nation can idicate the potential for crime. For example, the US was founded through some pretty serious conflict - revolutionary war, civil war -- this conflict built the nation and there are some really good things that come from it too - high worker productivity and respect for the individual for example.

 

That said, I have never compiled stats on the correlation of crime to state-building techniques. Also, I think there are different types of crime - so a blended crime stat may mask the correlation (if it exists).

 

Crime rates are also generated on reported crimes. A community with 100 police would, presumably, have a higher crime rate as more people are catching people commiting crimes.

 

This is an interesting thread, but I think I am guilty of taking it off-topic. Apologies all around.

[RenoRat]

Well..., for a new guy on the block I seem to be typing a lot here. But I've always enjoyed a free exchange of opinion.

 

Ummm, BadAndy, does the frostbite in ah...the netherregions mean that presenting our differing opinions calmly is about to happen?? But... what has to happen in a snowball fight to qualify it as a "Freak" snowball fight? Or was that referring to the participants???

 

LemonFD, no problem. You had a long post there. You said: '...if I ever cache in a US area where there are a large number of gun-owners...' I would suggest that qualifier would apply to pretty much ANY area in the US, the only difference being if they are being carried legally. I've been to both coasts and from Texas to Alaska, and never noticed any shortage of firepower. Especially in "gun-free" NYC. I suggest your qualifier be shortened to 'well-trained in the use of a gun'. For that, any area where concealed carry is legal will have a better-trained populace than areas where guns must be kept out of sight of the Law.

 

Yes, altho I am very new to GC, I expect to have a great deal of fun caching. Having a .380 or a .357 within reach won't detract from that in the least. In fact, I've found in my solitary desert travels that having the means for self-protection allows greater peace of mind. I'm no longer a young man and the world is no longer as safe as it was when I was growing up. {For example: Back then I hitch-hiked from Needles California to the Virginia Coast, w/o the least hint of trouble. I wouldn't consider doing so now.}

 

So let's look at guns for a moment, from a different viewpoint. For the first time in the history of Mankind, it's possible for one elderly woman with only a short training program to defend herself from younger, stronger, bigger attackers, even several at a time. No longer is it necessary for her to yield herself and/or her possessions to any bigger, stronger male who demands she do so. No longer does she need to rely upon some other male to provide her protection.

The same is true in relation to older males, who traditionally must yield to younger males.

This is a MAJOR alteration in human society. THIS is one of the main reasons guns are seen as closely related to freedom. Do people misuse guns? Certainly, just as every other invention or discovery either has been or has the potential to be, misused. Does this mean every human must carry a firearm? Certainly not. But the freedom to NOT carry one often rests upon the shoulders of those who do. People who live in a CCW area but who don't choose to carry a firearm themself still get the benefit of a safer environment, since would-be attackers can't tell by looking who might have a concealed weapon.

 

Stopping power and rate of fire? A man on PCP -Angel Dust- feels no pain. They have been known to walk straight thru smaller caliber bullets without even slowing down. Even my .357 with hollowpoints probably wouldn't faze them much, but the possibility of my ever running into such a person isn't very high so I don't worry about it. If it was a good possibility, then, yes, I'd look into a higher rate of fire and more stopping power. Right now my 380 and 357 provide enough power for me, without giving up accuracy. And I agree... I, too, prefer to live in as safe an environment as I can...and I DO feel safer with a gun around. And I don't mind in the least if my neighbor who hates guns can walk to the neighborhood grocery more safely because I and others are trained in the use of firearms.

I don't LOVE guns, but I certainly appreciate them!

 

Actually, I believe the root cause of crime has been known for quite some time: Primarily it's a blend of fear and need. Where 'need' and 'fear' are reduced, crime is reduced. 'Need", of course, refers at least in part to those primal needs we all have, that makes us human.

 

For the points you made:

 

first;... I agree to differ with you, hopefully with mutual respect still intact. While I agree some aspects of 'the gun culture' may be weird -just as some aspects of almost anything you can name, including most Established Religions -can rightfully be called weird, guns themselves are merely tools.

 

Second; the statistics you require don't exist and would be highly suspect if they did. It's impossible to put every crime into it's own little box and compile stats about it. For example: "Armed robbery" doesn't always mean guns were involved. Anything that can be considered a 'weapon' would make the crime an 'armed robbery'. Rape may or may not involve a weapon, and the weapon may or may not be a firearm.

