>People have been saying this for a decade, and I still sit there realising how different a bubble a lot of commenters here live.
Nearly every thread involving cars or traffic also makes this abundantly clear.
Nearly every thread involving cars or traffic also makes this abundantly clear.
I live in rural PNW. Electric is at LEAST 20 years from being a feasible and reliable solution. ...and I say that as a civil engineer with some specialization in creating EV charge stations. 30-50 might be even be more plausible.
When I'm in the field, small things can turn into life-and-death situations pretty quickly out here when you're an hour and a half drive from cell reception, followed by another hour and a half drive to town with a small hospital/sheriff station, and you're up a dirt road where a tow-truck simply won't come. And the geology is notoriously unstable and slides/washouts/fallen-trees happen constantly.
My clients LIVE in those places, I only visit. They drive big diesel rigs (They often NEED to transport big heavy stuff, and you can store diesel for long time periods in a tank onsite), and a lot of them also have transfer tanks in the back of their truck for extra range. (Because it's needed!) They also almost all carry food/water/shelter/A chainsaw/tools/a gun/etc in their vehicle for a reason. Self-rescue is all you got a lot of the time.
It's a pretty big country too, with shitty roads and pretty low population density.
You're falling into the same trap that the article and GP's are highlighting: your experience that a FWD vehicle is enough "for me / my relatives" does not apply to this situation.
1) survival in animal / vehicle collusions with bears, deers, and moose
2) delivery of goods, including building material, animal feed, human food, etc
3) lack of even basic road infrastructure maintenance by government or municipality
4) "over prepared is only prepared", you're it, you're on your own
I lived for 20 years in a semi-rural area; you could certainly live for 99% of the time without a large cargo vehicle or 4x4. The other 1% you were chancing your life. Cargo and deliveries were certainly an issue though. Now just slide that ratio towards the middle.
But, to be fair, there are a lot of folks who will say 'I'd never go without a car' that haven't lived in a place with great public transportation. I used to think that way as well until I spent six months living in a place that had great bike paths and lots of options for local and regional public transportation. I started off with the intent of trying no-car daily living and it was perfectly fine. In six months I rented a car one time for a weekend trip, that was it.
So to me the lesson is to try to have a bit of empathy for the personal experience of the person making bubble points and focus on expanding their perspective rather than debating their position.
This leaks into the misinformation topic as well but there's another thread for that :)
Also, I don't think "licensed hunting firearm for wildlife protection" is quite relevant to "gun rights". You don't need to buy your fifth AR-15 or full auto Uzi at the grocery store to protect yourself against bears.
In case any parts of my comment were unclear, I'll try to reiterate or clarify.
First I'm genuinely curious about what kind of wildlife would pose a threat to the point where you need to defend yourself by carrying guns in your car, and where you would risk such an encounter. I try to convey that this is curiosity more than criticism by comparing it to the genuine need on Svalbard.
I then address their claim about "gun rights". My point is that protecting yourself from wildlife isn't about gun rights. No one (as far as I know) is looking to ban a licensed hunting rifle or high-caliber handgun where the owner would need it for protection. My point is that many "gun rights" advocates want to have five AR-15 or a fully automatic Uzi—guns that are highly capable of killing a high number of people and not very effective against bears. In other words, I understand their clients' (legitimate) needs but I don't think it's relevant to the concept of "gun rights".
However, I live in an area where stumbling upon foreign cartel marijuana grows is relatively common. They are known to aggressively defend them with firearms which are not legal to own in the jurisdiction they're in. It's also not uncommon for a truck full of guys intent on committing armed robbery to roll up onto a client's property.
An AR-15 would be an ideal defensive weapon for that use-case.
(I still think gun regulation is a good thing, with some background checks to reduce the chances of people with e.g. psychosis getting their hands on assault rifles.)
> the idea that engaging their people with your AR-15 would be better than retreating and/or deescalating seems more like a gun fantasy to me than a realistic assessment
is more a product of your
> not very experienced in armed conflicts with drug cartels
that it is a accurate assessment of how effective/possible retreating and/or deescalating is.