Safety

[Jim2007]

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

[DiskDoctr]

Not sure who picked out 21 ft or why? 20 ft barely takes more than point and shoot. Inside of that, don't even bother with sites.

With very minimal practice 30-40 ft on a person sized target should have very reliable hits.

I think people have an image from the media of "drive by shooting stray bullets" that go into houses, windows, whatever. But those are careless and intentionally reckless and harmful wild shots by criminals. In reality it is not the case, when involving those carrying for self-defense.

Carrying a firearm in your camper so you and your family can be safe and secure is not any big deal, IMHO. As long as you are not a "prohibited person" (which is a net that snags far too many people, IMHO).

Be smart, keep your wits about you, and have the tools you need to protect your family. It's really not any big deal. Unfortunately it is the extremists who get all the media attention such that the average person gets a very distorted view of the whole thing.

A: Not everyone who carries a firearm is a nut
B: Not everyone who chooses not to carry a firearm has a panic attack if they see a poptart shaped like a gun

That's the true reality of it.

[doc_brown]

cmcdar wrote:

TwinTurbo wrote:

cmcdar wrote:
OK, I'll bite...

GOD didn't give you a gun. God gave you a Commandment - Thou Shalt NOT KILL.

Gun ownrs talk about needing a gun because of lawbreakers with guns YET these same gun owners are often times the ones breaking the laws.

If an establishment says NO GUNS (their right) why do you feel your right is above everyone elses?

But this thread was not about the right to have a gun. This thread was about SAFETY while camping.

I'm in a campground right now. The campground forbids firearms (their right). The only reason I feel unsafe at all is because I know that gun owners will bring their guns regardless.

A lot of false assumptions in your post. First, remove religion from the convo. It is possible to support the 2nd amendment without following religion.

Second, you're assuming someone that is legally armed would patronize an establishment that does not support them being legally armed. Personally, I would not and do not spend my $ at/in places that want to restrict my freedoms. At least as best as I am able to do so.

You sound like you have an irrational fear of people that choose to exercise their 2nd amendment right.

Your outrage only shows your blatant disregard for my rights.

I say, you can have a gun, please don't bring it into my space. You say, you will bring it anywhere you please.

THIS is why folks have problems with this issue.

You won't know I'm armed if I'm in your space. It's for my protection and the protection of my loved ones. If you are in trouble you have to call the police and wait for them to arrive.

[WTP-GC]

As I stated, those distances reflect discharging the weapon. The weapon would have already been drawn and notice of the self-defensive response established long before they closed the distance to 20ish feet. Moreover, I can assure you that my weapon can be drawn and fired in well under 3 seconds.

[Turtle_n_Peeps]

These 3 bad guy's picked the wrong house.

This just happened the other day in Ok.

[StiltzM109R]

You guys do realize that an attacker can close a distance of 21 feet in under 3 seconds. That's not even enough time to draw and fire unless you train with your firearm regularly.

As for bullets passing through people and RV's, if you're using hollow point ammo, that should mitigate the risk. If you're carrying anything bigger than a .45 caliber, you should re-evaluate your everyday carry.

There are many CCW apps for your phone that break down each states laws and are updated regularly. I carry every where. If I can't carry in a state, then I don't visit. Same for businesses that prohibit carry on their property.

[beemerphile1]

DiskDoctr wrote:
So if someone is planning on a multi-state, trip over several weeks, where permits and licenses may vary, keeping a firearm in your "parked home" is fine in every state.

Not that simple, a few states have tried to eliminate gun ownership/possession entirely. In those states, the only thing you have in your favor are the federal gun transport laws which are valid in all states.

One of the crazy (and bad) things about gun laws are that they vary so much state to state. There is very little uniformity.

Never the less, having a valid CCW permit does make it easier in a majority of the states. My permit is valid in 33 states currently but that can change daily when new laws are passed. It is up to the gun owner to know the laws in the state/county/city in which they are standing at any particular moment.

[am1958]

pnichols:

That bear spray is a wonderful idea until the threat is upwind of you in a fair breeze then you shoot yourself in the foot so to speak.

WTP:

It is generally considered that, in optimal conditions, 7 yards or 21 feet is the point at which you have recognized an imminent threat and moved from the alert state to the active state - meaning you are reacting to an identified threat rather then aware of it's existence. 21 feet is the distance a man can cover in the time it takes to draw an unconcealed pistol.

