Outdoor Adventure USA

DaveK wrote: Here is really where the rubber meets the road. You have a choice. Do you hide and do nothing when confronted by people intent on doing you harm or do you stand up and defend yourself. Arizona seems to support the right to self defense and they seem to have a whole lot more faith in their citizens than you do.

Hmmm, this point is interesting. I really didn't want to engage in the self defense issue, but this is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
Personally, I choose to hire protection just as most do in civilized societies...Police, Fire , etc. We have armed forces for handling foreign altercations and we have police and fire for domestic concerns. These are just the obvious protection services as there are a lot of other protections we pay for and need in civilized societies. The notion that civilians could satisfy these functions individually is absurd. You make it sound as though you have no trust in this scheme. Could it be justified that those in favor of your ideal are in fact the elitists? Do you guys esteem yourselves as knowing more about the dangers of living in a society than the rest of us schmucks? Perhaps, something to the effect that "gubmint isn't to be trusted cuz we know better and so you have a choice ...........".
Using this logic, wouldn't it make sense to buy a fire engine for my daily driver? Statistically, the likelihoods for my house catching fire or being assaulted aren't that distant from one another. Perhaps I should install a lab in the garage to make sure my foodstuffs are fit to eat...cuz ya' just never know.....The "choice" you assert is ludricrous and wreaks of fear. I'll assert it's exactly the opposite, and that there is nothing cowardly or foolhearted about having the confidence to assimilate into society unarmed. Speaking from personal experience, I've spent 30 years traveling extensively (daily) throughout Southern California in sales and management positions in the building industry. In and out of some of the nicest and worst parts of it. I guess you could say I'm hiding in plain sight. I know at least a couple hundred others just like me who do this and who have exposures to crime that must be a hundred times greater than those who simply travel to and from an office or place of employment each day. And yet, I can't account for a single situation where someone had come close to being assaulted. Sadly, I do know some who have lost there homes to fire. Pulling numbers from the whole of Southern California as to who has or hasn't been assaulted, I just don't see the statistical need to make a choice as you say.

xtatik wrote:So, if a citizen is willing to risk escalation and the possible loss of life (for either party) over crimes such as vandalism or malicious mischief, they are fools. In my opinion, any citizen who foolheartedly would carry a gun into a grappling situation in efforts to detain another individual shouldn't be deserving of the right to carry a gun.

Really? Police officers do it all the time. But I do see the point your making.

xtatik wrote:I'm arguing issues more akin to forms of vigilantism

Depending on which state you live in, there are rules of engagement that dictate when you are legally allowed to draw a firearm on someone. When you are in fear for the life of yours or others or are clearly seeing a felony, you've now entered the realm of being able to draw.

The carrying of a gun for self-protection or the protection of others is a serious decision. There are many psychological, legal, civil, and logistical ramifications of such decision. If a responsible civilian makes this decision there a certain "rules of the road" that should be followed in order to best prevent the use of lethal force and represent the CCW/CCP community responsibly (or as Larry would put it, the gun fanatics who create such a state of fear ).

Those choosing to carry serve to actually and demonstrably make society safer. It has been proven to reduce crime in all areas where it has been instituted and gives its practitioner options. These folks are to be applauded for their commitment to responsibility and public safety. However, the weight of this responsibility is serious and should be thoughtfully considered by those contemplating carrying a firearm for self defense.

Deciding to be an armed, licensed (or unlicensed depending on the state) civilian is serious business. Mature, sound judgment and preparation in every facet of this decision must be exercised. And doing so is not cheap, its not convenient, it requires ability, and is complicated by many legalities. The armed civilian can also expect to be completely misrepresented by the media, lambasted and characterized as a fringe, paranoid, and borderline un-safe person. See Larry's comments:

cruiserlarry wrote:It's hard for me to understand how this scenario doesn't bother gun advocates. I guess they don't have smog in AZ; that cloud you see is actually testosterone evaporating from all gunslingers...

