"Bad things don't happen on the trail..." a/k/a "If she only had a pistol..."

[Chinpo]

- target shooting
- hunting
- professional competition
- LEO usage
- defensive
- teaching tool
- and yes, even killing people

a VERY multi purpose tool.

Firstly, let me say that I enjoy shooting. I've never been hunting, but I enjoy going to the range and practicing (Or I used to, before living in Japan).

In reference to your multi-purpose tool points, all of those include practicing shooting people/animals, actually shooting people/animals or as a deterrent (With the promise of shooting people/animals).
When I go to the range, I'm practicing how to kill someone or something.
Hunting, well that is actually killing something.
As a teaching tool we are teaching someone how to kill people/animals.
Competition shooting, well I used to study kendo. It's a sport, but at the very heart it's about trying to kill your opponent.

A knife is a truly multi-purpose tool. A gun, really, has only one.

EDIT: My apologies. This belongs in current events. This is why I don't usually post in these kinds of threads.

 

[Calebklyne]

- target shooting
- hunting
- professional competition
- LEO usage
- defensive
- teaching tool
- and yes, even killing people

a VERY multi purpose tool.

I think chinpo says exactly what i meant. I for one am in the process of applying for the police force so in no way against guns but i think they should be used by those who need them or for hunting or at ranges. I dont at all think anybody should be allowed to carry one whenever and wherever they want

 

[5knives]

Hmmm ...

How very odd!

A Survival Forum forwarding and discussing reasons why people should be UN-prepared when they have the option to BE prepared.

Reckon it's just another one of those mysteries of Life.

JMHO anyway, never mind!

Regards,
...

 

[InfidelShootist]

I think chinpo says exactly what i meant. I for one am in the process of applying for the police force so in no way against guns but i think they should be used by those who need them or for hunting or at ranges. I dont at all think anybody should be allowed to carry one whenever and wherever they want

Lucky for us you didn't write the Constitution and are actually suppose to enforce the law even if you don't agree with it.Personally,the way I see it,there is no difference between someone who would limit my right of self defense or limit my speech,steal my properly or search my home without cause.You either believe in the constitution or you don't.You support a police state and tyranny or you don't.

"i think they should be used by those who need them "

Just out of morbid curiosity as you say you want to be law enforcement just who "needs" them in your opinion?
Realize,felons and mentally disabled are already non eligible.

 

[Chinpo]

My point is that a gun is a tool, but it has only one real use. To either kill or maim in the execution of "good" or "evil".
I have nothing against people carrying for self-defence, owning guns for hunting or sport. I just feel that it's up to the individual to make that choice and they shouldn't be ridiculed for either deciding to or not to carry.

 

[Mentor]

Hmmm ...

How very odd!

A Survival Forum forwarding and discussing reasons why people should be UN-prepared when they have the option to BE prepared.

Reckon it's just another one of those mysteries of Life.

JMHO anyway, never mind!

Regards,
...

It isn't an either / or thing. There are different approaches to preparedness. I know some guys who hike with a rifle and a fire kit and consider themselves pretty well set. Others carry a comprehensive FAK, but no firearm. Hard to say which of the two approaches is 'more prepared'. Going on past experience, I have had more occasions to be thankful for a well-stocked FAK, but your mileage may vary.

Best,

- Mike

 

[absolutindian]

May God have mercy on his soul. I think he'll need it; and soon as he is 61. Tragic story for her and her family.

Yeah, not so sure about this. If there is a god, and he grants mercy to this piece of sh*t, then I'm not entirely convinced that this god and I are on the same page... in fact, I'm pretty sure we're reading different books.

 

[vector001]

What he said.:grumpy:

sorry to offend you, brethren.

i've been on SAR and helped drag bodies like hers out of rivers and snow banks, and hasty graves, etc.

- one girl was killed about a mile from my beautiful sister's house, same description as my sister - i heard it on the radio first. - the guy offed her, by her vehicle with her dog. a casual hand in her parka pocket with a .38 in it would've changed the odds.

all i see is someone who bought a lie, and died for it.

no offense was intended. you need to cut through the sentiment and see the new game plan.

it's just facts.

