+1stimestar Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Here in Alaska it's legal to carry concealed without a permit.
+leatherman Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Here in Alaska it's legal to carry concealed without a permit. What a wonderful place!
+Logscaler and Red Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 When you go out in the woods or across unknow terrain, do you carry a hand gun or rifle for protection against snakes, or other unknown threats? I carry my firearm everywhere... read my sig!!! lol... legal advise: check your state and local laws! Handgun? Sometimes Rifle? Sometimes Bow? Sometimes Slingshot? Sometimes? Shotgun? Sometimes. In Oregon, all these are considered "Firearm"s the last I knew. No matter if I am packing or not, I try to act in a manner that will not get me into "trouble", be it with persons on either side of the law. Will I tell you if I am packing? No. Should I have to tell you? No. Most of the people I cache with could be packing and I assume that they are. Am I worried about it? No. Where I am and where I travel most of the time, packing a weapon is kinda like having a spare tire, extra food, firestarter, etc. Second nature and done without even thinking about it. But you hope to never have to use them. As for the critter aspect of this topic. Most of the critters that could do you major damage will take you down before you even know they are there. Heck, I am more worried about Bee's then I am anything else out there. I hate getting stung. Logscaler.
+1stimestar Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Here in Alaska it's legal to carry concealed without a permit. What a wonderful place! Yes indeedie!
+One of the Texas Vikings Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 When I go fishing with someone, I tell them and they tell me "Glad your holding in case there's a gator"... might seem funny but it's the truth. When I go hunting, it's kinda a given! lol... But I'm talking about cahing... Since I only go with my family, they know. That's the point of the topic. Does anyone else carry a rifle or hand gun when caching? Or not... It's cool either way. As I said before, I was looking for a yes or no answer not a debate. When I go fishing with someone, I tell them and they tell me "Glad your holding in case there's a gator"... might seem funny but it's the truth. When I go hunting, it's kinda a given! lol... But I'm talking about cahing... Since I only go with my family, they know. That's the point of the topic. Yes, whenever you go caching, watch out for those mean or deliquent ammo boxes !
+One of the Texas Vikings Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 i'M LOOKING TO GET A HAND GUN BECAUSE IN THE aRIZONA DESERT wE HAVE SOME WILDLIFE LIKE BOBCATS TO LOOK OUT FOR. i WAW ONE STALKING ME ON A CLIFF SIDE AND BOY DID i WISH i HAD A GUN TO SCARE IT OFF AZCOWBOY290 Or maybe a firecracker, instead ??????? or did you want to kill it ???
+One of the Texas Vikings Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 It's worth mentioning that fully-automatic weapons have been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. It's also worth mentioning that criminals, by the very definition, do NOT obey laws; therefore any gun that is banned or regulated, will only be banned or regulated from law-abiding persons. According to "Rational Basis Analysis of 'Assault Weapon' Prohibition," a paper by David B. Kopel, of the Independence Institute, "assault weapons are used in only about one percent of gun crime." And, the imfamous LA/Hollywood bank robbery a few years ago notwithstanding, there have been very few if any crimes committed with fully auto weapons. Again, this comes back to the strict, federal licensing and regulating of fully auto weapons. If that is the case, then I don't know of many bank robberies by Bazooka or hand gernade..gee let's make them legal too.... Or how about tanks... Geocaching in a tank ! with a really big, big gun ! now that sounds like fun !!!!!
+Renegade Knight Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 ...Or how about tanks... Geocaching in a tank ! with a really big, big gun ! now that sounds like fun !!!!! Hell yes that sounds like fun. More than a few guys would pay good money to drive a tank around and smash things. They should have a tank farm so guys can do exactly this.
+Team Benhamtroll Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 So . . . what would the difficulty rating be if it required a tank?
+One of the Texas Vikings Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Here is the reasoning behind this topic... While out with my family on a camping trip, just before geocaching discovered me, we were hiking. We were out where the good ol' cell phone wouldn't get a signal. After a quick stop, 3 dogs found us and had very bad things on their minds. It was appartent they were wild dogs and my guess is that they either smelled our MRE's or we came onto their territory and they didn't like it. They started towards my family and I. There is NO doubt in my mind that they would have attacked if I didn't lay the alpha dog down and scare the other 2 off with the noise... SO you're the one who shot my dogs ! No I don't carry.. Carried one for too many years, now I'm glad I don't have to.
