Subscribe Contribute Advertise Facebook Twitter Instagram Forums Newsletter
UL with a gun?
Display Avatars Sort By:
Brady Fulton
(bfulton) - F

Locale: Phoenix Arizona
Re: Re: Re: Fishing and Hunting on 12/11/2009 16:51:12 MST Print View

Yeah, I could only see myself doing this if I were in a survival situation.

donald buckner

Locale: Southeast U.S.
Longbow option on 12/12/2009 16:47:37 MST Print View

I just weighed my lightest longbow. 18oz. (54#@28" bamboo and fiberglass). Arrows weigh about 1.2oz each and add the weight of the quiver to safely carry the arrows... about 25oz for everything. Since you could take down an elk with this you could feed about 200 backpackers with the meat. Or, you could call your packhorse connection and take it home to your freezer and feed your family for the year. And all this would be made possible and more enjoyable by using lightweight gear, keeping the load down so you could get away from the crowds where the game would be more plentiful and less spooky. It does take quite a bit of effort to become a good shot with a bow, but it is very rewarding to take game with it. Small game is hard to hit but where game is plentiful, a fella could certainly suplement the store-bought food. I've enjoyed ptarmigan, artic hare, cottontail rabbit, squirrel and many other larger game as camp food.

Juston Taul

Locale: Atlanta, GA
A fear of weapons... on 12/15/2009 12:46:51 MST Print View a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity."

"You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind every blade of grass." -Isoroku Yamamoto

Like it or not, The United States of America is a free country... IMHO the greatest country. The 2nd Amendment is a right, not a privilege.

@ David. You post these "facts". Here are some for you. "Facts" can be adjusted to ones favor. Don't be so quick to believe the hype.

Fact Sheet: Guns Save Lives

A. Guns save more lives than they take; prevent more injuries than they inflict

* Guns used 2.5 million times a year in self-defense. Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals as many as 2.5 million times every year -- or about 6,850 times a day.1 This means that each year, firearms are used more than 80 times more often to protect the lives of honest citizens than to take lives.2
* Of the 2.5 million times citizens use their guns to defend themselves every year, the overwhelming majority merely brandish their gun or fire a warning shot to scare off their attackers. Less than 8% of the time, a citizen will kill or wound his/her attacker.3
* As many as 200,000 women use a gun every year to defend themselves against sexual abuse.4
* Even anti-gun Clinton researchers concede that guns are used 1.5 million times annually for self-defense. According to the Clinton Justice Department, there are as many as 1.5 million cases of self-defense every year. The National Institute of Justice published this figure in 1997 as part of "Guns in America" -- a study which was authored by noted anti-gun criminologists Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig.5
* Armed citizens kill more crooks than do the police. Citizens shoot and kill at least twice as many criminals as police do every year (1,527 to 606).6 And readers of Newsweek learned that "only 2 percent of civilian shootings involved an innocent person mistakenly identified as a criminal. The 'error rate' for the police, however, was 11 percent, more than five times as high."7
* Handguns are the weapon of choice for self-defense. Citizens use handguns to protect themselves over 1.9 million times a year.8 Many of these self-defense handguns could be labeled as "Saturday Night Specials."
B. Concealed carry laws help reduce crime

* Nationwide: one-half million self-defense uses. Every year, as many as one-half million citizens defend themselves with a firearm away from home.9
* Concealed carry laws are dropping crime rates across the country. A comprehensive national study determined in 1996 that violent crime fell after states made it legal to carry concealed firearms. The results of the study showed:
* States which passed concealed carry laws reduced their murder rate by 8.5%, rapes by 5%, aggravated assaults by 7% and robbery by 3%;10 and
* If those states not having concealed carry laws had adopted such laws in 1992, then approximately 1,570 murders, 4,177 rapes, 60,000 aggravated assaults and over 11,000 robberies would have been avoided yearly.11
* Vermont: one of the safest five states in the country. In Vermont, citizens can carry a firearm without getting permission... without paying a fee... or without going through any kind of government-imposed waiting period. And yet for ten years in a row, Vermont has remained one of the top-five, safest states in the union -- having three times received the "Safest State Award."12
* Florida: concealed carry helps slash the murder rates in the state. In the fifteen years following the passage of Florida's concealed carry law in 1987, over 800,000 permits to carry firearms were issued to people in the state.13 FBI reports show that the homicide rate in Florida, which in 1987 was much higher than the national average, fell 52% during that 15-year period -- thus putting the Florida rate below the national average. 14
* Do firearms carry laws result in chaos? No. Consider the case of Florida. A citizen in the Sunshine State is far more likely to be attacked by an alligator than to be assaulted by a concealed carry holder.
1. During the first fifteen years that the Florida law was in effect, alligator attacks outpaced the number of crimes committed by carry holders by a 229 to 155 margin.
2. And even the 155 "crimes" committed by concealed carry permit holders are somewhat misleading as most of these infractions resulted from Floridians who accidentally carried their firearms into restricted areas, such as an airport.15
C. Criminals avoid armed citizens