Great. Now AZ will be able to lead the nation in precision drive-by shootings....

cruiserlarry wrote: ...just millions of gun owners pretending that the fear they create will make things "safer".

...folks like me will feel safer walking around CA, knowing all the gun fanatics are hundreds of miles away.

Nonsense. It sounds like hoplophobia.

cruiserlarry wrote:On a side note, having spent another weekend in the Mojave desert, I got the privilege of seeing hundreds of rounds of casings, and the destruction of everything of any historical significance by gunfire, everywhere we traveled. This is not the work of one or two irresponsible gun owners - it's the work of hundreds. There is no spot that isn't littered with the trash from those who can't seem to control their need to destroy stuff with their guns - and you want to allow these folks to open carry and act in their own defense using their "good" judgment ?? Not me. That's not elitist - that's good old common sense...

You're just making an assumption here about there having to have been "hundreds" of irresponsible gun owners shooting stuff up. You and I don't know how many there were but it only takes one or two people to dispense hundreds of rounds of casings. You're also lumping all gun owners together. Why do you assume that these are the same people who open carry?

That's like someone seeing environmental damage from rigs going off from a designated route and then pointing to you and your FJ Cruiser saying, "There is no spot that isn't damaged and trashed from those who can't seem to control their need to destroy stuff with their vehicles - and you want to allow these folks to access our public lands using their "good" judgment ?? Not me."

I hope this makes sense. However, I have a feeling Larry will just call my statements ridiculous and say I've stepped off the deep end again.

xtatik wrote:

DaveK wrote: Here is really where the rubber meets the road. You have a choice. Do you hide and do nothing when confronted by people intent on doing you harm or do you stand up and defend yourself. Arizona seems to support the right to self defense and they seem to have a whole lot more faith in their citizens than you do.

Hmmm, this point is interesting. I really didn't want to engage in the self defense issue, but this is a gross misrepresentation of reality.
Personally, I choose to hire protection just as most do in civilized societies...Police, Fire , etc. We have armed forces for handling foreign altercations and we have police and fire for domestic concerns. These are just the obvious protection services as there are a lot of other protections we pay for and need in civilized societies. The notion that civilians could satisfy these functions individually is absurd. The police are great for a variety of things in society, however in life threatening situations where seconds count, they are often minutes away. Don't think the police can get there in time and save these lives; they most often will not despite their best efforts (witness Trolley Square UT, Colorado Springs CO, Stockton CA, Lubys Killen TX, Virginia Tech VA shootings). And often when they do, they still have to formulate their response, sometimes even as the shootings continue. You make it sound as though you have no trust in this scheme. Could it be justified that those in favor of your ideal are in fact the elitists? Do you guys esteem yourselves as knowing more about the dangers of living in a society than the rest of us schmucks? Perhaps, something to the effect that "gubmint isn't to be trusted cuz we know better and so you have a choice ...........". Its not about having trust in the scheme. There are bad people who could and do bad things to yourself and the innocent people around you. I am the first line of defense for my family and myself. Our judicial systems have shown us the police are not accountable for our safety.
Using this logic, wouldn't it make sense to buy a fire engine for my daily driver? Well, I do carry a fire extinguisher in all my vehicles.Statistically, the likelihoods for my house catching fire or being assaulted aren't that distant from one another. Perhaps I should install a lab in the garage to make sure my foodstuffs are fit to eat...cuz ya' just never know.....The "choice" you assert is ludricrous and wreaks of fear. I'll assert it's exactly the opposite, and that there is nothing cowardly or foolhearted about having the confidence to assimilate into society unarmed. There is also nothing cowardly or foolhearted about choosing to carry a tool that can be used to defend one's life. Its a personal choice. Speaking from personal experience, I've spent 30 years traveling extensively (daily) throughout Southern California in sales and management positions in the building industry. In and out of some of the nicest and worst parts of it. I guess you could say I'm hiding in plain sight. I know at least a couple hundred others just like me who do this and who have exposures to crime that must be a hundred times greater than those who simply travel to and from an office or place of employment each day. And yet, I can't account for a single situation where someone had come close to being assaulted. Sadly, I do know some who have lost there homes to fire. Pulling numbers from the whole of Southern California as to who has or hasn't been assaulted, I just don't see the statistical need to make a choice as you say.

