personal safety while on the road

[Larry N.]

I feel the need to stress something that has been briefly mentioned above: Taking of human life. Anyone potentially using a firearm for protection needs to seriously think about whether they can actually take a human life, even in a serious situation. They also need to think about what happens if an innocent life gets inadvertently taken, which can and does happen.

If this person feels he/she can deal with that, then training (personal protection courses -- NRA offers one of the best) is very, VERY strongly recommended. Without proper training, that person may be as dangerous to himself and/or loved ones as to the criminal/intruder. Just waving a firearm at someone doesn't accomplish much of anything, and can be dangerous. A gun is NOT magic.

 

[Orick]

As you can see this is always a hot topic.  Just to add my two cents from 2 yrs of half time and the past year of full time travel, we have NEVER ONCE felt the least bit threatened in any park we have stayed.  Frankly this came as a surprise to me, but a plesant one.  I think if we were to do a lot of boon docking I might feel differently but we have reached the conclusion that, for us, carrying a gun is not necessary.

Having said that, "you don't need it until you need it" has a lot of merit.  As for carrying a concealed weapon to fend off a robbery in a Wal Mart parking lot, personally I don't find that relevent to travel or RVing but rather a more general topic of personal safety.

You probably didn't think you were going to find "the answer" here anyway but you did get some very good insights.

 

[Birddogman]

I agree with some of the others in that the very fact that you are asking probably means that you and your husband are not trained, experienced gun users.  While I certainly support the right to carry, without a great deal of training and experience, I?d guess a gun (especially a handgun!) in the hands of an inexperienced person would be likely to pose a greater danger to its user and to bystanders than to the bad guy. 

Unless you/he are willing to commit to a very serious course of training, I?d suggest some sort of non-lethal defense, like perhaps the new Kimber Pepper Blaster ? see here:  http://www.kimberamerica.com/products/less-lethal/

On the other hand, if you/he are willing to invest the time and money to become competent and safe with the gun you choose, including developing the ability to kill without hesitation should the true need arise and, in general, to function rationally and calmly under the intense stress and chaos of a life-and-death situation (these are ?skills? that few other than former infantrymen and perhaps long experienced LEO?s ever really achieve); and you are willing to deal with the real world legal consequences of shooting someone, a well-handled gun will offer better protection.

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

Apparently you have been comfortable so far in life without a gun at your side. There is nothing about camping that would dictate a change in that.

In my experience - and my opinion - campgrounds are one of the safest  places in America. We don't often camp near a metro area, and in the  rural areas there just don't seem to be many felons or loonies. Or at  least not the kinds that threaten others with bodily injury.  We've  occasionally run into a domestic argument - even campers can have loud  fights - but never a situation where we feared for our own safety. If we  did, we would drive on.  We have passed up a couple alleged  "campgrounds" that looked too rough for our tastes, and also passed up a  Walmart in a tough-looking part of town.

I guess if I felt I needed a weapon to make camping safe, I wouldn't go camping. 
 

 

[geodrake]

Another serious consideration if you choose to be armed:

For a fire arm to useful in an emergency situation it must be available and ready to go.  Available means easily accessible.  Easily accessible means easily accessible to you and anyone else.  Do you ever have young children around?  Do other people with access to it know that it is ready to go?  Ready to go means a round in the chamber or cylinder, thus the only required action is to pull the trigger. 

Pretty much all of the accidental shootings result from the above!

 

[Fullabunk]

I think Don's quote was the best I have ever seen.  Yes, I carry a gun in my RV and anywhere else I might happen to be.  I am military trained of 21 years and am licenced to carry concealed the past 12 years.  I go through refresher training at each license renewal.  I shoot at a target range regularly.  I have had two experiences in the last 10 years that I felt threatened enough by the situation to pull a gun.  Both times I was in a car and didn't like the situation developing.  Fortunately, I never had to use it.  As Don said it took force by others out of the equation.  Yes, I think campgrounds are generally safe and I am not afraid as I travel.  But none of us stays in the RV or campground fulltime, we do venture out to the WalMart or grocery store, we do take day trips into the mountains or deserts.  Believe it or not there are crazies out there.  I hope never to have to fire my weapon, but I can accept taking a life if I feel the threat to me or mine is imminent.  I decided many years ago, "I will not be a victim".

