Why you should ALWAYS bring a gun camping

SkyHog

SkyHog

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
18,433
Location
Castle Rock, CO
Display Name
Display name:
Everything Offends Me
Unbelievable. I hate to say this is the crap that only happens in New Mexico, but I suspect not.

Be careful out there, and do not listen to the gun nay-sayers. Having a gun saved a group of 30 campers from what could have probably been a slaughterfest.

"As soon as I said that, (Chiolero) comes around the corner (of the SUV), takes the gun out of his waistband ... points it right at (my chest) and pulls the trigger," Beebe said. "The gun goes, 'Click.' I melted. My knees went weak."

Chiolero then pulled back the slide on the semi-automatic handgun — ejecting the bullet meant for Beebe's chest — then squeezed off between six and 10 shots at the campers, he said. A state police detective later found the ejected bullet, court documents say.

Meanwhile, as Beebe ran for his children's tent, at least one other person who was with their group but not playing poker came forward and began returning fire, Beebe said. He estimated there were between 15 and 20 children scattered throughout the campground.

"It was like the shootout at the OK Corral," he said. "There were no campfires that night so it was pitch black. All I could see was big bursts of muzzle fire."

Both Chiolero and Dominick — who was hit in the shoulder by one of the campers — fled in the BMW.
Click to expand...

http://www.santafenewmexican.com/LocalNews/Pecos-shootout--like-OK-Corral--

Without a gun, there's no indication that the men would have fled. They only fled after being shot in the arm.
 
It's nice to have camping and it's nice to have in the city where most of those hooligans hang.
 
It's nice to have a Phalanx system mounted on a high-rise to shoot down incoming threats. If the WTC had one, the world would be a different place.

Were I to follow this logic, I would forever tread this earth with a lighting arrestor strapped to my back, you know, so I wouldn't be killed by a lightning strike. :idea:
 
The big summer holiday is very soon thus the noisy and also the psychotic crazies from the cities are heading to the campgrounds in the civilized world of the wilderness. IMHO campgrounds are best avoided like the plague for the next couple weeks.

The nice thing is that the national parks and such places are either in the final phases of, or have established themselves, as weapons ok zones as long as they're not flaunted about or carried into facilities. The resistance free zones are becoming not so resistance free anymore...not that that really changes much in some cases.

flyersfan31 said:
Were I to follow this logic, I would forever tread this earth with a lighting arrestor strapped to my back, you know, so I wouldn't be killed by a lightning strike. :idea:
Click to expand...

You do of course realize that the whole point of a lighting rod is to have the lightning hit that rod instead of something else nearby. Strapping the target to your back is just asking for it.
 
fgcason said:
You do of course realize that the whole point of a lighting rod is to have the lightning hit that rod instead of something else nearby. Strapping the target to your back is just asking for it.
Click to expand...

Yup.:wink2:
 
fgcason said:
You two do of course realize that the whole point of a lighting rod is to have the lightning hit that rod instead of something else nearby. Strapping the target to your back is just asking for it.
Click to expand...
You do of course realize that a lightening arrestor and a lightening rod are two entirely different things?

A lightening arresting will shut any lightening strikes away from the object to be safely disbursed into a ground system.

A lightening rod is a big metal pole in the sky that is meant to attract lightening on the theory that it if it hits there it would hit nearby.
 
Last edited:
SkyHog said:
... Be careful out there, and do not listen to the gun nay-sayers. Having a gun saved a group of 30 campers from what could have probably been a slaughterfest...
Click to expand...
Statistically speaking, a sensible diet and exercise will do a whole lot more to extend your life expectancy. If gun owners were _really_ motivated by survival, they'd shoot Ronald McDonald.
-harry
 
mantakos said:
Statistically speaking, a sensible diet and exercise will do a whole lot more to extend your life expectancy. If gun owners were _really_ motivated by survival, they'd shoot Ronald McDonald.
-harry
Click to expand...
Or you can do both. I'm not sure why people make comparisons like that - it doesn't make any sense. Statistically speaking we'd all be a lot better off staying the hell away from our airplanes too.
 
jesse said:
... I'm not sure why people make comparisons like that - it doesn't make any sense...
Click to expand...
Well, when I hear people go on and on about the _necessity_ of carrying around a device that offers dubious protection against extremely unlikely survival risks, while at the same time living a lifestyle that displays obvious disregard for extremely likely survival risks, I start to wonder about intellectual honesty, and suspect that this gun thing isn't really about pragmatic risk management, so much as that some people _really_ like guns, want to find rationalizations for the necessity of carrying their toy around with them everywhere, and enjoy the fantasy of some day being the guy who whips out his big one to save all the women and children (a fantasy in which he does way better than just hitting the bad guy once in the shoulder).
-harry
 
Probably because their study of probabilities doesn't include two dudes with blades who are intent on cutting them. They might then conclude the probability of it ever happening again are slim. OTOH, I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have happened to me again because I would have been dead.

