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

[Veebyes]

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.

[NYCgrrl]

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.

[westernrvparkow]

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.

[am1958]

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... 😉

[wnjj]

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".

[NYCgrrl]

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.

[Rovin__Bones]

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

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

The original language word is MURDER, not "kill". If you are going to be a scripture lawyer, be literate in it.

[ken56]

Do all dog owners clean up after their little darlings? Some dog owners think the rules don't apply to them.

Some people think that the law does not apply to them, we call them criminals, they are the ones that I prefer to have the ability to respond to with as much force as necessary to stop them from forcing their will upon me including any possible harm.

My having a firearm in my RV or even on my person is not an infringement of anyone else's rights as I am not using it to force anyone to do or not do anything. You will never know if I have a firearm on me anyway because you will never see it nor will I even tell you I have one. I do respect private property owners wishes and if they prefer to be a gun free zone that's fine with me as I will not be camping with them.

[cmcdar]

Just in case anyone is interested here is the sign at the entrance of the campground where I am currently staying in GEORGIA.



Not all gun owners are alike. Some have a need to shove "their rights" wherever they want.

God forbid that a family campground forbids guns, some gun owners feel that the rules do not apply to them.

It is this very attitude that steps on the rights of other citizens.

Some of you are law abiding and respectful and many are not.

THAT IS THE PROBLEM.

[NYCgrrl]

am1958 wrote:

NYCgrrl wrote:
I believe you are getting your information from an OPINION piece published by Fox.

The fact is the shooter choose this theater after casing it and 2 others, as well as an airport. He seemed to prefer this cineplex to others for a variety of reasons: type of seating, hours of operation and the dark interior.

In all his meticulous notes, a gun free zone advantage never was listed and he fully expected to be caught or killed. This info came out in the trial and is documented there in testimony and collected evidence (his diary).

You can believe what you wish my dear. Look at this page of Holmes notes.



The man is discussing with himself the best way to kill a large number of people. He looks at the different options and discounts most for reasons of his own. Then he decides upon the venue in the last paragraph. He specifically discounts the Airport because of the security. ie: he fully understands that where there are armed people there is the possibility that his "spree" would be cut short. His "Mass Murder/Spree" paragraph shows clearly that his intent is the maximum casualties. His other page that states that armed assistance in the form of police or National Guard is in the region of 3 minutes. Thus he has decided that he has three minutes to effect as much mayhem as possible in a place that lacks security.

I can see how you might conclude that the fact this was a gun free zone was not a care to him because it isn't in his notes. However, the fact that that fact did not appear in his notes does not prove it wasn't a factor. The fact that he took into account security at the airport does however prove that he was concerned about security.

If you really don't believe that gun free zones aren't an attractant then please explain why schools, colleges and malls feature in so many mass shootings while gun stores, police stations and Bass Pro shops are conspicuously absent from the list of places.

I responded to the specific opinion piece's hypothesis and crime that was referenced and refuted it with just the facts.

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.

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.

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.

[lakeside013104]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks WPT-GC for taking the time to share your point of view. Very interesting.

Lakeside

[lakeside013104]

irishtom29 wrote:

Blazing Zippers wrote:

When I was a LEO...

No longer a Leo? What are you now? Frank? Jim?

One would assume that Mr Zippers is a retired LEO. Thank you for your service. I do NOT question what you are now. Others may think they need to know, but really, probably not our business.

Thanks for your input Mr Zippers.

Safe camping to all.

Lakeside

[cmcdar]

spoon059 wrote:

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

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

Actually, the Commandment is very specific about unlawful killing, or murder. The bible clearly states that killing for certain circumstances is allowed. Murder is forbidden, but when Christ says murder, he isn't even talking about the illegal taking of life. The bible clearly states that if you have hatred in your heart for another man, you are guilty of murder, whether or not you actually kill him.

I'd read the bible a little closer before quoting it again if I were you.

SORRY - I mistakenly thought that the 10 Commandments were carved in STONE. GOD did not have printing press on the mountain top, did he?

LEARN to READ yourself.

[spoon059]

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

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

Actually, the Commandment is very specific about unlawful killing, or murder. The bible clearly states that killing for certain circumstances is allowed. Murder is forbidden, but when Christ says murder, he isn't even talking about the illegal taking of life. The bible clearly states that if you have hatred in your heart for another man, you are guilty of murder, whether or not you actually kill him.

I'd read the bible a little closer before quoting it again if I were you.

[malexander]

I carry. Also keep a few in the mh.