Jump to content

Firearms


barnabasbenn

Recommended Posts

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!

LFD, firearms are just one (and the most extreme and hopefully least needed) form of personal protection. You can do a lot to increase your chances of survival and still not carry a firearm. El Diablo and other's have mentioned a hiking staff (I rarely hit the trail without mine). With proper training it's a pretty formidable defense against even an armed human (wouldn't want to fend off a grizzly with it though!). So is a flashlight, pen, koppo stick or keyring. Actually, even if you carried a handgun, all those options would still come first.

Edited by Mopar
Link to comment

Interesting report..... According to the report more research & data is needed to draw stronger (or any) conclusions.

 

Some 'highlights'....

 

-- There is no credible evidence that "right-to-carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime. To date, 34 states have enacted these laws.

 

-- There is almost no evidence that violence-prevention programs intended to steer children away from guns have had any effects on their behavior, knowledge, or attitudes regarding firearms. More than 80 such programs exist.

 

-- Research has found associations between gun availability and suicide with guns, but it does not show whether such associations reveal genuine patterns of cause and effect.

 

-- One of the largest barriers to better understanding gun violence is the lack of high-quality and extensive data on gun ownership and use.

 

Looks like the debate will continue for a long time to come....

Edited by Mxyzptlk
Link to comment

Mxyzptik... I'm amazed! I just copied that report -Shooting Blanks - from the NY Post, and I can't find ANY of the items you 'highlighted!'

 

You said one of the highlights was: {---There is no credible evidence that "Right-to-Carry" laws, which allow qualified adults to carry concealed handguns, either decrease or increase violent crime. To date, 34 states have enacted these laws}

 

but what the report actually said was: [The panel also ignored most of the studies that find a benefit in crime reduction from right-to-carry laws.] And: [What the panel didn't point out, however, is that the authors of that particular study had concluded that data in their work did much more to show there WERE benefits than to debunk it.]

 

You cited: {There is almost no evidence that violence-prevention programs intended to steer children away from guns have had any effect on their behavior, knowledge, or attitudes regarding firearms. More than 80 such programs exist.}

 

What was actually said( in debunking the effectiveness of any/all gun control regulations and laws) was: [The academy, however, should believe it's own findings. Based on 253 journal articles, 99 books, 43 government publications, a survey that covered 80 different gun-control measures (the only time that number is listed in the report, BTW) and some of its own empirical work, the panel couldn't identify a SINGLE gun-control regulation that reduced violent crime, suicide or accidents.]

 

You cited: {Reasearch has found associations between gun availability and suicide with guns, but it does not show whether such associations reveal genuine patterns of cause and effect.}

 

The word 'suicide' was only used three times, none of them the statement you cited above. They are: 1st, the paragraph above that begins: 'In debunking the effectiveness...' 2nd, : {'... It's bad enough that the panel backed away from its own survey and empirical work; worse yet is that it didn't really look objectively at all the evidence. If it had, it would have found not just that gun control doesn't help solve the problems of crime, suicide and gun accidents, but that it can actually be counterproductive.} 3rd...: {For example, the research on gun locks that the panel considered examined only whether accidental gun deaths and suicides were prevented.}

 

While you might claim 'paraphrasing' for the lack of actual statement relationship, your paraphrasing doesn't agree with the context of the various statements.

 

So, in short: Nowhere in the column does it state no evidence exists to support that right to carry had effected violent crime. Rather, it states clearly that right to carry HAS caused a decrease in violent crimes.

 

There is NO MENTION of any "violence-prevention programs".

 

There was no mention of ANY research finding ANY association between gun availibility and suicide.

 

There was no mention of any barrier to better understanding gun violence, and no mention of any 'lack of high-quality and extensive data on gun ownership and use.

 

Did you read the same report I did?? "Shooting Blanks", by John R. Lott jr in the NY Post postopinion.?? I'll be happy to cut n paste it here in it's entirity, if you like.

 

Rat

Link to comment
...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?...

Random chance is the reason. Did you read the Buck's Crossing thread?

 

The cache was fine, but the parking spot has visiters when they came back and the rest is history. The gun they had didn't help, but they worked through the situation. So far as I know there isn't a good outcome yet, meaning closer via the legal system.