If those two thugs are still around now, they will be staring down the same barrel as 50 years ago if they want a rematch.

jesse said:
Or you can do both. I'm not sure why people make comparisons like that - it doesn't make any sense. Statistically speaking we'd all be a lot better off staying the hell away from our airplanes too.
Click to expand...
 
SkyHog said:
Be careful out there, and do not listen to the gun nay-sayers.
Click to expand...

I won't comment on this article.

But I have a related question: why is it that conversations about:
  • Guns
  • Politics
  • Abortion
  • Immigration
  • (insert your favourite hot-button non-aviation topic here)
belong anywhere other than the Spin Zone? When people start discussions on these topics they are either looking to start a fight or to get validation of their preconceived ideas. Isn't that why the Spin Zone exists?

Chris
 
colohan said:
I won't comment on this article.

But I have a related question: why is it that conversations about:
  • Guns
  • Politics
  • Abortion
  • Immigration
  • (insert your favourite hot-button non-aviation topic here)
belong anywhere other than the Spin Zone? When people start discussions on these topics they are either looking to start a fight or to get validation of their preconceived ideas. Isn't that why the Spin Zone exists?

Chris
Click to expand...

It was posted as a discussion piece on a news article, and a warning to those that want to camp in New Mexico without protection, not dispute.
 
SkyHog said:
It was posted as a discussion piece on a news article, and a warning to those that want to camp in New Mexico without protection, not dispute.
Click to expand...

So its ok to camp in New Mexico with protection, so long as you're willing to bet you shoot straighter than the other guy? :crazy:
 
mantakos said:
Well, when I hear people go on and on about the _necessity_ of carrying around a device that offers dubious protection against extremely unlikely survival risks, while at the same time living a lifestyle that displays obvious disregard for extremely likely survival risks, I start to wonder about intellectual honesty, and suspect that this gun thing isn't really about pragmatic risk management, so much as that some people _really_ like guns, want to find rationalizations for the necessity of carrying their toy around with them everywhere, and enjoy the fantasy of some day being the guy who whips out his big one to save all the women and children (a fantasy in which he does way better than just hitting the bad guy once in the shoulder).
-harry
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that most people who own guns don't treat them as toys.
 
mantakos said:
Well, when I hear people go on and on about the _necessity_ of carrying around a device that offers dubious protection against extremely unlikely survival risks, while at the same time living a lifestyle that displays obvious disregard for extremely likely survival risks, I start to wonder about intellectual honesty, and suspect that this gun thing isn't really about pragmatic risk management, so much as that some people _really_ like guns, want to find rationalizations for the necessity of carrying their toy around with them everywhere, and enjoy the fantasy of some day being the guy who whips out his big one to save all the women and children (a fantasy in which he does way better than just hitting the bad guy once in the shoulder).
-harry
Click to expand...

Thank you.

I have nothing against guns, or gun owners. I just wish one of them would admit that unless you live in the hood these are pinhole risks they are worrying about. Seriously, the threat of being hit by lightning is far greater. Hell, the risk of getting hit by a car is far greater -- why not wear steel bumpers and airbags when you cross the street?
 
SkyHog said:
It was posted as a discussion piece on a news article, and a warning to those that want to camp in New Mexico without protection, not dispute.
Click to expand...
So we're not supposed to dispute it? This is the internet. :rofl:

I'm sure there are many people, including me, who would go camping in NM without a gun.
 
Last edited:
1. Scott: Great avatar.

2. It's only wildly controversial if you opt to make it so. You're all nice people, so be nice.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Thank you.

I have nothing against guns, or gun owners. I just wish one of them would admit that unless you live in the hood these are pinhole risks they are worrying about. Seriously, the threat of being hit by lightning is far greater. Hell, the risk of getting hit by a car is far greater -- why not wear steel bumpers and airbags when you cross the street?
Click to expand...
Yep. Gun blankies. They make you feel safe, but the chances are you will never need it. Even in the case that is presented here the thing that saved these people was that the perps were idiots who fired many shots before anyone got out their guns. They were too busy running away. Which BTW is one of the best ways to avoid this stuff should it start to go down. When one consider that cops, who spend their time in the company of bad guys far more than the average citizen, and are highly trained in how to respond to force, get shot at an alarming rate, one should really question their ability to respond in a meaningful way to sudden and unprovoked violence.

Oh and this not meant for dispute ;)
 
Last edited:
mantakos said:
Well, when I hear people go on and on about the _necessity_ of carrying around a device that offers dubious protection against extremely unlikely survival risks.
-harry
Click to expand...

Like ELT's?
 
Palmpilot said:
I'm pretty sure that most people who own guns don't treat them as toys.
Click to expand...

That hasn't been my experience.

It'll be interesting to see if this article involved a random act.

It's also worth nothing that, however dubious the claim might be, the guys in the car say the campers opened up first.

It's also interesting that this is over a week old at this point, yet is only being covered by a single newspaper. I'd think that something like this would national news - "Gunfight In New Mexico; Campgrounds: Are They Safe; Don't Forget To Bring A Towel (And A Gun)."
 
