Security while Boondocking

[avanti]

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."

So much for "a well regulated militia".

[Alec]

Originally Posted by D&J Phillips

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

Of course police training adds a whole different set of conditions. They are intentionally thrust into dangerous situations. RV'ers are not.

I bought my first .22 when I was ten years old; I'm seventy-eight. Yes I feel quite confident, but for those who don't, please don't , as Scag says, go waving guns around. I expect to never have need for a gun in any situation involving threats from people. My personal opinion is that old saw, "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." Not trying to convert anyone, just adding my personal views to a civil discussion.

[Alec]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

You mean the safe spots where you don't need a gun?
Then you don't need the gun for safety, right?

Target practice anyone?

No, I mean for those spots where a threat would be a complete surprise.

Recall the old joke when someone said to the sheriff why he was carrying a gun; was he expecting trouble? And the sheriff replied, "No, if I was expecting trouble I'd have two deputies here with shotguns. Or something like that.

Skag, did you obtain your CCL because you expected to be in threatening situations, or "just in case?"

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by Alec

Of course police training adds a whole different set of conditions. They are intentionally thrust into dangerous situations. RV'ers are not.

I bought my first .22 when I was ten years old; I'm seventy-eight. Yes I feel quite confident, but for those who don't, please don't , as Scag says, go waving guns around. I expect to never have need for a gun in any situation involving threats from people. My personal opinion is that old saw, "better to have it and not need it, than to need it and not have it." Not trying to convert anyone, just adding my personal views to a civil discussion.

Doesn't your argument come down to saying if untrained RV'ers accidentally find themselves thrust into a dangerous situation, they would still likely be as safe, or safer, using a gun than otherwise?


If so, that's where our personal opinions differ. Certainly some folks might, if they've been around, and used firearms a long time. But there certainly have been a lot of people, scared of the news, and swayed by advertising, who went out and buy a Saturday Night Special, load it, and tuck it away until the "dangerous situation".

Remember how gun sales skyrocketed after the 2008 meltdown and the "Obama's coming for your guns" meme? Demand was so high, there was even an ammo shortage.

So I am inclined to say that boondockers, on the whole, are safer not believing a gun will fix things.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by Alec

No, I mean for those spots where a threat would be a complete surprise.

Recall the old joke when someone said to the sheriff why he was carrying a gun; was he expecting trouble? And the sheriff replied, "No, if I was expecting trouble I'd have two deputies here with shotguns. Or something like that.

Skag, did you obtain your CCL because you expected to be in threatening situations, or "just in case?"

As I said way back in this thread, I started carrying as a way to put down injured animals as painlessly as possible. Because I've had to do that more than once. And I don't ever want to do that with a knife again. So I guess that would qualify as "just in case".


I got the CCL mainly so that if I ever got stopped by a cop, I would be able to document that I am legit. I want to minimize chances of the cop making a rash decision.

[DonkeyFluffer]

Skag, let me get this straight... you have a gun while boondocking, but it's not for self-protection from bad guys?

If so, are you trying to convince us that if you were put in a position of imminent bodily harm to yourself and/ or loved ones, you would NOT pick up your gun to deal with it?

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by rowiebowie

Well, you didn't read my post #255 when I posted it. Or at the very least you did not respond directly to it even though I highlighted in bold your contradiction. But if you now care to do so now, go ahead.

Based on your prior pattern, I expect that you'll merely try and deflect with a another comment that I need to explain my confusion when it is clearly there in your own words.
.

Sorry, I just don't see any contradiction.

Here are the two comments I think you're talking about:

1. I take guns when boondocking.
2. My OPINION is that a gun is as likely to make a boondocking confrontation more dangerous. Not more secure.

Let me try to clarify, by writing an essay:

1. "I take guns when boondocking." I do NOT take them for the case of a confrontation/security threat. (I've said this multiple times BTW.) (But see #3 below.) I suspect you are making an unwarranted assumption that security is my motive.
2. "My OPINION is that a gun is as likely to make a boondocking confrontation more dangerous. Not more secure." This is why I do not take them in case of a confrontation/security threat. (see #1 above). Security is NOT my motive.
3. I have other reasons for taking guns, such as dealing with injured wildlife, occasional target practice, etc.

Now I've said these things pretty clearly all through this thread. Exactly where do you find a contradiction in those statements?
I await your answer.