 

While caching and in most of my life (a couple of teen parties, and nights on the cruise not withstanding) I've never encountered anything that made me feel in danger. Wary, yes, and I'd leave and that would be that. Danger? No. It's rare.

 

So far in the forums I've read about more people hurting themselves and dying than even car break ins.

Link to comment

RenoRat,

 

I suspect the root issues are deeper than guns. They are a tool, and as such reflect the society around them. It's my opinion that the root causes they are looking for are deeper than guns, CCW, etc. The studies will always be inconclusive until they find that deeper cause.

Edited by Renegade Knight
Link to comment

So, in short:  Nowhere in the column does it state no evidence exists to support that right to carry had effected violent crime.  Rather, it states clearly that right to carry HAS caused a decrease in violent crimes.

 

You are correct.. Nowhere in that OPINION column does it state that. Since the OPINION column was written by a 'pro-gun' person I took a look at the actual report from the National Academy of Sciences. After reading his opinion I don't think you would expect those statements to be in the report, but they are.

Edited by Mxyzptlk
Link to comment

The bullet items listed by Mxyzptlk were apparently from an introduction to the report given as an opening statement to a press conference by one of the members of the committee that prepared the study cited by the column. Here's the link to the NAS web site: Opening Statement

 

Looks as though he cut and pasted the words of one of the study's authors, so he's closer to the source than the NY Post opinion column. The author is making the point that the studies done so far don't strongly support either side of the gun debate.

Link to comment

This is addressed to those that stated they would "shoot to kill" in an inescapable life threatening situation.

 

 

It is imperative that you never utter the phrase "shoot to kill". Ever! Perception is reality and truth. Anyone that hears that phrase might draw the conclusion that your intent was to kill someone. Anyone, a witness, police officer, attorney, judge, or jury member. Any of these people could further draw the conclusion that you are a maniac with a gun waiting for a random situation to murder someone. Even if they are a violent criminal in the act of a felony.

 

 

I have thirteen years of firearms training. Every time I go to training this is drilled into our heads. Every responsible owner/carrier of firearms needs to train and condition them selves on how to answer questions following a lethal force situation. All range masters plainly state that you identify yourself and ask for a lawyer. After a lethal force incident you are not in a clear state of mind, and should not subject yourself to potentially aggressive interrogation.

Train yourself to refer to your response to the lethal force incident as "I used the necessary force to stop the perceived threat". In laymans terms I shot to stop.

Shoot to stop!

Shoot to stop!

Shoot to stop!

We're not looking to kill anyone. No one deserves to go to prison for defending them selves.

 

BE SAFE.

:D

Link to comment

After reading the opening statement, I will agree Mxyzptik quoted it correctly. I do think the NAS talked a lot and said nothing. Apparently they were charged with the task of gathering info about crime and gun use and -to me- the gist of their statement was that there wasn't any reliable information available. Period.

 

Rat

Link to comment

:D Having carried a gun for a living and living in a state that issues permits for concealed carries, which I supported- The one thing missing here is the issue of weapons retention. My father always said, "file down the front sights, it won't hurt so much when the other guy shoves it..."I hope you get the drift. I don't carry while caching.I like to spend the time with my kids. I can defend most threats with my wits. I always have an edged tool, notice not a weapon. If it gets to that point that I need to be armed with a firearm, God help us all.

 

Is there really a threat or are we perceiving a threat? I live in the meth producing state for the US and we have pot growers in our state parks. It's like rough bars, I know my area and stay out of bad places.

 

It's an emotional issue and a matter of personal choice. There is no right or wrong.

 

Stay Safe- we all need to come back and log those caches, not get booked or bagged and tagged

Link to comment
I know my area and stay out of bad places.

I especially like to cache in places where I've never been before. That is the most wonderful part of caching.

 

If I knew or had good reason to believe I would be in serious danger I would not go.

 

But since that condition never really exists, i go "prepared".

 

Even the "safe" places can turn deadly in a heartbeat. To carry only where you feel a need is foolish.

 

To be prepared at all you must be prepared always.