Last edited:
wabower said:
TX CHL requires that whatever you're packing must be totally concealed. Tough to get one sawed off that short.
Click to expand...

Why would you want to conceal a weapon you are using?
 
To get it to the place where it becomes necessary to use it? Isn't the purpose of carrying to have it if/when you need it?



Tom-D said:
Why would you want to conceal a weapon you are using?
Click to expand...
 
24/7 Who is going to protect you? 'the police? Dream on, Even if you have your cell set to 911, making the call & waiting for help is not an option when your life is in imminent danger. You can work without a net if you wish. I would rather prepared to protect myself. It has worked in the past. I am still alive. If you want to be the guy with a knife or club at a gun fight that is your right. DaveR
 
ScottM said:
Yep. Gun blankies. They make you feel safe, but the chances are you will never need it.

Oh and this not meant for dispute ;)
Click to expand...

If you can't return fire, you are the victim.
 
Last edited:
flyersfan31 said:
Thank you.

I have nothing against guns, or gun owners. I just wish one of them would admit that unless you live in the Southwest these are pinhole risks they are worrying about. Seriously, the threat of being hit by lightning is far greater. Hell, the risk of getting hit by a car is far greater -- why not wear steel bumpers and airbags when you cross the street?
Click to expand...

Fixed that for ya.
 
flyersfan31 said:
Seriously, the threat of being hit by lightning is far greater.
Click to expand...
Please cite your source.

There were 17,034 homicides in the United States in 2006.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

The violent crime rate for 2008 was 454.5 per 100,000 people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_the_United_States

There are 1,000 lightning victims per year in the United States.
http://www.lightningsafety.com/nlsi_pls/probability.html

The population of the United States is 307,006,550.
http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...rue&dl=en&hl=en&q=population+of+united+states

Based on the above numbers you have a:
1:18,023 chance of being the victim of a homicide.
1:220 chance of being the victim of a violent crime.
1:307,006 chance of being struck by lightning.

None of the above numbers were put together with a 'pro gun' swing. Just me looking at some neutral sources. I'd never listen to any pro-gun or anti-gun sources as they both swing the numbers in ridiculous directions. The above indicates you are 17 times more likely to be the victim of a homicide versus lightning. I'm not sure how you could possibly say my numbers are off by 17 times.
 
Last edited:
Bottom line; the protection of my family and I......I'll carry what I choose to carry.

A S&W 500, the pistol of choice!
 
For those who feel very strongly about this need, do you feel this strongly about other risks that you face in life?

This is the part I'm trying to figure out. I see people post cautionary tales, proof that you should never be without a gun. Anybody foolish enough to go without is a "victim".

But murder is the 15th-ranked cause of death. What about the other 14? Why aren't you just as concerned about those? How come I never see a cautionary tale about septicemia (#10)? Or diabetes (#6)?

8000 people die every year from skin cancer. I'm sure many of you live in areas of the country where skin cancer is a higher mortality risk than homicide. Do you keep a bottle of sunscreen in an ankle holster? How come nobody ever posts a thread titled "Why you should ALWAYS bring sunscreen camping"?
-harry
 
It is like the emergency pack I carry in my airplane. I have never had to use it, but I pack it every time just the same.
 
mantakos said:
For those who feel very strongly about this need, do you feel this strongly about other risks that you face in life?

This is the part I'm trying to figure out. I see people post cautionary tales, proof that you should never be without a gun. Anybody foolish enough to go without is a "victim".

But murder is the 15th-ranked cause of death. What about the other 14? Why aren't you just as concerned about those? How come I never see a cautionary tale about septicemia (#10)? Or diabetes (#6)?

8000 people die every year from skin cancer. I'm sure many of you live in areas of the country where skin cancer is a higher mortality risk than homicide. Do you keep a bottle of sunscreen in an ankle holster? How come nobody ever posts a thread titled "Why you should ALWAYS bring sunscreen camping"?
-harry
Click to expand...
I try to eat healthy and exercise regurally. Sometimes I get sunburnt but I try to avoid it. When I go for a long bicycle ride (20+ miles) I carry lots of water, sunblock, sunglasses, my cell phone, and a concealed handgun.

It's really hard to compare a long term risk to the terrible thing that is a violent crime brought upon you or a loved one for no reason. It's not the same experience and even if you do walk away from it you'll never be the same...with or without the gun. I like to think I have better odds being armed.

Now that you've got me thinking about it....I'm off to the shooting range :)
 
Last edited:
jesse said:
...

It's really hard to compare a long term risk to the terrible thing that is a violent crime brought upon you or a loved one for no reason. It's not the same experience and even if you do walk away from it you'll never be the same...with or without the gun. I like to think I have better odds being armed.

Now that you've got me thinking about it....I'm off to the shooting range :)
Click to expand...

The same thing could be said about a nasty car accident. Yet, how many people today are off to the gun range, and how many are off to practice their driving skills in, say, a heavy rainstorm?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top