Now, do I have a greater chance of being assaulted or having my house catch on fire? Here are the national statistics.

In 2009, U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated 362,500 home structure fires.

In 2009, an estimated 1,318,398 violent crimes occurred nationwide.

I know many more people who have or were nearly assaulted than who have had houses burn down.

BorregoWrangler wrote:
Now, do I have a greater chance of being assaulted or having my house catch on fire? Here are the national statistics.

In 2009, U.S. fire departments responded to an estimated 362,500 home structure fires.

In 2009, an estimated 1,318,398 violent crimes occurred nationwide.

I know many more people who have or were nearly assaulted than who have had houses burn down.

I happen to know more folks who've had damage from fires than have been assaulted - so what's your point ?

This is a great example of poorly interpreted statistics. Violent crimes can include anything with physical contact, including family disputes, child abuse, spousal abuse, etc...so a huge proportion of that number deals with crimes where you are dealing with family, and not likely to want to use lethal force.

Your fire statistic does not include commercial fires, wild fires, etc, which cause death and destruction.

So, all that information demonstrates is that there are violent crimes and house fires - not anything showing the relation of the results of those incidents, or what the results for different types of responses were.

BorregoWrangler wrote:

xtatik wrote:So, if a citizen is willing to risk escalation and the possible loss of life (for either party) over crimes such as vandalism or malicious mischief, they are fools. In my opinion, any citizen who foolheartedly would carry a gun into a grappling situation in efforts to detain another individual shouldn't be deserving of the right to carry a gun.

Really? Police officers do it all the time. But I do see the point your making.

If you see my point, I don't know why you make mention of police doing so. Police are trained in how to do so. Most Arizonans aren't. If I were to carry, I wouldn't risk the inevitable escalation and the possibility for having to take a life over a vandalism or malicious mischief offense. I would call the cops because they stand a much better chance of appropriately taking the individual/s into custody. This way possible recompense and a punishment that fits the crime can be applied.

xtatik wrote:Unfortunately, I think you're are missing my point as well. There are many documented cases where trained peace officers were attempting to physically subdue an individual only to end up having their own gun wrested from their belt or hands (once drawn) and subsequently being overtaken and shot with it. Just as you say, I doubt Arizona will ever embrace a program that will train their armed civilians in ways to minimize this. If this is so, are all the Arizonans that are packing guns also packing the wisdom, skills or training for handling criminal situations that don't involve defense? Me knowz not!

Nope, point taken. I'm not so much thinking weapon retention training as much as common sense. If one is going to voluntarily enter a physical confrontation like that, it is probably a good idea to disarm first (just as you'd take off a tie or jacket).



On another note (perhaps slightly OT), I would have to consider vandalism/burglary a serious personal/physical threat to myself and any other persons on my property, depending on what they were doing. I'm rural... very rural. Police response is generally 15 minutes or longer out here, fire/ambulance often even more. There have even been times it has been over an hour to get a response from any emergency services. If Dani or I were seriously injured, 911 would not be considered a viable option... we would promptly load the injured person in the vehicle ourselves and take them to the hospital (cutting the time to get there from an hour down to 20-30 minutes in the process).

If someone is destroying my means of transport in such an environment they are quite literally threatening my life and the lives of those around me. I have even stronger feelings on this in most of the places I camp - without the protection of shelter/water/transport, Arizona's wilderness would kill. I will grant that things are different in the city, but most of this state (something like 90+%) is just like it is here (BFE). I've no doubt that this factors, at least indirectly, in our freedoms continuing to remain intact in this state.

cruiserlarry wrote:I happen to know more folks who've had damage from fires than have been assaulted - so what's your point ?