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by DonkeyFluffer

Skag, let me get this straight... you have a gun while boondocking, but it's not for self-protection from bad guys?

If so, are you trying to convince us that if you were put in a position of imminent bodily harm to yourself and/ or loved ones, you would NOT pick up your gun to deal with it?

Probably in a position of imminent bodily harm, I'd have to find another solution, just like any unarmed camper. For example, bear spray is always easily reached. You know, because of bears.

Even though not the least dangerous, our Malamute would scare these hypothetical potential invaders just by size and appearance. Might even warn us someone was coming by.

I simply don't worry enough about "bad guys" to try and plot out gunfight scenarios. Same as most campers who don't carry.

I keep weapons locked up and out of easy access if I'm at the campsite.

If I'm away from Annie hiking, I will likely be carrying my 9mm. Because of my past experiences dealing with injured wildlife. It will be at the bottom of my pack. Any other weapons will remain locked away unless I'm off to plink.


I am not trying to convince you of anything. You go ahead and worry about "bad guys" all you want. I'm not attacking your decision. It just isn't mine. Not my problem. I just don't find boondocking so scary I prepare, just in case, to shoot someone.

[gregmchugh]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

Probably in a position of imminent bodily harm, I'd have to find another solution, just like any unarmed camper. For example, bear spray is always easily reached. You know, because of bears.

Even though not the least dangerous, our Malamute would scare these hypothetical potential invaders just by size and appearance. Might even warn us someone was coming by.

I simply don't worry enough about "bad guys" to try and plot out gunfight scenarios. Same as most campers who don't carry.

I keep weapons locked up and out of easy access if I'm at the campsite.

If I'm away from Annie hiking, I will likely be carrying my 9mm. Because of my past experiences dealing with injured wildlife. It will be at the bottom of my pack. Any other weapons will remain locked away unless I'm off to plink.


I am not trying to convince you of anything. You go ahead and worry about "bad guys" all you want. I'm not attacking your decision. It just isn't mine. Not my problem. I just don't find boondocking so scary I prepare, just in case, to shoot someone.

I have the same attitude regarding the risk of encountering bad guys while boondocking, not something I am concerned about for the places where I go. I have decided to move on to another spot a couple times when a campsite seemed to have some local characters in the area that were not acting peaceful but only to have peace and quiet not because they seemed dangerous.

[DonkeyFluffer]

I worry about bad guys because I've had to shoot them for attacking me and my family. It's not paranoia if the threat is real. Utopia doesn't exist, I live in this world.

[avanti]

Moderator's note:
Please remember: Posts with political content will be deleted.

[gregmchugh]

Originally Posted by DonkeyFluffer

17,284 people were murdered in the United States in 2017.

2 were killed by bears in 2017.

Skag, why are you worried about animals enough to carry a gun? It seems to me that you might be worrying about the wrong threat.

Okay, I understand why you feel the need to carry a gun but in my case, I travel where the danger from animals is much greater than the danger of being murdered so I have bear spray but don’t feel have any reason to carry a gun.

If I understood Skag, he wasn’t worried about having to protect himself from animals, he wanted to have a way to put down an injured animal...

In any case, I don’t expect anyone else to view the world the same way I do and I don’t have any problem with people who see the world different than I do either. To each his own...

[InterBlog]

Most of this thread has been pretty good - can y'all please consider NOT sending it into the toilet with the ceaseless gun debate? Nobody's mind will be changed. There is no point other than thread destruction.

However, if we talk about actual situations with actual examples and actual questions, we might learn something about the topic.

1/2

Here is the first of two anecdotes from my travels so far just this week (aaaand it's only Wednesday morning):

On the issue of, "If you think the risk is so high that you need [special security measures], just don't stay there", um, does everybody realize HOW MUCH of the world would be deleted if this became the decision criterion?

Case in point:

I had a short meeting early yesterday evening in Houston's Museum District, which is one of the poshest and highest-rent zip codes in our entire 10,000 square mile metro area. Operative words being "early evening" and "brief". The meeting was on private property which had its own parking lot (rare in that area, good for me as it's safer).

All day long and into the evening, the property owner must maintain MULTIPLE roving security guards for its building structures and for the lot. I was coming to the meeting directly from another city where I'd spent the previous 2 nights - so I'm in my Class B.

