Travel with guns

I always have a firearm with me ! I might not walk into the café with it or I might not walk in and pay for fuel with it and I might not have it with me when I go to the store, but when I'm set up somewhere or boondocking I have it near by. I'd rather be tried by 12 than carried by 6....

A firearm won't prevent an attack by bears etc simply carrying it. A warning shot sometimes/most will cause them to turn tail. It does give you the option of trying to kill the critter and prevent your own demise. Contrary to what the ASPCA or whoever says a first shot will get the animal's attention if not drop him on the spot. A .22 won't on a half ton animal or at least I won't find out.
A firearm in sight will definately give second and third thoughts to two legged predators. If it a committed attack then you can drop them before they harm you. It is not rocket science to use a firearm nor is common sense. Many including the media have convinced many that you're more likely to be hurt if you have a firearm and have scared many many to the point that they are afraid of anything looking like a firearm.
Make your own decisions, about it but no one is going, to pop out, of the woodwork, most times to save you and so on.

CKNSLS wrote:

TMcArthur wrote:
On the same subject, my hiking buddy and myself have talked recently about carrying our rifles (my shotgun or 30-30 and his AR) when we back-country hike. We have not been doing it yet, simply due to the weight of carrying them, but we both agree we should be carrying them in the back-country. We do not feel that need on the established well populated trails.

Ironically, I do not feel the need to carry either of those while in town, just the handgun. No false sense of security here :)

Why do both of you neede to be armed?

I personally wouldn't want to rely on my hiking buddy to protect me. I might be a better shot, or have a better shot.

In Tim's case, his hiking buddy is an Artillery Sergeant and likes to take his "artillery" out for a walk occasionally. ;) (His hiking buddy is also my son. :B)

I do think that the long guns are over-kill, though. No pun intended. On the other hand, he and I were discussing possible handguns yesterday.

LS

CKNSLS wrote:
Why do both of you needed to be armed?

A great question, and one that I spent a lot of time considering. While there are probably numerous valid answers where I can bring up firearm statistics and best-use-of blah blah blah... but for me it boils down to habit.

I ALWAYS carry my pistol, always. That way my daily habits always include it on my belt. If you only sometimes wear a wrist watch, how easy would it be to forget that wrist watch one morning? Or worse, how much easier would it be for you to forget that wrist watch somewhere in public? Like a public restroom: Cop leaves loaded gun in bathroom, 9-year old finds it. So, I wear it every single waking hour of every single day without exception to avoid such mistakes that could be fatal to others. I do it out of responsibility.

If I had to choose, I'd leave the long gun and carry the hand gun.

EDIT - Oh I must have miss-read your question. I thought you asked why bring both guns (hand and long), but now I see your real question, sorry. Simple answer; then neither of us are the weak link if something did happen. I guess a good compromise is for one to carry the handgun and one to carry the long gun.

TMcArthur wrote:
On the same subject, my hiking buddy and myself have talked recently about carrying our rifles (my shotgun or 30-30 and his AR) when we back-country hike. We have not been doing it yet, simply due to the weight of carrying them, but we both agree we should be carrying them in the back-country. We do not feel that need on the established well populated trails.

Ironically, I do not feel the need to carry either of those while in town, just the handgun. No false sense of security here :)

Why do both of you neede to be armed?

On the same subject, my hiking buddy and myself have talked recently about carrying our rifles (my shotgun or 30-30 and his AR) when we back-country hike. We have not been doing it yet, simply due to the weight of carrying them, but we both agree we should be carrying them in the back-country. We do not feel that need on the established well populated trails.

Ironically, I do not feel the need to carry either of those while in town, just the handgun. No false sense of security here :)

I'm not too sure that anyone that carries a gun legally has ANY sense of security, hence the reason they carry a gun in the first place. If they become over-confident in their safety, that it a character flaw of the person, not a flaw in the gun.

I would agree that a handgun against a bear is nothing more than throwing a rock at it... boy saves his siblings from bear attack by throwing rock. If a rock can be effective, so can a handgun.

The Alaska Dept of Fish and Game recommends "Select a gun that will stop a bear (12-gauge shotgun or .300 mag rifle) and practice firing it at a rifle range." and "If a bear approaches your campsite aggressively chase it away. Make noise with pots and pans, throw rocks, and if needed, hit the bear." I'm sure they are not going to recommend that the average person start shooting at every bear they see, but if they are saying rocks and hitting a bear is effective, 15 handgun bullets *can* potentially be effective too, yes? I'd rather have something then nothing at all.