Link to comment

The thing about bad guys is that they are everywhere. Sure, you can identify some places as pretty dangerous, but crime and violence cannot be looped into certain areas. I live in a very nice area with low crime rates. However I can easily think of several murders, rapes, beatings, robberies turned murders, etc. All of these victims were going about their business (shopping, outdoor activity, lounging at home, etc.). To keep OT, these folks do what everybody does and could just have easily been geocaching (for example). I think some folks refuse to believe the threats are real because nothing has happened to them personally. I mentioned the above horrors as happening near me - even though nothing like that has happened to me personally. About knives and sticks - ask a survivor of a violent attack if he/she would choose a firearm for protection. A person can cover 21 feet in 3 seconds, and a stick or knife is not very effective if a nut threatening your life can get his hands on you (or if he is armed). I think a good pepper spray would be more effective than something with no reach.

Link to comment
;) Having carried a gun for a living and living in a state that issues permits for concealed carries, which I supported- The one thing missing here is the issue of weapons retention. My father always said, "file down the front sights, it won't hurt so much when the other guy shoves it..."I hope you get the drift. I don't carry while caching.I like to spend the time with my kids. I can defend most threats with my wits. I always have an edged tool, notice not a weapon. If it gets to that point that I need to be armed with a firearm, God help us all.

 

Is there really a threat or are we perceiving a threat? I live in the meth producing state for the US and we have pot growers in our state parks. It's like rough bars, I know my area and stay out of bad places.

 

It's an emotional issue and a matter of personal choice. There is no right or wrong.

 

Stay Safe- we all need to come back and log those caches, not get booked or bagged and tagged

What would you say to people who were eating at Luby's in Kileen, TX years back when the madman drove through the side of the building and started shooting people? That's an area where most people would feel very safe! Thats just one example, but bad things happen in places that are percieved to be safe all the time! Just throwing that out there for conversation sake.

Link to comment

Wow, some of these discussions get pretty heated. I'm going to stay on topic, but out of the arguments. First off I'm an LEO in Pennsylvania (PA). In PA you have the right to carry a concealed handgun, however you need a permit to do it. We have two types. Sportsmen and Protection. Sportsmen permits are used for hunting, fishing, trapping, and dog training. Notice geocaching is not listed. Under this type of permit you MAY NOT carry concealed. The weapon has to be in plain sight. You also MAY NOT carry it loaded in vehicle, as this is considered concealed. Also you can only carry it when engaged in one of the sports listed above and with a valid license for that activity (ie. hunting lisence). You get these from the treasurer at the county court house.

Now on to the pretection permit. With this you can carry concealed on your body, fully loaded, and in your vehicle. Without this permit when you have a gun in your vehicle it MUST BE secured(locked), unloaded, with the ammo seperate, in the least accessable portion of your vehicle(trunk). The weapon should be concealed, common sense. In Philladelphia it MUST BE concealled and you MUST HAVE a permit. You MAY NOT carry into any government buildings, doing this will get you a free ride in a police car. Most of these buildings are marked and do not allow any type of weapon, and most have security and scanning personnel at the entrance. To obtain one of these permits go to any county sheriff's office. They run your info through the state system, which is linked to the federal system and check to see if you are a criminal, insane, have a protection from abuse order on you, and just make sure you are legally allowed to carry. You will be ran through this system everytime you renew it and every time you purchase a firearm. If after you have a firearm or permit you do something that excludes you from carrying or owning a gun your weapons and permit will be seized. And yes, I have taken permits and firearms many, many times.

If, as a civilian, you choose to carry you should become informed. Take any classes you can get, ie. NRA civilian classes. Sometimes there is a fee but take the classes. As far as when you should use it, talk to an attorney, because they will be the ones you're going to need if you ever do have to use it on someone.

Once again I'm always open for questions, just email me. If I can't answer your question, I'll direct you to someone who can

Link to comment

i'm sure these women felt safe where they were.

 

cary stayner, 37, motel handyman, confessed to the July 1999 killing of a 26-year-old Yosemite National Park naturalist, Joie Ruth Armstrong, and the February massacre of three sight-seers, Carole Sund, 42; her daughter, Juli Sund, 15; and Silvina Pelossa, a 16-year-old foreign-exchange student from Argentina. All four murders occurred in or near Yosemite. Stayner was charged with the murder of Armstrong, while authorities continue to investigate the other deaths. Stayner said he fantasized about killing women and was driven to murder by voices in his head.

Link to comment

Although I have posted some pretty long notes, I just have to come back to my initial question. Maybe by re-phrasing it I can get some clarification. Here it goes ...

 

1) How dangerous is geocaching?

