Safety
Hi All.. Maybe it is just me but I am getting concerned about our personal safety at camp grounds. Should a camper carry a weapon(gun)in the camper? Currently I do not. Jim2007
Forum Discussion
westernrvparkowner wrote:
In 2012, the last year I can find statistics for, there were 259 justifiable homicides (killing in self defense) and 548 accidental shooting deaths. There is a consistent pattern of 2 accidental shooting deaths per each justifiable self defense killing over the years I can easily find statistics for. And that doesn't take into account the leading cause of death by handguns, which is suicide.
By my reasoning I am twice as likely to accidentally kill an innocent person than I would be to actually stop a criminal dead in his tracks. And without a gun in my possession, I am highly unlikely to become one of the 8000+ people who shoot themselves to death on purpose, which might become a consideration if I shot an innocent bystander to death.
If you're going to use compiled statistics from a know anti-gun group (such Violence Policy Center), then I reserve the right to use numbers from the NRA, which claims that firearms are used over 2.5 million times annually to stop or prevent a crime. Naturally, you're statistics fall back on FBI data, which is proven to be inaccurate because it only includes data reported to them. There is no accurate way of calculating how many times guns are used to stop or prevent crime, and no governmental agency tracks this info.am1958 wrote:
NYCgrrl wrote:
I responded to the specific opinion piece's hypothesis and crime that was referenced and refuted it with just the facts.
And I responded to your "opinion piece's" conclusion.
Errrrrrrrrr you posted the opinion piece initially not I:D
NYCgrrl wrote:
Nowwwwwww you want to stretch your own argument a little further to come to the same conclusion. Hmmmmmmm OK, I'll give it a whirl one more time.
My interpretation is he had an objective, wanted to go through with it and recalled that airports have metal detectors as well as armed personnel and light. Perfectly normal thinking in a psychotic type of way; Ted Bundy, J.A. Muhammed et al didn't want to be caught w/o gratification either.
Ah, so you admit that what you are saying is _only_ your interpretation. That's fair, but it doesn't make your "interpretation" right. Your first mistake is thinking that the security at airports is effective. It isn't, period. If you pass through airports often you'll know that there are far more people outside the "secure" zone than inside. Were I to be a terrorist a busy airport outside the "secure zone" would be an attractive target. For the record and with no malicious intent involved I have passed through airport security twice since 9-11 unchecked - because the idiots providing the "security" don't have the capacity to deal with multiple "threats" in rapid succession.
Noooooo I clearly said in an earlier post it was the jury's opinion of the testimony and evidence presented to them. Errrrrrrr I grew up with lawyers, near and dear to me, soNot preaching at all. Merely stating facts that are not disputed by either side of the aisle. Were I preaching I would have expanded on my experiences which made my blood boil when a different poster chose that cheap (IMO) route.
Domestic terrorism has killed far more people in the US, a stat which many choose to ignore.
Brave lady? Hehehe. Talk to the ex, the man and my all male children; they'll tell you stories that'll make hair grow.
Never faced down a gun but survived a prospective knife attack with no physical effect. LOLNYCgrrl wrote:
I live in an area that's been directly affected by the banality of mass murder and thus make a conscious effort to not live like a rabbit quaking underground as the hounds bay above. Continuing the lapin visual, I choose to emulate Hazel over General Woundwort.
I grew up in a country in a time it was plagued by the IRA. I lost a friend while I was still in high school to a terrorist so, please, try not to preach too much. America, despite 9-11 and everything since doesn't yet "get" terrorism". I hope it never really reaches here.
But, I also understand that a big part of the reason terrorism is unsuccessful here is because, like the criminals, they understand that their chance of success is limited by the potential for meeting an armed civilian. I'm almost 60 and have spent much of my life under the threat of armed criminals, terrorists or nutcases. You're a brave lady if you don't play the scared rabbit. Simple question though, did you ever see a man with malicious intent carrying a firearm and looking at you?NYCgrrl wrote:
And since you called me "my dear", I'll refer to you as "Babeeeee" said in my best Dean Martin in 'They Came Running' imitation:W.
Sweetie, you can call me anything you please. I won't be offended. I don't take offense to words, I'm far too powerful to worry about such minor slights... ;)
Offense and words.........hehehe again (insert angel to devil emoticon here).westernrvparkowner wrote:
In 2012, the last year I can find statistics for, there were 259 justifiable homicides (killing in self defense) and 548 accidental shooting deaths. There is a consistent pattern of 2 accidental shooting deaths per each justifiable self defense killing over the years I can easily find statistics for. And that doesn't take into account the leading cause of death by handguns, which is suicide.
By my reasoning I am twice as likely to accidentally kill an innocent person than I would be to actually stop a criminal dead in his tracks. And without a gun in my possession, I am highly unlikely to become one of the 8000+ people who shoot themselves to death on purpose, which might become a consideration if I shot an innocent bystander to death.
Brilliant.