* Kennesaw, GA. In 1982, this suburb of Atlanta passed a law requiring heads of households to keep at least one firearm in the house. The residential burglary rate subsequently dropped 89% in Kennesaw, compared to the modest 10.4% drop in Georgia as a whole.16
* Ten years later (1991), the residential burglary rate in Kennesaw was still 72% lower than it had been in 1981, before the law was passed.17
* Nationwide. Statistical comparisons with other countries show that burglars in the United States are far less apt to enter an occupied home than their foreign counterparts who live in countries where fewer civilians own firearms. Consider the following rates showing how often a homeowner is present when a burglar strikes:
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the gun control countries of Great Britain, Canada and Netherlands: 45% (average of the three countries); and,
* Homeowner occupancy rate in the United States: 12.7%.18
Rapes averted when women carry or use firearms for protection
* Orlando, FL. In 1966-67, the media highly publicized a safety course which taught Orlando women how to use guns. The result: Orlando's rape rate dropped 88% in 1967, whereas the rape rate remained constant in the rest of Florida and the nation.19
* Nationwide. In 1979, the Carter Justice Department found that of more than 32,000 attempted rapes, 32% were actually committed. But when a woman was armed with a gun or knife, only 3% of the attempted rapes were actually successful.20
Justice Department study:
* 3/5 of felons polled agreed that "a criminal is not going to mess around with a victim he knows is armed with a gun."21
* 74% of felons polled agreed that "one reason burglars avoid houses when people are at home is that they fear being shot during the crime."22
* 57% of felons polled agreed that "criminals are more worried about meeting an armed victim than they are about running into the police."23

As you can see, I pull facts out of my ass as well. Google can be your friend or enemy. Just some friendly advice... you can't hide evil from your kids. Inform them, teach them, train them, keep them a step ahead. If not, you might as well have put your head in the sand.

I'm 27 years old, I've had a gun since the age of 5. I've carried a handgun daily since the age of 18. I'm trained and willing to use it if I must. I carry everywhere I go... from day to day errands, work, and even backpacking. I've never had to use my gun against another human... and god willing I never will. However, it's better to have and not need than to need and not have.

If you don't like guns that's fine. Just don't whine about it if the need arises. I can protect myself... can you?

Thomas Hood
(ATTom) - F
Firearms on 12/17/2009 14:36:37 MST Print View

i agree with the above post 120%.
I am 24 years old and I have been around firearms since i was 5. I was trained from day one how to handle them, and that is what is key when dealing with children. If i would have mishandled a firearm, my father would have taken it against my backside.

The 2nd amendment is a right granted to us by god and affirmed by the bill of rights. The 2nd amendment is the enforcement clause to the bill of rights. It was placed there to guard against a tyrannical government. Banning firearms does nothing to prevent criminals from getting them. It prevents law abiding citizens from owning them.
I have shot everything from black powder to Ak-47's and they are all safe in the hands of a responsible owner. No gun is any more deadly than any other.
The thing that irritates me is that I am a hunter, target shooter and lightweight backpacker. I get tired of the anti gun/ anti hunter BS on backpacking sites. More people get killed by drunk drivers than by guns. Dont see people going on for 10 pages about that. If I choose to exercise my right to carry firearms where it is legal to do so while i am backpacking that is my right and quite frankly is none of your affair. If you wish to enjoy nature without a firearm that is your right as well.
People that have never fired a gun in their life commenting about them is like getting advice about electricity form the Amish. It makes no sense and I wish people that had no clue about firearms would just keep opinions to themselves.

John Brochu
(JohnnyBgood4) - F

Locale: New Hampshire
Re: A fear of weapons... on 12/17/2009 14:48:08 MST Print View

>>> However, it's better to have and not need than to need and not have.<<<

I guess that means you carry a defibrillator too?