This is a great example of poorly interpreted statistics. Violent crimes can include anything with physical contact, including family disputes, child abuse, spousal abuse, etc...so a huge proportion of that number deals with crimes where you are dealing with family, and not likely to want to use lethal force.

Your fire statistic does not include commercial fires, wild fires, etc, which cause death and destruction.

So, all that information demonstrates is that there are violent crimes and house fires - not anything showing the relation of the results of those incidents, or what the results for different types of responses were.

My point is that we are far more likely to be faced with an assault or crime than we are with fire. I just posted very general statistics showing the relation between the two, since it was something that xtatik mentioned. If you do a similar search or if you just read the newspaper or watch the news you'll see that people are put into far more situations where they may need to defend themselves than having to deal with the threat of fires. Seems like common knowledge to me.

Now of course, there are people in this state, in this country, and in this world who may live their entire life without being faced with any kind of serious threat whatsoever. However, this is not something we can control or foresee in our lives. Some people have decided to acknowledge the personal responsibility that they have for themselves and their family. That have chosen to carry a firearm and there is nothing wrong with that. Still others will never feel the need to carry something for protection at any point in their life, and there's nothing wrong with that either. These are personal choices that should not be criticized.

But what do I know, I'm just another "fanatical" gun owner, right?

cruiserlarry wrote:AZ must be one really dangerous place if everyone needs to be armed, with or without training, and that the fear that the "other guy" might be packing is all that keeps the place from imploding from rampant crime. What a scary way to live.

It's interesting you bring this up. I actually feel safer camping unarmed in Arizona than I do armed in California. The simple fact is that the criminals out there prey on the California side because they know that there is a very slim chance they'll run into someone who can defend themselves. On the Arizona side its more like flipping a coin for your life.

In a perfect world everyone would get along fine and no one would need guns. Since it isn't a perfect world, I prefer to at least have an even playing field.

xtatik wrote:

BorregoWrangler wrote:

xtatik wrote:So, if a citizen is willing to risk escalation and the possible loss of life (for either party) over crimes such as vandalism or malicious mischief, they are fools. In my opinion, any citizen who foolheartedly would carry a gun into a grappling situation in efforts to detain another individual shouldn't be deserving of the right to carry a gun.

Really? Police officers do it all the time. But I do see the point your making.

If you see my point, I don't know why you make mention of police doing so. Police are trained in how to do so. Most Arizonans aren't. If I were to carry, I wouldn't risk the inevitable escalation and the possibility for having to take a life over a vandalism or malicious mischief offense. I would call the cops because they stand a much better chance of appropriately taking the individual/s into custody. This way possible recompense and a punishment that fits the crime can be applied.

Now you're missing my point. I don't know why you only quoted the first part of what I said in post #22 when the rest of it dealt directly with what you've been saying in this thread? I mentioned police because it related with what you stated. I never said that an armed citizen should risk escalating a minor situation. I said that if a responsible civilian makes the decision to carry then there a certain "rules of the road" that should be followed in order to best prevent the use of lethal force.

I'm not taking about an armed citizen choosing to get into a grappling situation in an effort to detain another individual, but it is a type of encounter than one can suddenly find themselves in. Most people may not have any official "training", however, a recent U.S. Supreme Court opinion declared that the right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of self-defense is a fundamental right.

Chazz Layne wrote:

cruiserlarry wrote:AZ must be one really dangerous place if everyone needs to be armed, with or without training, and that the fear that the "other guy" might be packing is all that keeps the place from imploding from rampant crime. What a scary way to live.

It's interesting you bring this up. I actually feel safer camping unarmed in Arizona than I do armed in California. The simple fact is that the criminals out there prey on the California side because they know that there is a very slim chance they'll run into someone who can defend themselves. On the Arizona side its more like flipping a coin for your life.

In a perfect world everyone would get along fine and no one would need guns. Since it isn't a perfect world, I prefer to at least have an even playing field.

X1!