I agree with the comment that was made about husband and wife having some agreement.  I grew up around guns, my wife didn't.  Although my wife does not generally carry, she has been trained in self protection and is licensed to carry.  She has access to my weapons.  Could she use it or take a life?  Neither I or she knows.  BUT she is capable and she now has a choice.  She will make that decision if the occasion ever arises.  If she wasn't trained or had no access, than she also would have no choice.


Personal safety is for each of address in our own way..  I also agree that if you carry or have access, you must be properly trained.

 

[Buscadero]

The wife and I are retired big city LEO's.
Both Texas born and raised where firearms were simply tools.
Never much use for a handgun until I began my job back in 1972.
We carry.

Old Texas sayin...

Better to have and not need it...
Than to need it and not have it..

If you choose to carry by all means get some training.

 

[John From Detroit]

John, you've been around this forum for many years, and have some supporters and some detractors. But I don't think anyone who's met you in person would want to meet you in a dark alley 

Well.. Yes,  I do kind of count on that in fact... Of course as the Ex-Marine posted, against a Gun my size is of no help at all.. Only another gun, and a highly trained hand, would prevail.  (Or perhaps some serious trickery, but I'm no where near that good)

As it happens.. I have taken guns apart and put 'em back together.. I've put 'em back together after someone else took 'em apart (The far harder job) and I can out-shoot my brother (Not an easy task since he's a hunter and I'm not).

I just prefer not to carry guns.. My choice.. When it becomes evident that the government is considering taking my choice away.... I will do what I can to insure I still have the choice.

Thus... If you choose to carry.. I respect that it is YOUR choice.

 

[PJ Stough]

This retired Marine says it very well.

The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

I would think that if you spread this post over 40 acres of Iowa soil, it would increase the corn crop by about 10 bushels to the acre.

Paul

 

[InPursuit]

I would think that if you spread this post over 40 acres of Iowa soil, it would increase the corn crop by about 10 bushels to the acre.

Thank YOU for saying it!
ROFL.

(whatever truths or insights the cited article may have... it  has NOTHING to do with the question posed in the thread)

 

[Sarguy]

I, like many other contributors here, also have a military background (retired USMC - 20 years). I also spent my youth as a military brat. I was born and raised with guns. Gulf war aside, there was only one time in my life when I truly felt threatened and to this day I believe that having a sidearm saved my life. I was a freshman in college and on an extended hike in the mountains of North Carolina with my girl friend. I almost didn't bring my father's hand-me-down Model 1911 .45 ACP due to weight. But as an ROTC Marine, I felt I had to get used to the weight and feel of my future T/E weapon. My thoughts were black bears and mountain cats, never in my wildest dreams did I think that we'd run into a "Deliverance" situation. Two older males with one thing on their mind, my girl friend in the middle of nowhere. We bumped into them on a switch back in the trail. When I realized a hello and goodbye wasn't going to take place, we kept as much distance as we could. As they checked us out with small talk, one asked for a light. How many hikers actually smoke? These guys were traveling between populated areas and taking back roads to avoid the law. All I needed to do was move my jacket aside and place my hand on the 45 and say sorry no light, and they said thanks anyway and continued in the opposite direction.  We kept our six covered and reported them at the next ranger stop. Without mentioning I was carrying, the ranger commented to me on the side that I was lucky they left my girl friend alone. Today I have a permit to carry and will carry when I feel it necessary. Having a gun can be a great equalizer when things aren't equal.

 

[KlipschHead281]

This retired Marine says it very well.

The Gun is Civilization
by Maj. L. Caudill USMC (Ret)

Human beings only have two ways to deal with one another: reason and force. If you want me to do something for you, you have a choice of either convincing me via argument, or force me to do your bidding under threat of force. Every human interaction falls into one of those two categories, without exception. Reason or force, that's it.