I do consider a handgun as not enough to stop a big bear that is determined to attack you, but I would hope the sound of a firing gun would turn the average non-rabid-bear around (they have very sensitive hearing). If not, then I would be screwed with or without the gun so the argument is moot. If a handgun is not needed in our nations forests, the Forest Rangers would not have one on their belt. Yet, they are in fact armed just as heavily as our inner-city police.

Don't kid yourself, NOT carrying a gun makes you no more safe in that scenario. Carrying one gives you *some* chance, even if it is small. Why would you disarm yourself?

TMcArthur wrote:
Depends on each state's laws, but for the most part you are innocent until proven guilty. If you had to use a gun in self defense, you should expect to be cuffed, gun taken away, and at the very least spend the day being interviewed... at the least. You should most certainly take your right to not speak without an attorney, and hire a good attorney as well.

Obviously, you should take time out of your life to train and train and train for such a situation. Law abiding citizens who choose to carry a gun spend a lot of time and money to take classes, not just on the actual shooting but also on the legal aspects of carrying a lethal weapon. We all want to protect our families, but WITHIN THE LAW.

In some states (like my Colorado), your vehicle is a literal extension of your house. Anyone who breaks into your "house" can be assumed they are meaning to do harm and/or kill, and you may defend yourself with lethal force. In other states (CA, NY, IL?) you may have a more difficult time staying out of jail, but if it was a legitimate self-defense shoot you will be going home thanks to the 2nd Amendment (and a good attorney). I'm not sure why some states rate a criminal's life as more valuable then ours, but some do. Make sure to vote smart next election to solve that madness.

No matter the State law, if someone is threatening to kill me or my family, I will protect myself and them with lethal force but only as a last resort. If I have the opportunity to run instead of shoot, I will do just that... the gun should be a last resort (in all states) used only to prevent major bodily harm (including rape) or the death of another person.

Thanks, that seems like a good common sense answer. I guess it also depends on the individual as well.
I agree with the hand gun use for animals like bears etc. Not a good idea.

TMcArthur wrote:
Depends on each state's laws, but for the most part you are innocent until proven guilty. If you had to use a gun in self defense, you should expect to be cuffed, gun taken away, and at the very least spend the day being interviewed... at the least. You should most certainly take your right to not speak, and hire a good attorney.

But again, you should take time out of your life to train and train and train for such a situation. Law abiding citizens who choose to carry a gun spend a lot of time and money to take classes, not just on the actual shooting but also on the legal aspects of carrying a lethal weapon. We all want to protect our families, but WITHIN THE LAW.

In some states (like my Colorado), your vehicle is a literal extension of your house. Anyone who breaks into your "house" can be assumed they are meaning to do harm and/or kill, and you may defend yourself with lethal force. In some states you are required to retreat first. In other states (CA, NY, IL?) you may have a more difficult time staying out of jail, but if it was a legitimate self-defense shoot you will be going home thanks to the 2nd Amendment (and a good attorney). I'm not sure why some states rate a criminal's life as more valuable then ours, but some do. Make sure to vote smart next election to solve that madness.

No matter the State law, if someone is threatening to kill me or my family, I will protect myself and them with lethal force but only as a last resort. If I have the opportunity to run instead of shoot, I will do just that.

Yes.

My responsibility to protect my family trumps the inconvenience of going to court. And I fully believe that it's better to be judged by twelve than carried by six if it comes to that. I take other precautions to prevent it coming to that, though.

None of this changes b/c it might take a few minutes to study up on the RV and firearm laws of the states I'll be traveling through.

Mootpoint wrote:
If you feel better carrying a gun then go for it.
The problem I have is the false sense of security some people get carrying a hand gun while hiking or boon-docking in the wild believing it is enough of a deterrent against black, brown and grizzly bears. When you can shoot a bear with a hunting rifle and if you don't get a true shot off all you're going to do is piss it off. Been there. Taking into consideration how accurate most people are with a hand gun, especially when surprised or scared, not a good choice.

I'm more concerned about the two-legged critters than the four-legged ones...four-legged critters are more predictable! :)

If you feel better carrying a gun then go for it.
The problem I have is the false sense of security some people get carrying a hand gun while hiking or boon-docking in the wild believing it is enough of a deterrent against black, brown and grizzly bears. When you can shoot a bear with a hunting rifle and if you don't get a true shot off all you're going to do is piss it off. Been there. Taking into consideration how accurate most people are with a hand gun, especially when surprised or scared, not a good choice.