I get into the parking lot, which by 6:15 p.m. (daylight savings time - still bright outside) was 75% empty because the museums' extended Spring Break hours meant that the tourists bailed at 6:00 p.m. (the owner rents some parking spaces in the lot during business hours because it has excess capacity). I've planned my whole day out this way, to arrive and depart before the Witching Hour of later-night high-crime, but after the crowds had split.

75% empty lot and as soon as I got parked, this was my conversation with the security guard:

"This is private property - you can't park that here."

"But I'm here to see so-and-so - I have a meeting on this property."

"You still can't park here. You need to take it to the street."

"But I'm backed in, obstructing nobody, only taking up one parking spot, and this parking lot is empty. There is nobody here for me to block or inconvenience in the slightest way. And if I park on the street, Houston Police Department could ticket me as they have tried to do in the past, because Houston has a large vehicle ordinance."

"It doesn't matter. We can't have that thing here."

I ended up having to park in the street - why?? Because 90 MINUTES of parking in the EARLY EVENING in one of the MOST EXPENSIVE areas of Houston was too much of a risk for the property owner to allow. They know what a crime magnet the van is, and they do not want to have to fuss with the whole nine yards of a robbery or burglary being committed on their private property, and then they have to do paperwork, and cooperate with police, and maybe they get sued on top of that, yada yada.

It's not just my anecdotal impression. It's a universal awareness. In the case of the parking lot guard and his employer, it's based on lived experience which led to specific self-protective exclusionary policies being set.

As for security in parking generally, if I delete from consideration all the "bad" areas, and then on top of that I delete from consideration all the "good" areas like the Museum District, then what the hell exactly do I have left?!

[skagitstan]

I completely agree that "Because 90 MINUTES of parking in the EARLY EVENING in one of the MOST EXPENSIVE areas of Houston was too much of a risk for the property owner to allow." is quite understandable. High crime rates are likely in a densely populated place like Houston, or any large city. Because that's where the people to rob are.



Is that what you mean by boondocking? Certainly not the type of place the OP was talking about, or the type of place I would ever want to go camping.

[InterBlog]

2/2

Also from this week, parked in a pay lot in an urban area that really is not that "bad" - but what does "bad" mean exactly, and as defined by whom?

Nice historic building structures, fancy facades, stonework, ironwork, yet another high rent district, but different from the example I gave in 1/2, and gang graffiti everywhere.

Very often, when I'm parked next to the likes of this below, I'd like to be able to translate for my own edification. Is there any way, I wonder, to know what any of this stuff signifies? Does it mean something simple like "this is our turf" or does it mean something specific like "park here and we'll kill you"?

I've often stared at the likes of it, trying to ferret out the message, but I'm just not part of that reality - I don't have the first clue.

And, as with previous posts, someone could reply, "Just don't park there." But my area has 20,000 documented gang members spread among 30 different street gangs. I would have to eliminate the entire metro area from consideration. It's everywhere - it's in the suburbs. It's in the exurbs.

[InterBlog]

Originally Posted by skagitstan

.....

Is that what you mean by boondocking? Certainly not the type of place the OP was talking about, or the type of place I would ever want to go camping.

I'm including the full swath of conceivable areas because boondockers tend to be long-ranging and geographically promiscuous. That's why they pick vans instead of Class Cs or trailers - because they tend to go for that versatility.

To say the same thing another way, very few if any habitual boondockers go to the trouble of adding solar and lithium and/or AGM, UHG, or whatever, and then boondock exclusively in (for instance) Zion.

Even those people who do not habitually boondock in urban areas still have to get from Point A to Point B, and that's a process that involves routinely copping a dock in areas of convenience. Earlier in the thread I may have made the observation that someone once answered one of my IG posts by saying words to the effect of, "Yeah, there are more of [those crummy] boondocking nights than there are [pretty beach sites]."

[skagitstan]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

2/2

Also from this week, parked in a pay lot in an urban area that really is not that "bad" - but what does "bad" mean exactly, and as defined by whom?

Nice historic building structures, fancy facades, stonework, ironwork, yet another high rent district, but different from the example I gave in 1/2, and gang graffiti everywhere.

Very often, when I'm parked next to the likes of this below, I'd like to be able to translate for my own edification. Is there any way, I wonder, to know what any of this stuff signifies? Does it mean something simple like "this is our turf" or does it mean something specific like "park here and we'll kill you"?

I've often stared at the likes of it, trying to ferret out the message, but I'm just not part of that reality - I don't have the first clue.