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Firearms on 12/17/2009 15:24:10 MST Print View

"The 2nd amendment is a right granted to us by god and affirmed by the bill of rights"

You mind telling me where you found that in the Bible??

"I wish people that had no clue about firearms would just keep opinions to themselves."

They probably wish you'd keep yours to yourself, too, but that's not the way it works in the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave. There's another amendment "granted to us by God": The 1st Amendment. Has something to do with free speech. Check it out sometime.

Now here's my 2 cents worth: There are also a lot of people around here who do know something about firearms who
no longer hunt or still hunt and would like to see a little more restriction placed on what weapons are available and who should have access to them. It's not about hunting, at least not for me, but rather about the issue of assault rifles, machine pistols, pistols with 30 round clips, ammunition with enhanced penetration and shock capabilities, Barrett rifles, etc, in the hands of civilians.

"I get tired of the anti gun/ anti hunter BS on backpacking sites."

Maybe you'd be more comfortable on a hunting site?? And maybe we'd be more comfortable too.

David T
(DaveT) - F
. on 12/17/2009 15:25:04 MST Print View


Edited by DaveT on 06/16/2015 22:59:12 MDT.

Dirk Rabdau
(dirk9827) - F

Locale: Pacific Northwest
The debate on 12/17/2009 16:17:52 MST Print View

While I will acknowledge that my views run more along the anti-handgun camp, I am not opposed to hunting.

And while the rhetoric on either side of this issue can be divisive (a fact I generally ignore but have been known to engage), I do take strong exception with this statement:

"People that have never fired a gun in their life commenting about them is like getting advice about electricity form the Amish."

Well, I have never been President of the United States, though I believe it is well within my right to comment on the effectiveness of the policies and performance of the Commander-in-Chief.

The issue with gun studies in general is how small changes to the interpretation of data can yield wildly varying results. Several popular studies have been criticized for the methods chosen to analyze the data. One such popular study, "More guns, less crime" asserts that gun ownership promotes safety, rather than increases crime.

A study published in the Stanford Law Review praises the study for many of its techniques while disagreeing with the conclusions reached by its authors. By making minute changes in how the data is weighted, one would reach the conclusion that the proliferation of guns contributes to crime.

The point I believe the authors were driving home was the statistical relevancy of the message - that is, are the conclusions supported by the evidence, and if so, how solid is the basis for those conclusions? Indeed, these days many gun studies have become the subject of other studies - a cottage industry.

Finally, Causation does not imply correlation. Crime increases/decreases for reasons besides gun ownership.


Luke Schmidt
(Cameron) - MLife

Locale: The WOODS
Crime on 12/17/2009 17:09:27 MST Print View

Just to throw some gas on the fire I saw an article in Foxnews (yes shock, I do look at that website among others) that mentioned a poll back in the 1950s showed a good majoirity of Americans were in favor of banning or heavily regulating handguns compared to a more recent poll that showed most against it. IF this is accurate (and I can't comment on the accuracy of the poll) it would indicate that as crime has gone up people (mostly not criminals one would assume) have become more tolerant of guns. It could be people want guns more BECAUSE of crime or it could be the two trends are unrelatated. At any rate I would argue its a lot more complicated than "easy guns mean more crime" or "more guns mean a lot of dead criminals"

j lan
(justaddfuel) - F

Locale: MN
Re: Crime on 12/17/2009 17:25:48 MST Print View

Actually violent crime has gone down dramatically in the last 30 years. It's just that it is focused on more heavily by the media. Over and over and over again.

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: chiggity-chaff. on 12/17/2009 17:36:06 MST Print View

"move it in there with the religion stuff, the health care debates, and everything else that is yapfest du jour at CYL.COM (chaff-yapping lite)."

I dunno, Dave. If it hasn't been moved by now....And to think it's not even Dec. 21st. Wait'll the really dark days arrive. ;}

Chaff-yapping lite? Is that one of those punk rock lovin' ultra liter rock bands?

Luke Schmidt
(Cameron) - MLife

Locale: The WOODS
Re. Re. Crime on 12/17/2009 17:52:09 MST Print View

Crimes rates down? I could've swore I heard they went up but you're probably right I stand corrected.
So guns have become more popular, but they seem more controversial. Crime has gone down, but we think it has got worse... I guess no one said the world was simple.