+vree Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 More than a few guys would pay good money to drive a tank around and smash things. They should have a tank farm so guys can do exactly this. that is some serious bushwhacking. imagine that little social trail!
+Ed & Julie Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Yes I carry..legally!!!! It's the one's who carry illegally you have to worry about. Ed
The Junkyard Dogs Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 No, I dont carry. I would carry but lack having a gun and permit. However, I do think that it would be good to carry a weapon of sorts for self defense. I have been think of what I might be able to carry besides a walking stick.
+sTeamTraen Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 In other words, violent crime is everywhere, maybe even in the same area a geocache is, and you don't get to pick and choose when it hits you. An alternative interpretation is that Americans have even less reason to carry firearms than French people.
+Ladybug Kids Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Call me lazy, but my pack usually weighs more than I like without adding the weight of several pounds of steel to it or a separate holster . And that's despite the fact that I try to do most of my hikes/climbs alpine style.
+fighterthiefmage Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Call me lazy, but my pack usually weighs more than I like without adding the weight of several pounds of steel to it or a separate holster . And that's despite the fact that I try to do most of my hikes/climbs alpine style. You hollow out your toothbrush don't you? Anyway, sometimes I carry. Have ccw. Snake shot is good. I am a big walther fan.
+Mopar Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Call me lazy, but my pack usually weighs more than I like without adding the weight of several pounds of steel to it or a separate holster . And that's despite the fact that I try to do most of my hikes/climbs alpine style. Several pounds? Try 7oz: Or 12oz for one of these: There are lots of lightweight firearms suitable to carry while caching.
+TimInOhio and Brittany Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 (edited) It's worth mentioning that fully-automatic weapons have been regulated by the National Firearms Act of 1934. It's also worth mentioning that criminals, by the very definition, do NOT obey laws; therefore any gun that is banned or regulated, will only be banned or regulated from law-abiding persons. According to "Rational Basis Analysis of 'Assault Weapon' Prohibition," a paper by David B. Kopel, of the Independence Institute, "assault weapons are used in only about one percent of gun crime." And, the imfamous LA/Hollywood bank robbery a few years ago notwithstanding, there have been very few if any crimes committed with fully auto weapons. Again, this comes back to the strict, federal licensing and regulating of fully auto weapons. If that is the case, then I don't know of many bank robberies by Bazooka or hand gernade..gee let's make them legal too.... The point is: certain types of firearms are legal for certain types of people, and those people that legally can carry/possess said firearms are NOT the ones that commit the majority of the firearm related crimes. Like was mentioned, it's the people that carry/posses illegally that you have to worry about. If you come accross a meth lab in the woods, or some good-ol'-boy tending to his pot crop, you can bet that they are packing. It's the CRIMINALS that are the problem, not legal firearms owners. If that is the case, then I don't know of many bank robberies by Bazooka or hand gernade..gee let's make them legal too.... I'd imagine one wouldn't have to look very deep to find crimes/assaults committed with baseball bats, hammers, or any number of everyday objects. Should we ban anything that has ever been used to commit a crime? Edited May 18, 2005 by TimInOhio and Brittany
Keystone Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 This is not a thread for debating the propriety of gun control laws, nor one for comparing crime statistics from one nation to the next. The topic is: Do you carry a firearm WHILE GEOCACHING? Thanks.
+RakeInTheCache Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Coming back to the original question - A firearm for protection against snakes. Well, if you didn't see the snake and got so close it would bite you, a firearm probably wouldn't do any good anyway. If you saw the snake, why don't you just walk away instead of gratuitously shooting it? Seems a good snake bite kit might be just as effective. I've been hiking, biking, camping, etc. for almost 40 years inside and outside the U.S. and never felt the need for a firearm. In Germany I have never felt threatened when hiking alone. Funny but it's illegal here for a civilian to carry a side-arm. Violence begets violence. As an American, I see this issue in termes of the fact that in American, the use of a firearm to solve problems has become ingrained into our culture, while in other Industrialized nations, they have sought out other solutions, much to the tranquility of their populations. And there is no reason to believe that a position against side-arms and automatic weaponry is also a position against sportsmen who use rifles and other such sportive weaponry in a reasonable manner. The distinction is clear enough.