2) What are the chances of being attacked by someone where a GUN is required for defense while geocaching?

 

I RESPECT everyones decision to do whatever they want when it comes to the laws in their areas. I'm just sincerely curious.

 

I just want to get some idea of what the real danger is. Not the percieved danger, not the hypothetical danger, not the "could happen", but rather the "did happen". What will I do with this information? -- make my own personal decisions about where to cache and how to cache.

 

This topic has delved into the realm of gun-control/gun-law aurguments and that's okay too -- it's been quite civil and intelligent with few exceptions (a bit off-topic though). For me personally, this isn't what I am mostly interested in. My own PERSONAL bias is that I do not like or care to have guns -- you can have your own PERSONAL bias too -- isn't freedom cool?

 

There have been some posts that have talked about danger in general, I would like danger in the specific. Given that geocaching is fairly new as a sport, I would also be interested in experiences or information on the danger of outdoor activities in general. Does anyone have sources for statistics on homicides in rural areas where the there was no connection between the victim and criminal? (I'm making the assumption that this would be similar to a geocacher encountering a "bad-guy" and getting killed.

 

As a disclaimer -- I am NOT trying to lead anyone here to share any belief that I may personally hold. I am interested in my own belief's and fact-finding only out of curiosity.

Link to comment
i'm sure these women felt safe where they were.

 

cary stayner, 37, motel handyman, confessed to the July 1999 killing of a 26-year-old Yosemite National Park naturalist, Joie Ruth Armstrong, and the February massacre of three sight-seers, Carole Sund, 42; her daughter, Juli Sund, 15; and Silvina Pelossa, a 16-year-old foreign-exchange student from Argentina. All four murders occurred in or near Yosemite. Stayner was charged with the murder of Armstrong, while authorities continue to investigate the other deaths. Stayner said he fantasized about killing women and was driven to murder by voices in his head.

Hey! A specific example!

 

As a percentage of all visitors to Yosemite over the past 10 years, these three murders are statistically small. (although I'm sure that is little consolation to the victims!). As a comparision, how many accidental gun deaths have occured in the park during the same period of time? (I really, really do not know - does anyone have a website link where I can find this out?).

 

This will allow me to make a comparison of risk versus reward when it comes to carrying a gun. (again, a PERSONAL decision)

Link to comment

1) How dangerous is geocaching?

2) What are the chances of being attacked by someone where a GUN is required for defense while geocaching?

 

probably about the same as they would be for a noncacher taking a walk in a park.

Do you have any info on where I might find this out? I'm really trying to for my own interest. I dd a search for National Park crime stats in Canada (where I live) as well as for the US (because I travel there). Nada....

 

Maybe I need a better search methodology? I'm going to try StatsCan (Canada) -- does the US have a similar government statistics agency?

Link to comment

1) How dangerous is geocaching?

2) What are the chances of being attacked by someone where a GUN is required for defense while geocaching?

 

probably about the same as they would be for a noncacher taking a walk in a park.

Do you have any info on where I might find this out? I'm really trying to for my own interest. I dd a search for National Park crime stats in Canada (where I live) as well as for the US (because I travel there). Nada....

 

Maybe I need a better search methodology? I'm going to try StatsCan (Canada) -- does the US have a similar government statistics agency?

it is illegal to carry in a national park. that's why no statistics. you can't have statistics for something that is not allowed. i doubt anyone has kept track of people killed while out walking in "any" park. you are asking for something that i really don't believe exists.

Link to comment

No guns in National Parks? Then a gun wouldn't have been much use for the women killed in Yosemite. Again, part of a larger debate about bearing arms and all that.

 

Maybe I *am* asking for something that doesn't exist. People have been telling me I'm statistically safer with a gun. There does seem to be *some* evidence that this may be the case in an urban US setting, but the only article that provided some input to this in this forum was both an opinion piece and based on a study that was deemed inconclusive. I do really appreciate the link to it however.

 

My problem isn't with opinions contrary to my own -- I have issues with logical falicy such as "Appeals to Authority" and "Thin-Leading Wedge" arguments. On BOTH sides of a debate.