If I'm shot in a bank robbery, does this automatically enter me for a Darwin award?

brother chinpo - if you are shot in a bank robbery, caught unarmed, you can reasonable expect someone to come to your aid within a few minutes, if not a few seconds - i think that is fundamentally different than going out in the woods, unable or unwilling to be ready to defend yourself.


i worry about other women being lead by her (pre-death at least) example.

how many women saw her solo/unarmed example and followed it, just playing the numbers? what if one of those women was your wife or daughter? be careful who you label as heroes, especially those folks who made a mistake and died, is my advice.

people are preyed upon and killed in the woods and wilderness following her example, folks. anything registering?


the world's getting nastier.

there's things you can do about it.

if you choose not to take countermeasures, ...well ...there's a verb named after a man, folks... he spent some time on the Galapagos.

call me what ya want, but let's see the blood from people needlessly victimized on your hands first, as a first responder.

i'm just the messenger.

vec

 

[STAGE 2]

Rick,
I agree 100% that a gun is not a magic wand, and you can't just wave it and make the scary thing go away.

Funny enough, most attacks are stopped by doing exactly this. In other words, a majority of people who have used a firearm to defend themselves only pulled their hog leg rather than shot it.

I just feel that it's up to the individual to make that choice and they shouldn't be ridiculed for either deciding to or not to carry.

I completely agree. The choice is completely personal and since I don't want someone coming into my home and telling me I shouldn't have guns, I'm not going to do this to them.

That said, just because the choice is personal doesn't mean that its above critisicm. What you do with your money is a personal choice but you can spend it like an idiot. Similarly while not arming yourself is a personal decision, it may be a really really dumb one.


Note - This is a timely thread given that SCOTUS heard arguments regarding the Chicago handgun ban today. For those people who don't believe that more guns equal less crime I encourage you to look up the homicide/violent crime rates in cities with harsh gun control laws and the same stats in cities that allow people to own/carry firearms. The results are staggering

 

[STAGE 2]

the world's getting nastier.

Truer words.

Since you're in San Diego also, no doubt you've heard about the girl from Rancho Bernardo who's body they dragged out of hodges today. If there was ever someone deserving of having one of your hawks planted in his chest its that sick bastard who murdered her.


Sorry folks, but reality is a bitter pill. Wrapping up things like this in fluffy sentiments doesn't change the fact that you've got 1 ass to risk and when the bogeyman comes knocking odds are that there isn't going to be anyone else to help.

 

[Shoki]

I don't understand why this has to be a gun issue. She could have carried pepper spray, a stun gun, brass knuckles, a velociraptor, or pictures of Shane McGowan but it seems she didn't carry any sort of weapon and she must have had her reasons. Perhaps she was confident in her skills and smarts, maybe she didn't believe in killing people even if they were willing to do the same to her, or maybe she believed in the good of the human race. Whatever the reason is, I'm sure she wouldn't want people arguing about what she should have done or carried with her. She put up a hell of a fight, it is a tragedy that she was killed so brutally by such a waste of oxygen and it besmirches her character while insulting her fighting spirit and will to survive to say that she made some error or to imply that she deserved her fate because she didn't carry a firearm.
I might remind some of you that there is a whole forum devoted to political debate and even a second one devoted to asinine comments and name-calling where you can duke out the drama.

 

[Gadgetaholic]

i worry about other women being lead by her (pre-death at least) example.

Do you mean you worry that other women will learn martial arts and aggressively fight an attacker? Because I wish more women would do that and go further - becoming more skilled in martial arts, gaining more strength & fitness and fighting harder. In this case a lucky blow landed in the right place could have easily lead to a different outcome - by learning some skills to defend herself she was a good way towards being well prepared. It's not like there is any absence of people getting murdered despite being armed!