I agree that "...not all violent crimes involve guns,..." but guns are not to blame for ANY violent crime. Left alone, no gun has ever assaulted anyone. [again...] it's a tool...nothing more, and must be used by an outside force who is then responsible for whatever the gun does.

 

Third;... in a nutshell, you're right. There are too many factors to consider to form a reliable stat about crimes...guns or no guns. Perhaps you didn't carry your thought out quite far enough...? The drug activities are dangerous because much money is involved, and the dealers, oddly enough, want to keep it themselves. To do this, they use whatever tools they have available, primarily the gun. But lacking guns [if that somehow came about], they would use knives or rocks or sticks and stones. Since they generally have a lot of firepower, they don't much care if the area they are in is a CCW area or not.

 

Fourth;... Are you saying you doubt anyone has used a weapon in their own defense? You may find people who have been forced into using their weapon on another human being -even a bad one - are very reluctant to talk about it. As Clint Eastwood said, in the Unforgiven: "It's a serious thing, taking another man's life."

I don't know exactly where you live, but I sincerely hope you live out the rest of your life without ever finding out how dangerous your own area is. I mean that. NO place is 'safe'... it's all a matter of degrees.

 

Fifth;...An abundant source of 'My gun saved my [or someone else's] life' is easily available to most any search engine. If you looked and looked and still couldn't find any such stories online, make a phone call to any newspaper in any CCW area in the US. But no matter how well you search, some of the stories won't be found - - because the firearm ended the confrontation w/o anyone being hurt, which is the best use of it. An assailant with a knife backs away when the CCW firearm comes out, and the story doesn't get into the papers, but the firearm has done it's job. It happens more often than the 'shooting in self-defense' story ever does.

 

No, your beliefs don't offend me. But I AM curious how you can say...'and see them as causing more harm than good based on how I have actually seen them used...' without realizing you are actually talking about the idiots who are using the guns, rather than the guns themselves. And I agree... many dumb, stupid things are done with guns. And knives. And cars. and hammers. Why blame the tools, rather than the people using them? When your car is in an accident, do you sue the other car or the other driver?

 

People, please forgive my rambling on...I promise not to do it more than six or eight times a month! {Actually, I will keep them shorter in the future..really!}

 

Rat

[+2dest]

Here's some stats of interest. This link was posted recently on another of my favorite forums. link

[+ZackJones]

I would definately change my mind given proper evidence. In fact, I have! If I ever cache in a US area where there are a large number of gun-owners I would probably seek to cache in a group where someone was both in possession of, and well-trained to use a gun. Possibly a LEO. Especially if some of the people that responded to my previous posts knew I was in town!

Ok, after reading this I was scratching my head and wondering "Why?" Caching with a group of individuals that are carrying a firearm is no different than caching with a group of individuals that are not carrying a firearm.

 

The choice to carry a firearm is one of the most important decisions all of us that carry have had to make. (I would assume anyway, I have no statistical data to back up that theory). When I decided to start carrying I came up with my own set of rules that I follow:

 

- I will carry a firearm in all of the places where I am legally allowed to.

 

- I will regularly practice using my firearm of choice and do several drills using both hands, right hand only, left hand only, etc.

 

- If ever put into a bad situation I will do everything in my power to escape.

 

- If I do draw my firearm it will be as a last resort and I will shoot whatever has put me in that bad situation.

 

- When I shoot I will shoot to kill.

 

I pray that I will never be put into a situation where I will have to use my firearm, but I do know that if I am I'm prepared for it.

[CoyoteRed]

You're assuming I am asking because I am "attacking" a specific country's gun policies -- not the case.

Yeah, right. I guess you are the one person who has tried to argue their case where they didn't try to imply the US was at the top of the list.

If you are that one person, I humbly apologize. I'm not sorry I stopped an attack made from false assumptions, though.

 

Also, many anti-gun people make arguements from what they think is the truth. So, no, I don't care what you think. I only care about observable facts, not assumptions and lies. Sorry if you take this as an attack, but that's the way I feel. Heck, I don't paticularly care if you carry or not.

 

Just don't make it out as those who legally carry as folks you need to be "phobic" about. That's insulting.

[+Divine]

- When I shoot I will shoot to kill.

Why? I hope you'll never think I'm attacking you for some reason.

[+Mopar]

Thanks for the post Rat! I was busy typing my post above and didn't see your post until I submitted.

 

I would definately change my mind given proper evidence. In fact, I have! If I ever cache in a US area where there are a large number of gun-owners I would probably seek to cache in a group where someone was both in possession of, and well-trained to use a gun. Possibly a LEO. Especially if some of the people that responded to my previous posts knew I was in town!