 

Oh well..... I guess it's a matter of faith and not fact at this point. If it is a matter of factual evidence, I have yet to see any links, stats, or studies that are conclusive (for EITHER side) of the carry/not-carry question. Especially while geocaching. (I feel I should mention the word geocaching every few posts to avoid the topic as being shut-down for off-topicness)

Link to comment

Ummm... www.packing.org may be *slightly* biased in their analysis. They appear to be a pretty pro-carry organization and hence, not the *best* source for unbiased opinions in my opinion. That would be like me telling you to go to Stop Gun Violence for information. I tend to try to find sources with a minimal bias. (govenment stats bureau info is generally good)

 

I'm not looking for geocaching stats in particular. I'm looking for outdoor and rural crime stats related to random victim information (as opposed to domestic and crime-partner violence).

 

This is just curiosity that has gotten a bug in my bonnet. I just want to understand what the real danger is one way or another. The link on the A.T. was great!

Link to comment
Ummm... www.packing.org may be *slightly* biased in their analysis. They appear to be a pretty pro-carry organization and hence, not the *best* source for unbiased opinions in my opinion. That would be like me telling you to go to Stop Gun Violence for information. I tend to try to find sources with a minimal bias. (govenment stats bureau info is generally good)

 

I'm not looking for geocaching stats in particular. I'm looking for outdoor and rural crime stats related to random victim information (as opposed to domestic and crime-partner violence).

 

This is just curiosity that has gotten a bug in my bonnet. I just want to understand what the real danger is one way or another. The link on the A.T. was great!

i don't think what you are looking for exists. like i said:

 

figures can lie, and liars can figure.

 

sometimes government stats can be just as biased as another source. i wouldn't quote any source pro or con as gospel.

Link to comment

Then we are left with an unknowable thing. I'm okay with that. I was hoping that someone had some insight that was new which I could look at.

 

I know that figures can be used to promote a bias (lie?) -- that's why the source of those figures becomes so important. I tend to dismiss information provided by completely pro- or anti- anything. However, if we do not accept some validity from some sources that have proven to have followed a scientific methodology, we run the risk of the argument simply degrading into a "I know that the numbers say that, but I don't want to believe that, so the numbers must be a lie"

 

Anyhow -- this has become the "dead-horse" of the forums I think. Anyone else still interested in this?

Link to comment

Interesting that most of this debate seems to center on defense against other humans. Certainly, there is a risk of being attacked by another human ... any time, anywhere. That being said, the risk of being attacked by an animal, particularly in wild, remote areas, is probably higher. Obviously, if you only search for urban caches in Washington D.C., it is much less likely that you will be killed by a Grizzly Bear than a deranged crack addict (I picked D.C. since it is highly urbanized and the murder capital of the U.S. last time I checked but you can insert any large city).

 

However, if many of your searches are in remote, wild areas, defense against carnivorous animals is a real need. I worked for a hunting guide in Montana for about a year and always carried a high-powered side arm because I never knew when I would need one.

 

I don't cache much in remote, wild areas. I don't cache in high murder rate areas. I don't have a permit to carry a concealed weapon in an urban area. Nevertheless, there are times and places when it just makes sense to carry.

 

Life is not like a box of chocolates ... it's like a game of Risk ... each of us can decide how big a risk we are willing to take and how we will mitigate that risk. Isn't that great?

Link to comment
Then we are left with an unknowable thing. I'm okay with that. I was hoping that someone had some insight that was new which I could look at.

 

I know that figures can be used to promote a bias (lie?) -- that's why the source of those figures becomes so important. I tend to dismiss information provided by completely pro- or anti- anything. However, if we do not accept some validity from some sources that have proven to have followed a scientific methodology, we run the risk of the argument simply degrading into a "I know that the numbers say that, but I don't want to believe that, so the numbers must be a lie"

 

Anyhow -- this has become the "dead-horse" of the forums I think. Anyone else still interested in this?