In a truly moral and civilized society, people exclusively interact through persuasion. Force has no place as a valid method of social interaction, and the only thing that removes force from the menu is the personal firearm, as paradoxical as it may sound to some.

When I carry a gun, you cannot deal with me by force. You have to use reason and try to persuade me, because I have a way to negate your threat or employment of force.

The gun is the only personal weapon that puts a 100-pound woman on equal footing with a 220-pound mugger, a 75-year old retiree on equal footing with a 19-year old gang banger, and a single guy on equal footing with a carload of drunk guys with baseball bats. The gun removes the disparity in physical strength, size, or numbers between a potential attacker and a defender.

There are plenty of people who consider the gun as the source of bad force equations. These are the people who think that we'd be more civilized if all guns were removed from society, because a firearm makes it easier for a [armed] mugger to do his job. That, of course, is only true if the mugger's potential victims are mostly disarmed either by choice or by legislative fiat--it has no validity when most of a mugger's potential marks are armed.

People who argue for the banning of arms ask for automatic rule by the young, the strong, and the many, and that's the exact opposite of a civilized society. A mugger, even an armed one, can only make a successful living in a society where the state has granted him a force monopoly.

Then there's the argument that the gun makes confrontations lethal that otherwise would only result in injury. This argument is fallacious in several ways. Without guns involved, confrontations are won by the physically superior party inflicting overwhelming injury on the loser.

People who think that fists, bats, sticks, or stones don't constitute lethal force watch too much TV, where people take beatings and come out of it with a bloody lip at worst. The fact that the gun makes lethal force easier works solely in favor of the weaker defender, not the stronger attacker. If both are armed, the field is level.

The gun is the only weapon that's as lethal in the hands of an octogenarian as it is in the hands of a weight lifter. It simply wouldn't work as well as a force equalizer if it wasn't both lethal and easily employable.

When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation... and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.

By Maj. L. Caudill USM C (Ret)

So the greatest civilization is one where all citizens are equally armed and can only be persuaded, never forced.

This is the best explanation I have ever heard, thanks for posting it, it says what?s in my mind that for some reason I can?t verbalize properly.

 

[taoshum]

This is the best explanation I have ever heard, thanks for posting it, it says what?s in my mind that for some reason I can?t verbalize properly.

Except, if you have an encounter with a really mean drunk/crack head/meth addict or, worse yet, several of the at the same time; you have a very small chance of convincing/forcing them to do your bidding... whether you have a gun or not...it is much easier to kill a few of them with a gun though if you are prepared to go there when necessary.  That is, unless they are armed as well, likely with an automatic...then it is back to a "standoff", except they don't care what happens. 


It's a nice piece but sorta outdated and doesn't represent "civilization" in its entirety as it exists today, IMHO, of course.

 

[Don Jensen]

Except, if you have an encounter with a really mean drunk/crack head/meth addict or, worse yet, several of the at the same time; you have a very small chance of convincing/forcing them to do your bidding... whether you have a gun or not...it is much easier to kill a few of them with a gun though if you are prepared to go there when necessary.  That is, unless they are armed as well, likely with an automatic...then it is back to a "standoff", except they don't care what happens. 


It's a nice piece but sorta outdated and doesn't represent "civilization" in its entirety as it exists today, IMHO, of course.

So your position is to just let them kill you without any defense on your part because it would happen anyway?  Good thing our founding fathers didn't think that way. They would not have written the Second Amendment. :

 

[InPursuit]

So your position is to...

No.

His position (as I see it) is that the paranoid contingent of 2A rights supporters (I'm part of this latter group)...
seem to believe that if everyone in the world isn't convinced they NEED a gun then no one else will be allowed to have them.

In short, as as the OP raised the question in THIS thread...
when you are at the time in your lives that buying an RV comes into play and you aren't already a shooter and gun owner...
it is NOT gonna be a good time to become one.

And that is just as true if you happened to pass through Parris Island 50 years ago or not.
Clear enough?