 

That stated, I also cache for fun and would have second thoughts about even caching in such an area. I realize I am naive in the security of where and how I live. Thankfully naive.

 

I had one of my cache placements in an area where drug use was discovered and moved it to prevent possible harm to fellow cachers. If I lived in an area where there were potentially dangerous people I might not place a cache. (percentages....I KNOW that crazy people are everywhere, but there has to be a reasonable risk of encountering them to make me question cache placement).

 

I prefer to live and play in as safe an environment as I can -- I don't feel safer with a gun in most cases. BTW - I have used both rifles and assorted handguns for target shooting and have had some training in their use. So I'm not phobic - I just cannot understand the absolute LOVE that people have for them -- stopping power, rate of fire, caliber, etc, etc.

LFD, I think most firearm owners are quite respectful if you've made a personal choice not to own/carry firearms. I think the problem comes from the fact that in many areas (yours included) people who make the opposite choice are not accorded that same respect. If a cacher in a remote or dangerous area of Canada makes the personal choice to carry a handgun for protection, it's virtually inpossible for him to legally do so. Same for the cacher in the Australian outback. Same for a cacher in New Jersey, where one can encounter a bear, a rattlesnake and a drug dealer all in the same day of caching.

Every statistic out there shows that legal gun owners are not the problem, yet most gun control groups seem to concentrate their efforts to disarm those same legal owners.

 

Sure there are gun techies who will talk your ear off about specs, but then there are also geocachers who will debate the technical merits of Garmin vs Maggie, patch antenna vs quad, or virtual vs micro all day long too.

 

There is some merit to all their discussion. When it comes to firearms, your choice of gun/ammo varies with your enviroment and the threat potential. The gun/ammo best to carry in an urban park would probably be quite ineffective against a grizzly bear; and just like discussing what GPS is best, people will discuss what gun setup is best.

[+Mopar]

- When I shoot I will shoot to kill.

Why? I hope you'll never think I'm attacking you for some reason.

First, great to see your ok Divine!

 

Now, to answer your question, most people trained to carry a firearm are also trained to only consider using it as an absolute last resort. As far as I'm concerned, the only time you should fire a gun at a living being is when you have no other choice left to defend a life then to kill.

In most cases, that's also the only time you are legally justified to use a firearm against a human being. In some places like Texas, you can also legally use it to defend your property in some cases, and in other places like the UK, you are not legally allowed to defend yourself by any means, even if you are being murdered.

Edited December 29, 2004 by Mopar

[+Divine]

- When I shoot I will shoot to kill.

Why? I hope you'll never think I'm attacking you for some reason.

First, great to see your ok Divine!

Thanks! I've been getting that a lot lately...

 

As far as I'm concerned, the only time you should fire a gun at a living being is when you have no other choice left to defend a life then to kill.

I still hope that when someone, for any strange reason, decides that I'm a threat to their life, they'll shoot me in my thigh, shoulder, leg or so on. I promise I'll stop looking so murderous.

 

in other places like the UK, you are not legally allowed to defend yourself by any means, even if you are being murdered.

Ok, that I don't buy, but I don't have time to argue now.

 

Greetings from Koh Chang, Thailand,

Divine

[+Mopar]

in other places like the UK, you are not legally allowed to defend yourself by any means, even if you are being murdered.

Ok, that I don't buy, but I don't have time to argue now.

 

Greetings from Koh Chang, Thailand,

Divine

Well, I don't want to take this any further off-topic then it's straying, so when you DO get time, read up on the story of Tony Martin, and how since then, people in the UK fear to defend themselves even in their own home. Then read about the proposed Householder Protection Bill, which hopes to at least make it legal to defend yourself in your UK home. Of course, I'm not sure how you will actually do that in a country that wants to even regulate or ban knives and scissors.

[CoyoteRed]

I still hope that when someone, for any strange reason, decides that I'm a threat to their life, they'll shoot me in my thigh, shoulder, leg or so on. I promise I'll stop looking so murderous.

Before someone can legally shoot you--and we're talking about someone defending themselves--there must be three critical elements; immediacy, means, and intent. There must be a means and an intent to hurt you, right now, before lethal force can be applied.

 

Oh, INAL, but I do know there is "duty to retreat" and other elements, this only addresses the three basic elements.

 

Say, I'm caching and I tick off some little old lady. She screams, "I'm going to kill you!" and starts slapping me up side the head. I can't pull a weapon and defend myself. She might have the intent and the attack is immediate, but she just doesn't have the means.