Your argument is basically based on the fact that there are twice as many people who have no clue as to how their firearm works and therefore screw up before educating themselves on what their purchase can and will do if improperly handled therefore it should be banned/restricted.
Do you see how you make yourself look a bit silly?
If you want to kill yourself, there are a lot prettier and equally as easy solutions as a firearm. But let's be a tad honest, if you _really_, _really_ want to kill yourself, (a very selfish act in my opinion), then you'll find a way. The firearm isn't the bad actor, you are.
People need to start taking responsibility for their lives and actions... Or is that too hard for us nowadays?NYCgrrl wrote:
Not how it works on my end re: metal detectors. Clearly posted what items are not allowed in court/airports/ government bldgs before and after you get there and are searched electronically. Those allowed to carry have a separate entrance/line and protocol.
Is it worth it? Clearly on my end.
The point I was trying to make is to truly get the relief of a gun-free zone, you'd need metal detectors. All of those places you mentioned are well-known so are less of an issue.
I was referring to when you said praying, waiting for public transit and sleeping. You'd need metal detectors in all of those places too (except if sleeping means in your house). I don't know how many people would enjoy being screened going to all of those regular daily places.
Everyone: Thanks for keeping it civil. Dialog is a good thing.Boon Docker wrote:
myredracer wrote:
I'll never understand the obsession and fascination with firearms throughout the US,
It is called the Marshall Dillon Syndrome. :B
As another one outside of the forest looking in, same thing. The cops are not even armed here. Get caught with a BB gun & you are going to jail. Flare guns are illegal. Wrist rocket sling shots are illegal.
Course you can have all the laws you want, the bad guys will still have guns & we do get a few murders a year by gun.wnjj wrote:
NYCgrrl wrote:
Me? I prefer gun free zones in my life such as whilst praying, waiting for public transport, sleeping,etc. Gives me some relief from day to day cares w/o feeling there is a boogey man lurking behind every bush.
I think we'd all like to feel safe in those places, however are you suggesting the boogey men are those citizens legally carrying guns? They really aren't anything to be afraid of. Signs won't prevent criminals from carrying weapons in those places so you're only getting relief from the first type.
I think if you read my other posts on this thread you'll find who I consider the "boogey man":).NYCgrrl wrote:
As an aside I think that if businesses chose to allow no guns on site it's not that hard to install a metal detector. To me it would be wise since some believe only some or no laws apply to them.
This is the only real way you can achieve the relief you desire. Nobody will have a gun if they all have to pass through a metal detector. The question I have to ask: Is it really worth it? I recently had to throw my less than 2" long pocket knife in the garbage because I had forgotten to leave it home (and hadn't been to an NBA game in 20 years so was caught off guard when they even had metal detectors there). This was just so some can feel "relief".
Not how it works on my end re: metal detectors. Clearly posted what items are not allowed in court/airports/ government bldgs before and after you get there and are searched electronically. Those allowed to carry have a separate entrance/line and protocol.
Is it worth it? Clearly on my end.- In 2012, the last year I can find statistics for, there were 259 justifiable homicides (killing in self defense) and 548 accidental shooting deaths. There is a consistent pattern of 2 accidental shooting deaths per each justifiable self defense killing over the years I can easily find statistics for. And that doesn't take into account the leading cause of death by handguns, which is suicide.
By my reasoning I am twice as likely to accidentally kill an innocent person than I would be to actually stop a criminal dead in his tracks. And without a gun in my possession, I am highly unlikely to become one of the 8000+ people who shoot themselves to death on purpose, which might become a consideration if I shot an innocent bystander to death. NYCgrrl wrote:
I responded to the specific opinion piece's hypothesis and crime that was referenced and refuted it with just the facts.
And I responded to your "opinion piece's" conclusion.
NYCgrrl wrote:
Nowwwwwww you want to stretch your own argument a little further to come to the same conclusion. Hmmmmmmm OK, I'll give it a whirl one more time.
My interpretation is he had an objective, wanted to go through with it and recalled that airports have metal detectors as well as armed personnel and light. Perfectly normal thinking in a psychotic type of way; Ted Bundy, J.A. Muhammed et al didn't want to be caught w/o gratification either.
Ah, so you admit that what you are saying is _only_ your interpretation. That's fair, but it doesn't make your "interpretation" right. Your first mistake is thinking that the security at airports is effective. It isn't, period. If you pass through airports often you'll know that there are far more people outside the "secure" zone than inside. Were I to be a terrorist a busy airport outside the "secure zone" would be an attractive target. For the record and with no malicious intent involved I have passed through airport security twice since 9-11 unchecked - because the idiots providing the "security" don't have the capacity to deal with multiple "threats" in rapid succession.NYCgrrl wrote:
I live in an area that's been directly affected by the banality of mass murder and thus make a conscious effort to not live like a rabbit quaking underground as the hounds bay above. Continuing the lapin visual, I choose to emulate Hazel over General Woundwort.