It is generally accepted that most SD shootings take place at 5-7 feet indicating that the 21 foot rule is somewhat accurate. Unfortunately, even without stress, there are people that will miss at that range. Here in Michigan one is expected to put 30 rounds on paper at 12 feet in order to qualify for a Concealed Pistol License. A lady on my course had to leave the range to purchase an additional 50 round box of ammunition in order to qualify. Personally, I would have sent her home and told her to come back when she can hit 30 of 30... But I'm an awful person... 😉

[WTP-GC]

TyroneandGladys wrote:

IMHO for my life to be threatened the person would have to be within 20 feet so I do not need anything that would be accurate beyond that.

For self-defense purposes, one should only ever discharge their firearm if the threat is within arms length (as a figurative term). Whether that is 5 feet or 20 feet is up to you. The point is that self-defense should not be a gun battle. If I'm by myself and there was a single threat, then I wouldn't be considering firing a shot beyond 10 feet. More than that, one could argue that I should have reasonable chance to flee. However, if I had one or two of my children with me, I'm not nearly as mobile so the range increases.

It is an extremely rare occurrence (so rare that you'd have to crawl the Internet to find more than a couple of cases) that a projectile discharged in self-defense strikes any unintended person(s).

[pnichols]

TyroneandGladys wrote:
IMHO for my life to be threatened the person would have to be within 20 feet so I do not need anything that would be accurate beyond that.
I would want something that did not require me to be super accurate but at the same time stop the threat and not become a threat to someone 50 feet away or in there home/RV
I would want something small so that it is easy to take with me something big might be to much hassle to take.

Exactly!!!

That's why I recommend this non-lethal approach for protection during RV travel - where it's legal that is, as it's too powerful to be legal in some states:
https://www.amazon.com/Frontiersman-Bear-Spray-Hip-Holster/dp/B002E6VAHK

I own and have owned some very lethal semi-automatic hunting firearms in magnum calibers. What they have taught me is to only trust them in the hands of experts and to not trust amateurs with even dumbed-down versions of them - especially those who want to carry them in secret so I can't tell who to stay away from.

[TyroneandGladys]

Keep in mind where do the bullets go?
A large caliber bullet could easily go thru the wall of your house and thru the wall of your neighbor and still have enough force to kill someone. With that thought how many RV's could they go thru?
IMHO for my life to be threatened the person would have to be within 20 feet so I do not need anything that would be accurate beyond that.
I would want something that did not require me to be super accurate but at the same time stop the threat and not become a threat to someone 50 feet away or in there home/RV
I would want something small so that it is easy to take with me something big might be to much hassle to take.
The answer for me would be this combo.
Taurus Judge
PDXI

[Walaby]

am1958 wrote:
As a Brit I often have cause to argue the American gun culture with Brits/Europeans/Canadians. The one thing that has struck me after many years and many discussions is the fact that, like you, they will never understand the American mindset. As a block you all believe that the European/British/Canadian way is _the_ way with utter disregard for the plain fact that people came/come to America precisely because they want(ed) get away from that mindset.

Until you can understand the underlying reason for their ancestors leaving those countries to come here and passing those traits down to the subsequent generations you will not be able to understand why most Americans hold up the Constitution and the Bill of Rights as _the_ standard for freedom in the world and that one of the main tenets of the Founders was that all men have the right to be armed for the purpose of protection against danger up to and including a tyrannical government.

The majority of Americans fully understand that the Second Amendment is the only one that assures all the other amendments can stand and for that reason alone it has it's purpose and thus it is probably the most important. Without it all the others are simply scribble on a piece of paper in the eyes of a potential dictator.

My vote for the best response in 17 pages.

I am quite impressed on the overall civility that has been maintained. It still cracks me up though how people who are not a proponent of the second amendment, or concealed carry, immediately assume everyone who does is paranoid, and afraid of their own shadow. A typical reaction when no other argument holds water.

Those who choose to not carry or own a gun have the right to choose that course of action. Those of us who do choose to carry have the right to do so as well. And rest assured, if we are in close proximity to you, in your time of need, and have the wherewithall to render assistance, we will not discriminate in your time of need.

Mike

[WTP-GC]

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.

[NYCgrrl]

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. LOL

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... 😉

Offense and words.........hehehe again (insert angel to devil emoticon here).

[am1958]

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?

[wnjj]

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.