Craig W.
(xnomanx) - F - M
Re: Re. Re. Crime on 12/17/2009 19:12:44 MST Print View

"It's not about hunting, at least not for me, but rather about the issue of assault rifles, machine pistols, pistols with 30 round clips, ammunition with enhanced penetration and shock capabilities, Barrett rifles, etc, in the hands of civilians."

Come on Tom, be reasonable!
When Obama's Brown Shirts, the United Nations, or a Republican Praetorian Guard invade in black helicopters, force me to use a global currency and get a One-World I.D./Credit Card, what will we fight them with?

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re. Re. Crime on 12/17/2009 20:12:59 MST Print View

"what will we fight them with?"

Stingers, SAM-7's, bazookas, all those goodies I didn't specifically mention. ;}

As for me, I'm packing my huaraches and heading down to Copper Canyon to hang out with the Raramuri; I was quite intrigued by the whole idea of the "tesguinada". ;-)

Doug I.
(idester) - MLife

Locale: PNW
Re: Re: Re: Re. Re. Crime on 12/17/2009 20:29:40 MST Print View

"I was quite intrigued by the whole idea of the "tesguinada". ;-)"

I'm heading out to a snowy, cold patch of Virginia for a bit o' backpacking this weekend! I'll probably freeze my tesguinadas right off!

Tom Kirchner
(ouzel) - MLife

Locale: Pacific Northwest/Sierra
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re. Re. Crime on 12/17/2009 20:46:19 MST Print View

"I'll probably freeze my tesguinadas right off!"

Not to worry. If you drink enough tesguin, they'll be good down to -40 or so.

Juston Taul

Locale: Atlanta, GA
Re: Re: A fear of weapons... on 12/17/2009 20:51:32 MST Print View

I find it funny people thing more laws = better protection. Only law abiding citizens follow laws. Criminals will find guns no matter how many restrictions we place on them. What you propose is unconstitutional. I don't even see the need to have a license to carry a handgun (though I do). The constitution should be the only law I have to follow. I'll play the game but don't push too hard.

@ John

No, but if I want I have the right to do so.

Edited by Junction on 12/17/2009 21:03:05 MST.

Benjamin Crowley
(benajah) - F

Locale: West, now
Changing attitudes towards guns on 12/17/2009 21:40:01 MST Print View

I think over the years attitudes towards guns have changed a lot. In the 40s 50s and maybe 60s, people who wanted a gun for home defense would just use the same as you would for hunting, a rifle or shotgun. nowadays people think you need an assault rifle or pistol.
When what people think of as a "gun" changes from an old cowboy rifle or a double barreled shotgun into something much more "military" the attitudes towards what guns are in a culture are going to change as well.
A gun is a tool, no different from a hammer, saw, ladder or anything else. It is potentially dangerous, but it still takes a human being to manipulate it into being dangerous. It cannot act on its own.
I was career Army, and attitudes towards guns were little different there than in the civilian world. Most guys saw absolutely no need to have some military type weapon in their house, when a pump shotgun would do the trick.
Truth is, most people that really, really know guns and knives, and self defense and all that stuff actually see someone with a knife who knows how to use it as much, much more dangerous than someone with a gun. Honestly, a well wielded knife is much more lethal than a gun.

David Olsen

Locale: Steptoe Butte
Re: Re: Re. Re. Crime on 12/18/2009 08:19:20 MST Print View

Come on Tom, be reasonable!
When Obama's Brown Shirts, the United Nations, or a Republican Praetorian Guard invade in black helicopters, force me to use a global currency and get a One-World I.D./Credit Card, what will we fight them with?"

Probably what they use in Afghanistan.

Probably won't be SUL tho.

Edited by oware on 12/18/2009 08:20:31 MST.

John Brochu
(JohnnyBgood4) - F

Locale: New Hampshire
Re: Re: Re: A fear of weapons... on 12/18/2009 08:34:47 MST Print View

>>>@ John

No, but if I want I have the right to do so.<<<

You also have the right to use 6 pound backpacks, bombproof tents, carry a GPS, cellphone, and spot, and bring a 5 pound first aid kit.

My point was that your comment, "better to have and not need than need and not have" is pretty much the antithesis of UL philosophy.

I'm not against guns and I'm not against hunting, but if I was so scared of going hiking that I needed to bring a gun to feel safe I would just stay home.

Having said that - you certainly have a right imo to bring whatever you want. Bring a bazooka or a cannon if you like and it calms your nerves.