 

[MustardMan]

For those people who don't believe that more guns equal less crime I encourage you to look up the homicide/violent crime rates in cities with harsh gun control laws and the same stats in cities that allow people to own/carry firearms. The results are staggering

OK, here comes the scientist in me to chime in.

In science, we have this little mantra we like to repeat, especially to new students. It goes like this:

"Correlation does not equal causation".

What does that mean in normal people speak? It means that, just because two things go up or down at the same time, does not mean that one is the cause of another. Taken to extreme silliness, you could say that mercury in the ocean has increased in the last several hundred years, and piracy has decreased, therefore the lack of pirates must be causing the mercury levels to go up. Silly and ridiculous? Of course - but it illustrates the point.


To get back to the more realistic example - places that have strict gun laws may have higher crime rates, but I'm willing to bet that, historically, those places had higher crime rates even before they enacted the strict gun laws. In fact, I'd venture a guess that places with higher crime rates are the very ones that are, statistically and logically, most likely to enact strict gun laws.


So it might be a simple case of the higher crime rates causing the strict gun laws, and not vice versa. At best, the statistics might show that strict gun laws are ineffective, but without two similar cities, with similar crime rates and socioeconomic structures before enacting gun laws, to compare directly, the statistics are nearly meaningless.



That's the problem with science - it's very easy to interpret statistics to mean whatever you want them to, but when you are actually careful and rigorous about your interpretations, you find things don't always support your preconceived notions as well as you thought at first.






I am still very much against enacting strict gun laws, but I am not fooled into thinking there are cold, hard facts which back up my beliefs universally.

 

[Mentor]

Sorry folks, but reality is a bitter pill. Wrapping up things like this in fluffy sentiments doesn't change the fact that you've got 1 ass to risk and when the bogeyman comes knocking odds are that there isn't going to be anyone else to help.

In many jurisdictions, violent crime rates have been experiencing a steady decline for well over a decade - for a variety of reasons. The argument that the world is getting nastier is not necessarily a 'bitter pill'. In many cases, it is anecdotal and not reflective of long-term trends.

Again, that doesn't translate into an argument for or against carrying a firearm, which is a personal choice that should reflect an assessment of personal risks (or perceptions thereof) and values.

I think I have said all that I have to say about this. As a professional criminologist, I would normally be happy to discuss criminogenic factors, trends in violent crime, and security issues in general for hours on end, but W&SS is supposed to be my zen space away from work, so I'll bow out here.

All the best,

- Mike

 

[vector001]

Truer words.

Since you're in San Diego also, no doubt you've heard about the girl from Rancho Bernardo who's body they dragged out of hodges today. If there was ever someone deserving of having one of your hawks planted in his chest its that sick bastard who murdered her.

i didn't hear about the little girl, we will pray for her and her family.

Sorry folks, but reality is a bitter pill. Wrapping up things like this in fluffy sentiments doesn't change the fact that you've got 1 ass to risk and when the bogeyman comes knocking odds are that there isn't going to be anyone else to help.

i don't let my girls go out unescorted.

you probably shouldn't let your little boys out unescorted either these days.


it is sad that so much disinformation is out there about bearing arms, particulalry firearms.


.........

some folks just are born lemmings.

that's fine, but don't be putting bad ideas into other people's heads with your example. a woman jogging at midnight with a Glock on her hip ain't gonna hurt nobody that doesn't beg for hurtin'....

........

glad i am not in the business of hauling women's bodies out of the water anymore, while people call me an A__hole for stating the facts...:thumbup:

like ya said, brother '2 - ya only got one ass to risk, and a lot of people are depending on me keeping mine and theirs intact.

y'all have a good night.

vec

 

[STAGE 2]

So it might be a simple case of the higher crime rates causing the strict gun laws, and not vice versa. At best, the statistics might show that strict gun laws are ineffective, but without two similar cities, with similar crime rates and socioeconomic structures before enacting gun laws, to compare directly, the statistics are nearly meaningless.

They are not meaningless for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, there have been several studies (google John Lott) that have studied the effects of allowing CCW on violent crime. In all of these studies, every local that began to issue CCW permits to citizens also saw a measurable decrease in crime.