+sTeamTraen Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 As an American, I see this issue in termes of the fact that in American, the use of a firearm to solve problems has become ingrained into our culture, while in other Industrialized nations, they have sought out other solutions, much to the tranquility of their populations. I don't know how many (non-criminal) Americans really attempt to solve problems by producing a firearm, let alone discharging one. If I carried a gun to protect myself against machete-wielding aggressors, I'd start to worry that I might draw it when a drunk lurched into me, or I was shouted at by passing youths, or someone rear-ended me at a stop light, or someone spilled my coffee. It must be hard to work out whether a threat is real enough to justify deadly force, before it kills you. I'm never surprised by "friendly fire" stories from Iraq, for example. As for tranquility of the population: I think we're about as uptight about most things as you guys. We just have this one less problem to worry about, but people seem to run at a constant level of unhappiness anyway, so they'll just worry more about GM food or cholesterol or some other non-problem. Perhaps the affiinity with guns is, for some people, a little akin to a sort of religious faith. People take comfort from the idea that if something bad happened, their gun would take care of it. I would be interested to see if there was a high correlation of gun ownership and strong religious belief, in the US and elsewhere. My off-hand guess would be that there is a positive correlation in the US and a negative one in, say, Europe, but I have no evidence either way. BTW, in the UK, such is the distrust of guns in the public mind, which has spilt over into law enforcement it seems, that carrying a non-weapon can get you shot dead by the police: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2054315.stm
+RakeInTheCache Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 (edited) To clarify my original example , One can choose to take a gun to protect oneself from snakes, or One can choose to keep their wits about them and take a snake bite kit for the very rare occasion they might get bitten. From most of the posts in this thread (which I must believe is 99.9% dominated by Americans) it seems the posters would choose the former. Ibelieve from my experience that most non-Americans would choose the latter. (This is of course only anectdotal). Edited May 18, 2005 by RakeInTheCache
+sTeamTraen Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Most Europeans don't have to worry about snakes or bears on the trail anyway.
+AuntieWeasel Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 From most of the posts in this thread (which I must believe is 99.9% dominated by Americans) it seems the posters would choose the former. Ibelieve from my experience that most non-Americans would choose the latter. (This is of course only anectdotal). Worse than anecdotal. By "non-Americans" you clearly mean an area of Western Europe the size of, say, Kansas. You know, the part you've visited. It knocks me out the Americans are considered so parochial and culturally self-centered, when a few countries in the Olde Worlde are so routinely said to represent the whole "rest of the world". Yeah? You know the Uruguayan attitude to firearms? How about the Congo? The Afghanis look pretty well armed to me. And are you positive that all the countries where private ownership of firearms are forbidden wouldn't change that if they were given a democratic chance to vote it otherwise? "Rest of the world" indeed! (Forgive me, KA. I'm weak. There's only so much goading I can stand).
+RakeInTheCache Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Worse than anecdotal. By "non-Americans" you clearly mean an area of Western Europe the size of, say, Kansas. You know, the part you've visited. Huh? How would you know how much of the world I've visited? Or did I miss something?
+AuntieWeasel Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Worse than anecdotal. By "non-Americans" you clearly mean an area of Western Europe the size of, say, Kansas. You know, the part you've visited. Huh? How would you know how much of the world I've visited? Or did I miss something? Am I wrong?
+RakeInTheCache Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 (edited) Am I wrong? Did you see my home page? Or look at my stat page?????? Edited May 18, 2005 by RakeInTheCache
+AuntieWeasel Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Am I wrong? Did you see my home page? Or look at my stat page?????? Let's see. France. Italy. Portugal. Germany. Ummm...yeah. That's what I'm talking.
