Security while Boondocking

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

Good thing you're here to parse (to examine in a minute way : analyze critically) others' responses. My point is that I just never found reading that type of writing style enjoyable. Perhaps fitting for a technical journal where such preciseness is critical.

I stand corrected on my "no guns for you" comment. Glad to hear it, in fact.
.

Yeah, I'm an engineer. I tend to think like that. It overflows into my daily life and decision making process.

Sometimes that pisses off folks less interested in analyzing stuff critically before forming and expressing an opinion.

Since I can't predict what reading style(s) others "enjoy", I'll just continue to write in the style that suits me.

If a poster I'm responding to starts implying that arriving at a different conclusion than that poster, based on using an analytic approach to cited statistics, linked with a different set of life/boondocking experiences, is "simply unconscionable", I'm going to view that as an invitation for further discussion. I see that as changing from a discussion of the topic at hand...security while boondocking...to a discussion about morality.

My opinion about guns and boondocking is "meh". I think that given the generally poor level of owner training, they're likely to cause more harm than good as a boondocking self defense tool.
Given the lack of data on this specific combination, if someone feels otherwise, I won't argue with them.

[Alec]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

Yeah, I'm an engineer. I tend to think like that. It overflows into my daily life and decision making process.

Sometimes that pisses off folks less interested in analyzing stuff critically before forming and expressing an opinion.


. I think that given the generally poor level of owner training, they're likely to cause more harm than good ....
.

Hmmm; "given the generally poor level of owner training"? Now there's an inference sure to raise a few CCW and NRA hackles! To augment anyone's critical analysis I suggest John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime."

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by Alec

Hmmm; "given the generally poor level of owner training"? Now there's an inference sure to raise a few CCW and NRA hackles! To augment anyone's critical analysis I suggest John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime."

One article, right at the top of a google search, says:
"When looking at the demographics of those who own guns, more men (66 percent) than women (49 percent) received formal training. Those who reported buying a gun for personal protection were less likely to have received training than those who owned a gun for activities like hunting or sporting."
https://epi.washington.edu/news/one-...ide-prevention

So the most optimistic view says that about 40% of gun owners have no training.
Even fewer have any firearm self defense training.


BTW, as for CCW & NRA hackles, Washington is a "shall issue" state. No training of any sort required. Just the background check.

I remember (sorta) my NRA "training" over 50 years ago. It mainly consisted of instructions on how not to look down the barrel to see what was causing a jam, how to hold and aim your rifle, how to clear and clean it, and maybe an hour or two of range practice. Oh, and to tell us kids that it wasn't a toy.

[gregmchugh]

Originally Posted by Alec

Hmmm; "given the generally poor level of owner training"? Now there's an inference sure to raise a few CCW and NRA hackles! To augment anyone's critical analysis I suggest John Lott's "More Guns, Less Crime."

That book has not been without controversy in terms of its conclusions...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

[Bud]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

That book has not been without controversy in terms of its conclusions...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

And if someone wants to learn about gun violence in the US, this is a reasonable start:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_vi..._United_States

Bud

[AZ ADVenturist]

This thread is "fasinating" in how it has evolved into a them vs. Us (gun nuts vs. anti-gunners) ie. libs vs. neo-cons.
Keep it up, ya'all!

[Alec]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

One article, right at the top of a google search, says:
"When looking at the demographics of those who own guns, more men (66 percent) than women (49 percent) received formal training. Those who reported buying a gun for personal protection were less likely to have received training than those who owned a gun for activities like hunting or sporting."
https://epi.washington.edu/news/one-...ide-prevention

So the most optimistic view says that about 40% of gun owners have no training.
Even fewer have any firearm self defense training.

Ah ... no "formal" training? So the conclusion is that without "formal " training the majority of gun owners are incompetent in the use of a gun. Suppose we stipulate that statistics gathered from the internet are somewhat acceptable, I would posit that 40% is too high, and that it, "formal" training is relatively unimportant.

Since the actual operation of most guns can be mastered in fifteen minutes, the real concern is knowing how to use it safely. The usual admonitions are: treat all guns as if they are always loaded; never point the gun at anything you don't want to kill. Two or three other considerations might be to know that bullets go through walls, or through foliage or over hills. Common sense, yes? I'm open to an argument that "formal training" is necessary because ......

[Bud]

Originally Posted by AZ ADVenturist

This thread is "fasinating" in how it has evolved into a them vs. Us (gun nuts vs. anti-gunners) ie. libs vs. neo-cons.
Keep it up, ya'all!

I don't see it that way at all. You including me and if so, which side am I on if any?

Bud

[Alec]

Originally Posted by gregmchugh

That book has not been without controversy in terms of its conclusions...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Guns,_Less_Crime

A book about guns is controversial? Oh say it isn't so.

I guess we have wandered from the topic a bit. Sorry.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by Alec

Ah ... no "formal" training? So the conclusion is that without "formal " training the majority of gun owners are incompetent in the use of a gun. Suppose we stipulate that statistics gathered from the internet are somewhat acceptable, I would posit that 40% is too high, and that it, "formal" training is relatively unimportant.

Since the actual operation of most guns can be mastered in fifteen minutes, the real concern is knowing how to use it safely. The usual admonitions are: treat all guns as if they are always loaded; never point the gun at anything you don't want to kill. Two or three other considerations might be to know that bullets go through walls, or through foliage or over hills. Common sense, yes? I'm open to an argument that "formal training" is necessary because ......

You misunderstand me.

In a high stress situation in a confined space, it's natural that one will be more prone to error: a misinterpretation of real threat level, a misinterpretation of appropriate response, a possible inclination to over-react, loss of situational awareness, etc. Hell, that even happens to trained cops on a regular basis...misinterpretation of threat level, leading to tragic overreaction.