 

[Don Jensen]

No.

His position (as I see it) is that the paranoid contingent of 2A rights supporters (I'm part of this latter group)...
seem to believe that if everyone in the world isn't convinced they NEED a gun then no one else will be allowed to have them.

If I understand your statement, I agree with your position.  I can see how people (and the sales of weapons and ammo since President Obama was elected, support this concern) are worried about their second amendment rights.

In short, as as the OP raised the question in THIS thread...
when you are at the time in your lives that buying an RV comes into play and you aren't already a shooter and gun owner...
it is NOT gonna be a good time to become one.

I agree with the above statement except for one thing.  It is NEVER too late to be trained to protect yourself with a firearm, martial arts or whatever is your choice of defense. 

 

[Gary RV_Wizard]

OK, folks, this is trending toward a gun & second amendment debate. Let's tone it down, and please no more remarks about each others attitude or view.  Or increasing the corn crop either ( though I'll grant it was humorous). The OP asked about crime in RV parks and personal safety while camping.  Let's stick to that.

 

[taoshum]

So your position is to just let them kill you without any defense on your part because it would happen anyway?  Good thing our founding fathers didn't think that way. They would not have written the Second Amendment. :

I didn't write that...I have no clue what you are saying.  I'm just trying to get to a real example of an encounter that could happen between an RV and an armed meth addict looking for money to get their next "fix".  What might happen if you have a gun and they have a gun?  Or if you don't have a gun?  Just like the OP ask? 

OK?

I have no clue what this has to do with our founding fathers thinking 220 years ago when there were no meth addicts, the second amendment or letting anyone kill me?  Geez?

 

[Molaker]

Hmmm, let's see... $200-$300 (maybe more) for a decent handgun to prevent someone from possibly robbing me of the $200-$300 cash I might be carrying.  Something doesn't seem right here.  The likelyhood of that happening even once in your life is extremely low so why not just sacrifice the $200-$300?  Sure, if the culprit is hopped up enough or crazy enough he might harm me (or us), but if that's the case, chances are it will happen with or without my having a weapon.  On the other hand, brandishing a weapon is probably as likely to "set off" a crazy as scare off a crazy.  Of course, having camped and roamed the backwoods and walked the dangerous mall parking lots and even stopped at many unlit rest stops with all sorts of evil lurking in the dark for only 65 years, it still could happen that I'll need that gun - now where the heck are the shells???

As for 2nd amendment rights...oh hell, that's a whole 'nother issue.  It doesn't bear any consideration in my enjoying touring this wonderful country.

 

[glfredrick]

As I read through the comments posted it seems that we've stuck a stick into a hornet's nest...

I'm of a mind that (1) there is no longer any true "safe place" in this world, where at some point someone will not threaten one's survival in some way shape of form, and (2) it takes a LOT of personal preparation to be able to deal with fact #1, and (3) if that personal preparation has not already been made, then having a tool in one's possession to try to deal with fact #1 may not turn out the way one intends.

Of course, one might begin the process of personal preparation and advance to the point where situations found in fact #1 can be handled, but that is almost precluded by the OP's question.

In other words (plain English) if you are wondering if having a gun is a good thing while RVing you are probably not ready for one.

All of the above being said, I've found that most people I encounter in most of life's activities are basically the same as I, people just trying to raise a family and get by in life, have a little fun once in a while, etc., with no thoughts of harming a fellow traveler in this world.  I've done all sort of wacky things over the years, like going home with a stranger met at O'Hare airport and driving their car back to Louisville with them the next day, staying in homes of people I've met while on mission trips, walking the streets of Mexican villages, etc.  My preference is to be locked and loaded, but in most of those situations it is simply impossible, so I use my wits, train my eye to spot issues before they happen, and practice avoidance if at all possible.  We do pack while off-roading in most areas.  These days there are all sort of strange goings on deep in the woods and hills.  We've run into "farms" in tree tops, traps and other harmful obstacles, etc., and the people doing those things typically have no regard for human life or liberty (except their own).  Such is the nature of the game.