I grew up in a country in a time it was plagued by the IRA. I lost a friend while I was still in high school to a terrorist so, please, try not to preach too much. America, despite 9-11 and everything since doesn't yet "get" terrorism". I hope it never really reaches here.
But, I also understand that a big part of the reason terrorism is unsuccessful here is because, like the criminals, they understand that their chance of success is limited by the potential for meeting an armed civilian. I'm almost 60 and have spent much of my life under the threat of armed criminals, terrorists or nutcases. You're a brave lady if you don't play the scared rabbit. Simple question though, did you ever see a man with malicious intent carrying a firearm and looking at you?NYCgrrl wrote:
And since you called me "my dear", I'll refer to you as "Babeeeee" said in my best Dean Martin in 'They Came Running' imitation:W.
Sweetie, you can call me anything you please. I won't be offended. I don't take offense to words, I'm far too powerful to worry about such minor slights... ;)NYCgrrl wrote:
Me? I prefer gun free zones in my life such as whilst praying, waiting for public transport, sleeping,etc. Gives me some relief from day to day cares w/o feeling there is a boogey man lurking behind every bush.
I think we'd all like to feel safe in those places, however are you suggesting the boogey men are those citizens legally carrying guns? They really aren't anything to be afraid of. Signs won't prevent criminals from carrying weapons in those places so you're only getting relief from the first type.NYCgrrl wrote:
As an aside I think that if businesses chose to allow no guns on site it's not that hard to install a metal detector. To me it would be wise since some believe only some or no laws apply to them.
This is the only real way you can achieve the relief you desire. Nobody will have a gun if they all have to pass through a metal detector. The question I have to ask: Is it really worth it? I recently had to throw my less than 2" long pocket knife in the garbage because I had forgotten to leave it home (and hadn't been to an NBA game in 20 years so was caught off guard when they even had metal detectors there). This was just so some can feel "relief".WTP-GC wrote:
NYCgrrl wrote:
The Constitution has been amended...at least 25 times in the life of the document but the right to bear arms remains and thus is the current law of the land. You want guns to maintain your militia fine by me but not a right I need to exercise. Pretty sure I said that on page one of this thread.
The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with "maintaining" a militia. It does, however, deal directly with the ability to form a militia in effect for the security of a free state by allowing THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. An effective militia cannot be formed unless the citizenry has the right to arms. Syntax and punctuation is critical in this case to have an adequate understanding.
Punctuation w/o syntax is useless for legal interpretative purposes, so let's both be correct in the actual words and grammar used:The U.S. Constitution wrote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Some judges adhere to the 'individual rights' theory whilst others feel "collective rights" is the correct thought. Currently, the interpretation of BOTH theories have been questioned by a SCOTUS ruling in the 21st century.NYCgrrl wrote:
Interestingly enough it's the same type of argument you used in an earlier post: a biased and emotional video to make your case for why guns are needed by the citizenry.
Strange, how that doesn't work for another poster in your opinion;).
If you believe that mob violence against innocents is meant to create an emotional bias, then so be it.
I believe that YOU believe that an emotional response will sway others to your belief. I can think of no other reason to place that disgusting discredited conspiracy laden "informational" website's vid as back up to your argument.NYCgrrl wrote:
Me? I prefer gun free zones in my life such as whilst praying, waiting for public transport, sleeping,etc. Gives me some relief from day to day cares w/o feeling there is a boogey man lurking behind every bush.
You're either demonizing lawful and responsible gun owners or suggesting that criminals actually care about laws...or both.
Neither and parsing my words doesn't change my clear printed thoughts.
The question about respecting other people's property rights (in terms of gun free zones) gets sticky in a hurry. If you happen to find yourself in an establishment that forbids them, is it then better to leave your firearm in your car in a non-secure parking lot? We recently visited a place that had a no-gun policy on certain parts of the property, but not others. I've always found it best to just carry on (pun intended) in such situations instead of increasing potential risk caused by mis-use of firearms by those who could break into your vehicle.
Nothing sticky about my expressed thoughts.
Currently the best solution (IMO) is to have rules like many states (my good ole FL included), where a "no guns allowed" sign doesn't have the force of law unless the property owner (or their representative) asks you to leave and you refuse to do so. This way, you're still legally respecting the property rights of others even if you initially choose to carry. But of course, the idea of "concealed" means that folks ought not easily be able to CONFIRM you're carrying a firearm. I, nor anyone I know, has ever been asked to leave somewhere because of carrying a firearm.
This relates entirely to campgrounds as well. We camp often in Georgia State Parks. Georgia is an open-carry state. As recently as 18 months ago, the state parks had signs banning firearms. Now, they've changed the signs to allow for properly licensed individuals to carry in accordance with state law. Georgia reciprocates with FL and many other states, and they also establish "no guns allowed" signs as not having the force of law.
I'm not interested in camping anywhere that allows guns on a camp ground w/ the possible exception of the state's hunting season. This is my choice which of course is still allowed.