 

She says, "I'm going to go get Brutus and have him kill you." I can't pull a weapon and defend myself. The threat is not immediate. I call the police and they stop Brutus.

 

She pulls a knife. I run away and call the police. I have the means to extricate myself from the situation and thus fulfill my duty to retreat. I was able to stay out of her reach and thus she didn't really have the means.

 

She pulls a gun and take a pot shot at me. I have no place to run. Her next shot very well could end my life. We've fulfilled duty to retreat, her means and intent, and I'm in immediate danger of my life. Now, I can throw down my GPS and hiking stick, pull a weapon and defend myself.

 

I've read in some legal circles the thinking is if you are able to think you could stop an attack by intentionally wounding someone in the leg or whatever, then you weren't in sufficient fear of your life to justify the use of lethal force. In other words, their opinion of the only time you are justified in using lethal force--i.e. anything that can cause great bodily harm, be it a gun, a knife, or a pointy stick--is your fear is so great that you think you must kill them in order to prevent great bodily harm to you or others. (Again, INAL, and other aspects of the situation has to come into play before you can escape legal ramifications.)

 

The best way to understand, though, is to go get trained. No gun required.

[+Mule Ears]

I'm really impressed with LemonFreshDog's thoughtfulness. We're on opposite sides of the issue, but close enough to shake hands across the divide. Let me throw a few thoughts into the mix:

• Statistics: Both sides of this debate have impressive statistics that can be presented to support their positions. But the nut of the issue cannot be rendered statistically; should I undergo training and carry a gun for self-defense? This personal decision turns on self-knowledge, not statistical information. If you're undisciplined, prone to irrational anger or rash acts, an abuser of drugs or alcohol, unreasonably fearful or recklessly fearless, or an obsessive-type personality--you and society would be better off if you left firearms alone.
  
• Gun Nuts: A tiny subset of gun owners are gun nuts, the "gun culture" LFD refers to. I'm not talking about enthusiasts, collectors, marksmen, etc. but people with a serious personality or mental deficit that is filled by an obsession with guns and the acquisition of personal power by the possession of guns. It strengthens our position as responsible gun owners to acknowledge that these people exist, and to emphasize that we're not anything like them. Much of the anti-gun rhetoric depends on tarring us all with the gun-nut brush. Frankly, the extreme anti-gun kook brigade has more in common with gun nuts than I do.
  
• Danger Avoidance: It's not always possible to simply avoid dangerous areas and situations. Most of the desert here in SE Arizona would be closed to recreational use if we who lived here depended on avoidance. It's not the Wild West, but there are strange doings out in the desert, mostly connected with the smuggling of drugs and people. I can escape and evade, but if cornered, I want an effective self-defense option. A lifelong pacifist might relish the opportunity to die by the principles he lived by, but I'm not a pacifist.
  

Since we've had some long posts, I'll leave it at that. But I do think LFD has elevated the level of discussion.

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

Some very interesting reponses have come to this discussion in the past few posts! Thank you very much -- because I sincerely respect a persons right to carry a gun if they so chose (despite some folks thinking I am telling THEM not to carry a gun). I also really like to understand things through intelligent discussion.

 

The worst thing I have ever found while in the woods was the reminents of a grow operation. Had the person(s) that were part of this operation still been in place, I might have been in danger. I have yet to encounter a situation where I wanted/needed a gun (weapon yes, gun no)

 

One thing I have noticed here is that those that seem to be posting are very reasonable about the use of a gun as a tool. I have seen little false bravado about how a gun can protect you. Maybe our community has a large number of military, LEO or other types of persons that use guns in a "tool" capacity. The biggest intellectual challenge I have with guns is that I agree that "guns do not kill people, people kill people", but I also think that people with guns have a tool that facilitates this process a great deal. The only time I can think of wanting a gun is if I was confronted with someone else that had a gun. Even then, I would prefer to avoid or remove myself from the situation ASAP.

 

Which sort of makes me come full-circle. Why cache in an area where there is a danger to your life which requires a gun? If this is indeed ANY area in the world, then I guess we are in a somewhat sad state all together -- which may be the case. I guess what I was initially interested in (oh, so many posts ago) was in getting some idea of how much people had actually used guns in self-defense while caching. Are we talking 1 in 10 trips, 1 in 1000? How dangerous is caching? Where I live (Calgary, major Canadian city on the outskirts of the Rocky Mountains) we have major urban as well as serious outdoor cultures. There has been a serious increase in gun-related violence too! Mostly gang members shooting gang members at 2am in the "rough" area of town -- not a time or place I cache.