You take just about anything that there are statistics for and I can either twist them or come up with statistics that say something else. It's a joke. At the end of the day I will be safer with my firearm that goes almost everywhere with me. Sits right in my front pocket. You have a right to not carry and that is fine with me. I personally think you are less safe than I am if a dangerous situation arises. I always say, don't bring a knife to a gun fight. Nobody is going to take my guns away from me and nobody is going to say I can't take them geocaching with me or anything else that is legal. (Not that anyone here is saying I can't)

Link to comment

I think a lot of people may be missing one point and that is that random murders and violence happens against innocent people everyday in places where it may not usually occur. I just read a sick article about an 80 year old woman in Houston who was at her home and someone broke in and robbed her and assaulted her. It can happen anywhere people. It doesn't matter if you are caching in an area where nothing happens usually, it can happen. It's obviously your choice as to whether or not you want to carry. I myself feel safer with a gun. I'm no Bruce Lee and I'm not gonna try to fight a guy with a gun, I'm going to escape if I can but if I can't he is going down. Nobody's anti-carry views here mean much to me for the simple reason that anything can happen anywhere at anytime and I will not be a victim. If you want to, that is fine. I prefer to have a more level playing field with the scum of this earth.

Link to comment
Then we are left with an unknowable thing. I'm okay with that.

 

The chance of a violent encounter is non-zero; I think we can stipulate that. For most of us, though, the chance can also be expressed as near-zero. This could be discouraging to you, as it leaves you in a statistical no-man's land. This is where philosophy informs your decision more than science (to the extent that social sciences are "science").

 

For those of us who carry, the weapon is not a burden. We don't buckle it on with a grim Klingon-esque sense of "is today a good day to die?" It's just another piece of emergency gear that requires some training and simple periodic maintenance. We hope never to use it, but it's there if needed.

 

If carrying a weapon would harm your self-image or ruin the enjoyment you get from caching or the outdoors, don't. Odds are good you will not have to regret your decision. If carrying has a neutral or positive effect on your enjoyment of caching or the outdoors, do. It can improve your survival odds and options, and to some extent those of others.

Link to comment
Anyone else still interested in this?

What? Questioning the validity of the one's choice of whether to legally carry a firearm?

 

Nope.

No actually, I was wondering if anyone was interested in finding FACTUAL evidence one way or the other -- thanks for asking though.

 

I would never, ever, question ones right to a personal belief. (although I may disagree with them)

Link to comment
Then we are left with an unknowable thing. I'm okay with that.

 

The chance of a violent encounter is non-zero; I think we can stipulate that. For most of us, though, the chance can also be expressed as near-zero. This could be discouraging to you, as it leaves you in a statistical no-man's land. This is where philosophy informs your decision more than science (to the extent that social sciences are "science").

 

For those of us who carry, the weapon is not a burden. We don't buckle it on with a grim Klingon-esque sense of "is today a good day to die?" It's just another piece of emergency gear that requires some training and simple periodic maintenance. We hope never to use it, but it's there if needed.

 

If carrying a weapon would harm your self-image or ruin the enjoyment you get from caching or the outdoors, don't. Odds are good you will not have to regret your decision. If carrying has a neutral or positive effect on your enjoyment of caching or the outdoors, do. It can improve your survival odds and options, and to some extent those of others.

.... and THAT I can really respect.

Link to comment
Anyone else still interested in this?

What? Questioning the validity of the one's choice of whether to legally carry a firearm?

 

Nope.

No actually, I was wondering if anyone was interested in finding FACTUAL evidence one way or the other -- thanks for asking though.

 

I would never, ever, question ones right to a personal belief. (although I may disagree with them)

First off I am not attacking you here but someone already gave you a source to look at, packing.org. All sources that you might find will have some bias to them. I don't care if the U.S. Government put out the report their are human biases in everything. You aren't going to find solid evidence either way in this case. Any source that is found can be refuted by someone.

Link to comment

Yeah.... I'm going to go ahead and NOT use www.packing.org OR www.stopgunviolence.org as a factual source. Why? becasue they do not fall into the logical test of bias-free analysis. I do appreciate the link though - and it does give me a perspective supporting the pro-carry argument, but not much in the way of what I would consider unbiased factual evidence. Sorry... I really appreciete the link though.

 

Quick add: I understand that there is no such thing as completely bias-free analysis. However, we must acknowledge that bias in our analysis and we must seek the most bias-free source we can locate. Do not ask the butcher about being a vegitarian (or vice-versa)

Edited by Lemon Fresh Dog
Link to comment

I pretty much agree with Mule Ears. He says it well. As for not going to biased sources for information, pro or con, there simply isn't any other sources available. People compile 'facts' and 'data' for a reason, and that, yes, probably influences the final result. What else is new? It would be like trying to find an unbiased source about political parties... it simply doesn't and probably can't, exist.