And, as with previous posts, someone could reply, "Just don't park there." But my area has 20,000 documented gang members spread among 30 different street gangs. I would have to eliminate the entire metro area from consideration. It's everywhere - it's in the suburbs. It's in the exurbs.

As with your first anecdote, I do not understanding the relevance to boondocking security, which I thought was the subject of this thread.

Wiktionary definition:
boondock (plural boondocks)

(chiefly in the plural, US) A brushy rural area or location.
We got lost out in the boondocks, miles from anywhere

I would not want to hang out in a city either. And I can clearly see the difference between a good backcountry campsite and the effects of crowding and poverty in cities.

If that was the only alternative, I wouldn't have spend tens of thousands of dollars, and labor getting close to 3 years, building my van conversion.

If we're now talking about stealth camping in a city, I'd expect the security criteria to be very different.

[avanti]

Originally Posted by InterBlog

On the issue of, "If you think the risk is so high that you need [special security measures], just don't stay there", um, does everybody realize HOW MUCH of the world would be deleted if this became the decision criterion?!

It is very clear that you are sincere in these beliefs, and I am quite sure they are grounded in experience. But you, in turn, need to realize how alien the experiences you have been repeatedly describing sound to a great many of us. I live in an extremely ordinary neighborhood in a very average area. After 30 years, we have concluded that it is barely worth the effort the lock our doors at night. I have travelled the country from sea to sea, rarely thinking twice about where we travel or camp. We have NEVER had an incident, or even a near incident. I do not carry a gun, not for some religious reason, but because it is very obvious that the dangers involved greatly exceed any possible value. The "you never know" arguments are specious. The worst criminal experience of my life (literally) was an incident many years ago involving a smash and grab in which the thieves got away with a bag full of dirty diapers.

Now, maybe I have just had a very, very long string of good luck, in which case the chances are that my luck is about to change--regressing to some awful mean. But it is also possible that it is YOUR experience that is atypical. Knowing which is true is why we have statistics. And, the simple fact is that personal violence is at an all-time low and dropping rapidly. It has been dropping essentially continuously since neolithic times, with the crime-wave of the 1980s being a nearly-unique anomaly. The numbers are very clear, and, respectfully, the arguments that "Yes, but those statistics don't apply to me" are not convincing.

You have to make your own decisions, and I do not begrudge you basing them on your personal experience. But arguments that start with "does everybody realize..." cannot be justified by anecdote. And, yes, it IS just anecdote.

[gregmchugh]

One of the things I have taken from this thread is that I was right when I vowed to never return to the Houston area after spending 3 months there as a summer intern at NASA when I was in college many moons ago. Watching the daily news I couldn’t believe the level of crime and it seems to still be the same from the info posted here.

[gregmchugh]

Originally Posted by avanti

It is very clear that you are sincere in these beliefs, and I am quite sure they are grounded in experience. But you, in turn, need to realize how alien the experiences you have been repeatedly describing sound to a great many of us. I live in an extremely ordinary neighborhood in a very average area. After 30 years, we have concluded that it is barely worth the effort the lock our doors at night. I have travelled the country from sea to sea, rarely thinking twice about where we travel or camp. We have NEVER had an incident, or even a near incident. I do not carry a gun, not for some religious reason, but because it is very obvious that the dangers involved greatly exceed any possible value. The "you never know" arguments are specious. The worst criminal experience of my life (literally) was an incident many years ago involving a smash and grab in which the thieves got away with a bag full of dirty diapers.

Now, maybe I have just had a very, very long string of good luck, in which case the chances are that my luck is about to change--regressing to some awful mean. But it is also possible that it is YOUR experience that is atypical. Knowing which is true is why we have statistics. And, the simple fact is that personal violence is at an all-time low and dropping rapidly. It has been dropping essentially continuously since neolithic times, with the crime-wave of the 1980s being a nearly-unique anomaly. The numbers are very clear, and, respectfully, the arguments that "Yes, but those statistics don't apply to me" are not convincing.

You have to make your own decisions, and I do not begrudge you basing them on your personal experience. But arguments that start with "does everybody realize..." cannot be justified by anecdote. And, yes, it IS just anecdote.

I agree, I travel full time now and never find myself limited by avoiding the very small percentage of the area in the US and Canada where crime is such that I would feel at risk by stopping there. Avoiding the risk is pretty easy if you are interested in Boondocking in the boondocks.