+RakeInTheCache Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Ever heard of a thing called UNESCO? Guess not. Also guess you didn't read my stats page. Had enough?
+Redfive Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 This is not a thread for debating the propriety of gun control laws, nor one for comparing crime statistics from one nation to the next. The topic is: Do you carry a firearm WHILE GEOCACHING? Thanks. Thanks for attempting to pull it back in, Keystone. No, I don't carry a gun while caching. I hope you respect my font choice and my opinion.
+AuntieWeasel Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Ever heard of a thing called UNESCO? Guess not. Also guess you didn't read my stats page. Had enough? Okay, I did my homework assignment. All your finds are in the US or Western Europe, which is what I've been saying. And...?
+sTeamTraen Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 (edited) Just to keep the comparisons simple, I suggest that it might be prudent to confine ourselves to countries and continents where handguns, or the absence thereof, are one of the larger differences between them. Having visited a number of US cities, plus Toronto, Canada, I didn't see a single gun the whole time, except in the holsters of law enforcement. And apparently violent crime is statistically just as prevalent in Canada as in the US. So maybe if the lead item on the nightly news in Toronto (population 3 million) is usually a traffic jam, and the lead item just across the lake in Rochester (population 220,000) is usually a murder, the problem might be more with the media than the situation on the ground. I know I felt safer on the streetcar in Toronto than I ever did on public transport in the US, but that would be "anecdotal, or worse". (And to keep it on topic, I went caching on public transport in Toronto...) Edited May 18, 2005 by sTeamTraen
+RakeInTheCache Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 (edited) "Okay, I did my homework assignment. All your finds are in the US or Western Europe, which is what I've been saying. And...?" (Sigh.) I guess people believe what they really want to believe, even when the evidence to the contrary is staring them in the face. BTW What kind of student where you in school? Edited May 18, 2005 by RakeInTheCache
+AuntieWeasel Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 (Sigh.) I guess people believe what they really want to believe, even when the evidence is staring them in the face. BTW What kind of student where you in school? Eh?
+AuntieWeasel Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Eh? Good Answer Dear me. Is Mister UNESCO-guy trying to call me stupid?
+Perfect Tommy Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Violence begets violence. As an American, I see this issue in termes of the fact that in American, the use of a firearm to solve problems has become ingrained into our culture, while in other Industrialized nations, they have sought out other solutions, much to the tranquility of their populations. Off Topic: Yeah, those "industrialized nations" did a bang-up job from 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 finding solutions to their problems. Luckily, Americans with guns (gasp) were available to help settle their problems. On Topic: I don't carry a gun while geocaching but I respect the rights of others to lawfully carry. Who knows, rattlesnakes aren't the only things you might encounter on the trail.
+Redfive Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Worse than anecdotal. By "non-Americans" you clearly mean an area of Western Europe the size of, say, Kansas. Just so you know, Kansas's area is 213,109 sq. kilometers, while the country of Norway alone is 385,199 sq. kilometers. The world is a big place, people, and the US is only a small part of it. (I hope the kilometers don't throw you for a loop; 1 sq. mile is about 2.6 sq kilometers.)
+RakeInTheCache Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Off Topic: Yeah, those "industrialized nations" did a bang-up job from 1914-1918 and 1939-1945 finding solutions to their problems. Luckily, Americans with guns (gasp) were available to help settle their problems. Guess everybody who was involved in those wars had guns. That's pretty much the way it goes with war. Don't see the connection.
+AuntieWeasel Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 Just so you know, Kansas's area is 213,109 sq. kilometers, while the country of Norway alone is 385,199 sq. kilometers. The world is a big place, people, and the US is only a small part of it. As is Europe. (I hope the kilometers don't throw you for a loop; 1 sq. mile is about 2.6 sq kilometers.) What? Sorry. Busy dribbling on myself. American, you know.
+RakeInTheCache Posted May 18, 2005 Posted May 18, 2005 The world is a big place, people, and the US is only a small part of it. (I hope the kilometers don't throw you for a loop; 1 sq. mile is about 2.6 sq kilometers.) And some of we Americans (believe it or not) have ventured out and seen a big part of that world out there.
Recommended Posts