 

When I am deep backcountry, avalanche danger is my biggest concern -- how much should I be worried about people? (I'm not afraid of animals). Please. please do not think I am questioning peoples rights here -- I am questioning why they choose the tool. I would do the same if we were dicussing table saws. As for gun culture striking me as odd, it is only because it is (hopefully) a culture based on a tool that people will (hopefully) never, ever have to use.

[RenoRat]

First, let me commend everyone here... an intelligent discussion about firearms that didn't degenerate into shouting and abuse at the first sign of disagreement. That speaks well for the general intelligence here.

 

I can't speak for everyone, but I personally chose carrying a firearm for a lot of reasons. I grew up on a farm where rifles and pistols were commonplace, and I learned to use them all reasonably well. Second, firearms are effective. Third, they often don't even need to be fired, to be effective. Fourth, it's most likely any assailant will be also carrying a firearm, and anything less carried by me would therefore be rendered ineffective. Fifth... admittedly, being able to use a firearm effectively has a great deal of satisfaction in it. It instills a sense of confidence and that alone can be a deterrant to crime. There used to be a saying: "Act like a victim; become a victim." In other words, when your attitude and body language yells 'fear', someone will pick up on it and you're more likely to become a victim.

 

Anyway...I promised shorter posts, so this is it.

 

Rat

[+Mule Ears]

Reno Rat speaks for me, too. Subtract the rural upbringing ('burbs) and add a hitch in the Air Force, and you have a reasonable sketch of my attitude.

 

LFD: I guess what I was initially interested in (oh, so many posts ago) was in getting some idea of how much people had actually used guns in self-defense while caching. Are we talking 1 in 10 trips, 1 in 1000? How dangerous is caching? 

 

I'm not sure that you can make this decision based on stats. It's not uncommon to hear of policemen retiring 'having never unholstered his gun in the line of duty.' Incidents requiring self-defense by armed cachers are undoubtedly orders of magnitude less common than 1/10 or 1/1000. So much so that it would not be entirely unreasonable to write it off as uncommon as, say, death in a plane crash.

 

I use the plane crash example deliberately, because we all recognize that statistically plane travel is vastly safer than car travel. And when people opt to travel by car instead of by plane they are placing themselves in greater danger and also endangering others. People don't condemn this too loudly because (I think) we all recognize the impulse to want at least the illusion of control over our own fate.

 

For many of us, the only fate worse than death is death we could have prevented.

Edited December 29, 2004 by Mule Ears

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

You're assuming I am asking because I am "attacking" a specific country's gun policies -- not the case.

Yeah, right. I guess you are the one person who has tried to argue their case where they didn't try to imply the US was at the top of the list.

If you are that one person, I humbly apologize. I'm not sorry I stopped an attack made from false assumptions, though.

 

Also, many anti-gun people make arguements from what they think is the truth. So, no, I don't care what you think. I only care about observable facts, not assumptions and lies. Sorry if you take this as an attack, but that's the way I feel. Heck, I don't paticularly care if you carry or not.

 

Just don't make it out as those who legally carry as folks you need to be "phobic" about. That's insulting.

Apology accepted. I wasn't attacking US gun policies or US citizens.

 

I remain afraid of people with guns -- it sort of goes with the territory. I respect some folks that carry (I have family that own guns and trust and repect them, some people in this forum seem quite level-headed).

 

Even when I have had guns in my hand I am somewhat phobic of them -- sort of a healthy fear for their power. I'm somewhat trained in their use, but not a professional.

 

You really seem to think I am attacking you and your way of life? Not so. Maybe we're not reading the same statistics. I haven't quoted any stats or alluded to them though. I'm just talking personal experience and asking others about theirs.

[+Mopar]

Interesting column in todays NY Post

[+Lemon Fresh Dog]

That IS an interesting article. Thanks for the link. I tend to agree that "when in Rome...." Currently I still haven't the personal need, but that may change. Discussions such as this help me keep abreast of what others are doing and consider where my own actions need to be modified .... just not yet!

[+ZackJones]

Divine: Add my name to the list of those that are glad to see that you're OK.

 

Mopar and CoyoteRed pretty much summarized my shoot to kill comment. I hope I never have to but when it hits the fan I'd rather it be you (not you personally) rather than me that gets the ride to the morgue.