We read all the info we can and arrive at our own decision, regardless of whether we're talking about carrying a weapon while caching or voting for a politician. No one else can -or should - make our decisions for us.

This thread is probably a dead horse, if we judge it by the probability or lack thereof of reaching any kind of 'final decision' concerning the subject topic.

LFD, the world is a dangerous, fun place, and we can't let the danger over-shadow the fun ...or vice-versa. Prepair for both to whatever extent you are comfortable with.

 

Thanks for the calm, reasoned posts.

 

Rat

Link to comment

Another reason I don't like to carry is the 'comfort' factor and the 'cleaning' factor.

 

I just got back from a canoe trip through the Irish Wilderness in southern Missouri. The main reason I packed was because of banjo playing hillbillies (sorry in advance to all geocaching banjo playing hillbillies). We do this trip every year between Thanksgiving and New Years. This area is fairly remote and we usually tent camp in the forrest and have the whole river to ourselves this time of year. Well last year, a group of locals canoed up to our camp, got out and walked into our camp with their rifles drawn. No big deal, it was still hunting season, however these guys were not friendly and they were pissed that we were in their territory. Before they reached our camp, I grabbed a 9mm and stuck it in the back of my pants. Luckly, I didn't need to use it.

 

However, it is still uncomfortable to carry a firearm for any length of time. I have several different holsters and they all get in your way sooner or later. I guess some people can get used to the extra bulk and weight, especially LEO.

 

Also, the more you carry the more you need to clean your piece which is kind of a hassle. This year, I took a spill in my canoe so now I have to thoroughly dry my firearm and then oil it down real good. The more you use of carry, the more you have to clean it ...

Link to comment
Yeah.... I'm going to go ahead and NOT use www.packing.org OR www.stopgunviolence.org as a factual source. Why? becasue they do not fall into the logical test of bias-free analysis. I do appreciate the link though - and it does give me a perspective supporting the pro-carry argument, but not much in the way of what I would consider unbiased factual evidence. Sorry... I really appreciete the link though.

 

Quick add: I understand that there is no such thing as completely bias-free analysis. However, we must acknowledge that bias in our analysis and we must seek the most bias-free source we can locate. Do not ask the butcher about being a vegitarian (or vice-versa)

What sources would you consider to be credible and unbiased in this case?

Link to comment
Another reason I don't like to carry is the 'comfort' factor and the 'cleaning' factor.

 

I just got back from a canoe trip through the Irish Wilderness in southern Missouri. The main reason I packed was because of banjo playing hillbillies (sorry in advance to all geocaching banjo playing hillbillies). We do this trip every year between Thanksgiving and New Years. This area is fairly remote and we usually tent camp in the forrest and have the whole river to ourselves this time of year. Well last year, a group of locals canoed up to our camp, got out and walked into our camp with their rifles drawn. No big deal, it was still hunting season, however these guys were not friendly and they were pissed that we were in their territory. Before they reached our camp, I grabbed a 9mm and stuck it in the back of my pants. Luckly, I didn't need to use it.

 

However, it is still uncomfortable to carry a firearm for any length of time. I have several different holsters and they all get in your way sooner or later. I guess some people can get used to the extra bulk and weight, especially LEO.

 

Also, the more you carry the more you need to clean your piece which is kind of a hassle. This year, I took a spill in my canoe so now I have to thoroughly dry my firearm and then oil it down real good. The more you use of carry, the more you have to clean it ...

I carry a KelTec and i have a pocket holster. I actually feel like something is missing when I leave the house without it. Kinda like a wallet.

Link to comment

Hmmmm.... Clearpath, even tho I was born in St. Louis and lived out in the boonies most of my youth, it -luckily ;) -wasn't in the Southern part of Missouri, so I'll go OT for a second and suggest you look into Kel-tec handguns. They are very light, computer-designed weapons that might solve your heaviness problem. My .380 can fit easily into the front pocket of my bluejeans with only the barest bulge.

{Sorry for going OT} :o

 

Rat

Link to comment
I would never, ever, question ones right to a personal belief.

Right. You just question the belief, not the right to it.

 

You know, Google is a wonderful thing. Why don't you go find some supporting evidence yourself instead of questioning the value of other folks' arguments here. You defense so far has been nothing but dismissive. Go find your own facts and figures that support your argument.

 

Oh, and have fun with that.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...