Secondly, while I understand your skepticism of the statistics, this isn't a matter of reading stats to suit my argument. In each of the cities that have banned guns, they all had a drastic increase in violent crime after the bans were instituted.

That's the problem with science - it's very easy to interpret statistics to mean whatever you want them to, but when you are actually careful and rigorous about your interpretations, you find things don't always support your preconceived notions as well as you thought at first.

I have yet to see a single statistic that supports the notion that gun bans decrease crime. Chicago and DC (until very recently) have had a complete ban on handguns and have both consistently been in the top 5 of murder rates (by handguns) for decades, DC being at the top of the list for several years.

 

[grunt soldier]

mustardman actually there is that very study already with the exact same places. look at australia. check out there rates. everything has gone up a great amount since they took their guns. i mean how easy is it for a criminal to come in your house with a gun knowing that your not armed because your probably a law abiding citizen.

either way i am not here to argue about that as this is a extremely unfortunate situation. my prayers are with her family and hopefully the son of a bitch who did it burns in hell for ever. they should do him just like he did her except multiple times. tie him to a tree and beat him till he is almost dead then stop and do it again tomorrow and the next day and the next for about a week and then just leave him out there for the coyote's and other animals.

i am a big fan of a eye for a eye and then some as i believe if we stopped coddling people there would be less crime. i will stop now before i go into how these simple programs and babying of criminals (and children) is causing the vast majority of the problems and crime. this guy negotiated his way to living in prison with out the death penalty so now we have to support him for the next 20 years and she is laying 6 feet under. either way again very tragic

 

[STAGE 2]

In many jurisdictions, violent crime rates have been experiencing a steady decline for well over a decade - for a variety of reasons. The argument that the world is getting nastier is not necessarily a 'bitter pill'. In many cases, it is anecdotal and contradictory to long-term trends.

I know that in some areas that data sheets say this, but the bottom line is that when I was a kid it was perfectly safe for me to play outside in my front yard. Not only is it not ok for kids to play in their front yard any more, but teenagers can't even go for a jog anymore.

It is a nastier place.

 

[vector001]

Do you mean you worry that other women will learn martial arts and aggressively fight an attacker? Because I wish more women would do that and go further - becoming more skilled in martial arts, gaining more strength & fitness and fighting harder. In this case a lucky blow landed in the right place could have easily lead to a different outcome - by learning some skills to defend herself she was a good way towards being well prepared.

she died. she was not only murdered, she was detaiined for days.


that doesn't seme to be prepared in the least to me, brother.

that does seem to be deluded IMHO.

It's not like there is any absence of people getting murdered despite being armed!

maybe not in New Zealand, but in Arizona, it sure seems to be the trend, brother.

LOL.


maybe it's the wilderness mentality archtype - but it seems like everyone is considering that it has to be Dodge City out there - you don't always have a weapon to extricate yourself out of a mess, you can use it to help other people too.


it can perhaps be argued; by not having (at least) some form of legal weaponry on you, aren't you being less responsible as a citizen?

vec

 

[MustardMan]

while people call me an A__hole for stating the facts...:thumbup:

The facts? The fact is, you're more likely to die from heart disease, cancer, or stroke than you are by violent crime.


Are you going to yell "darwin" every time someone eats a cheeseburger or a big greasy steak?




Your supposed "facts" are nothing more than opinion - in your opinion, violent crime is enough of an issue that everyone should be carrying. In the opinion of others, that's not the case. It's all about the individual weighing the pros and cons of carrying a gun, or investing the effort to get proper training with that gun. To insinuate that someone is an idiot for coming to a different conclusion after weighing those options is ignorant, and to cite darwin, acting as if that poor girl deserved to die, is not only ignorant, it's heartless.


I stand by my statement. You are an asshole. I don't care if someone wants to call that trolling or not appropriate for this forum - being a heartless bastard who says a girl deserved to die because she didn't carry a gun is inappropriate too.