That, IMO, makes resorting to a firearm for self defense, by someone who hasn't trained, more dangerous than if the person is trained. And one does not get that sort of training informally.

Again, IMO, that raises the danger to all concerned, innocent, bystander, or not. And the data seems to show that MANY folks have not have that training, but still think carrying as a self defense insurance is a good idea. Partly perhaps, because firearms ARE so easy to use that even a caveman can do it.

To be clear, I am not "anti-gun". I take guns when boondocking. I even have my CCL in my wallet. But not for self defense against a thief.

If you are convinced you have that sort of training/skill set, mental attitude, and think the risk of boondocking is high, then great...carry for self defense.

But since this thread is about security while boondocking, I think it is also important to point out the possible downsides of that decision. My OPINION is that a gun is as likely to make a boondocking confrontation more dangerous. Not more secure.

[AZ ADVenturist]

@Bud; nothing personal intended!

[MsNomer]

If I think boondocking in THIS spot is so dangerous that I think I need a gun, maybe I shouldn’t be here.

[D&J Phillips]

Originally Posted by Alec

Ah ... no "formal" training?
Since the actual operation of most guns can be mastered in fifteen minutes, the real concern is knowing how to use it safely. The usual admonitions are: treat all guns as if they are always loaded; never point the gun at anything you don't want to kill. Two or three other considerations might be to know that bullets go through walls, or through foliage or over hills. Common sense, yes? I'm open to an argument that "formal training" is necessary because ......

So, based on your argument, why do we spend so much time and $ "training" police, military and security personnel in the use of firearms? Could it be that there are some benefits to actually training in something? Or, do you find that when you want to do a new activity, the actions involved come automatically to you?

I have been enjoying this thread for a while without contributing. I am extremely neutral about guns, don't love them and don't hate them - they just are, like any tool. But I can honestly say that in my lifetime, I do not believe I have ever been in a situation that a gun would have made better/safer...and many where a gun would have probably made things worse - for exactly skagitstan's stated reasoning, I am not trained and might do exactly the wrong thing at exactly the wrong time.

BTW I, like some others have said, have no fear boondocking in the woods. But just last month our van broke down in Newport Oregon and we camped in a car dealer's lot while waiting for parts - now that was scary with dumpster divers at 2am, street kids partying all nite - no sleep for us.

Dave

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by MsNomer

If I think boondocking in THIS spot is so dangerous that I think I need a gun, maybe I shouldn’t be here.

Got to agree with this.
Why and how would anyone want to engage in some enjoyable activity where they fear someone else might want to hurt them?

[rowiebowie]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

To be clear, I am not "anti-gun". I take guns when boondocking. I even have my CCL in my wallet. But not for self defense against a thief.

If you are convinced you have that sort of training/skill set, mental attitude, and think the risk of boondocking is high, then great...carry for self defense.

But since this thread is about security while boondocking, I think it is also important to point out the possible downsides of that decision. My OPINION is that a gun is as likely to make a boondocking confrontation more dangerous. Not more secure.

I followed you until here.
Then you went there.

Originally Posted by MsNomer

If I think boondocking in THIS spot is so dangerous that I think I need a gun, maybe I shouldn’t be here.

I agree, but you can never be sure that initial situations won't change.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

I followed you until here.
Then you went there.

OK, so we disagree.

You apparently feel safer camping with self defense guns. I don't.

So you carry for whatever personal reason you want, and perhaps recommend that people you don't know also carry for your reason. (Although I don't think I've seen you write what your reason is).

I'll carry for my own personal reasons, which exclude self defense while boondocking, explain why that is my opinion, and tell others that it's up to them to weigh the pros and cons for themselves.
Do you have problems with that? Maybe it's just the way I read it, but it sorta sounds like you do.

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

I agree, but you can never be sure that initial situations won't change.

That is true. Everything in life has risks. Mostly always manageable in a peaceful way. Even in cities.

It's easy enough, for me at least, to manage them in a boondocking scenario, without lethal force as a backup.
Just like mitigating risk does not mean I need to carry a chainsaw on a hike in case an evil tree assaults me.

If someone is fearful enough of boondocking, yet still wants to participate, I'm not gonna suggest they stop carrying.

But please, not around me. I don't really want frightened people waving guns around near my peaceful campsite. IMO, fear and guns don't mix.
Actually, I don't think fear and camping go together all that well either.

[GeorgeRa]

Originally Posted by MsNomer

If I think boondocking in THIS spot is so dangerous that I think I need a gun, maybe I shouldn’t be here.

Great summary.

[engnrsrule]

I haven't boondocked in remote areas, but do the Walmart thing regularly. Our itinerary once had us overnighting in Newark, which did not feel great. I looked for well lit (Most walmart lots have pretty good lighting) and line of sight to security camera. Then I noticed 2 18 wheelers with a comfortable space between them so I jumped in the "rocking chair" and stayed there for the night. Safety in numbers.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by engnrsrule

I haven't boondocked in remote areas, but do the Walmart thing regularly. Our itinerary once had us overnighting in Newark, which did not feel great. I looked for well lit (Most walmart lots have pretty good lighting) and line of sight to security camera. Then I noticed 2 18 wheelers with a comfortable space between them so I jumped in the "rocking chair" and stayed there for the night. Safety in numbers.

Man, regularly camping in the city like that would freak me out!
Would freak the dog out too!

[Alec]

Originally Posted by MsNomer

If I think boondocking in THIS spot is so dangerous that I think I need a gun, maybe I shouldn’t be here.

Exactly right! The gun is for those other spots.