Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-19-2019, 01:10 PM   #341
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 534
Default

Quote:
(1) The news reported that the surviving woman ran 2 km to a farmhouse to summon help. It strongly implies that nobody else was boondocking in proximity to them.
The TV interview with the guy camped nearby would indicate that isn't really true.

Quote:
(2) The perp materialized between 2 and 3 a.m. in this location that apparently had no other people within 2 km of it - wait, what?!
Exactly. How likely is it that someone will happen upon you in a remote area who says he "needs to get to Hamilton" and then shoot you to get the keys to your camper. Because that is what happened according to the woman.
__________________

RossWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 01:18 PM   #342
Bronze Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: Michigan
Posts: 23
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RossWilliams View Post
But those aren't remote possibilities. They happen every day and are so common that they are commented upon only as personal stories unless there is a tragic result. Even at that, the story of a couple being found in their van poisoned by CO would not reach beyond the local news stations, much less around the world from New Zealand.
So RV fires, CO poisoning are not remote possibilities and happen every day.
So you consider violence towards people a remote possibility?
I will agree that violence is a remote possibility at a campground but you still have to drive to get there.
Guess the constant reports of violence is fake news and is really just a remote possibility that we don't need to worry about.

I guess I will have been safe to boondock on the south side of Chicago next time I head west.
__________________

paddy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 02:40 PM   #343
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy View Post
I guess I will have been safe to boondock on the south side of Chicago next time I head west.
Yep. That's about the size of it. We boondocked in South Minneapolis just last month. Like almost all violent crime, the crime in those areas is mostly between people who know one another. Is it as safe as boondocking on a remote road outside a resort town in New Zealand? Probably not.

Neither one is as dangerous as driving. Its the folks that are talking on their phone while driving that are the real threat.
RossWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 03:32 PM   #344
Platinum Member
 
rowiebowie's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,471
Default

Once again, to each his or her own. Lucky to live in a land that we can individually choose (mostly) to go where and when we please and take precautions and risks we are comfortable with.

I'm just saying that where it is legal to do so, I would not have been a victim as in the New Zealand case.
rowiebowie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 03:32 PM   #345
Site Team
 
avanti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,587
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by paddy View Post
So RV fires, CO poisoning are not remote possibilities and happen every day.
So you consider violence towards people a remote possibility?
I will agree that violence is a remote possibility at a campground but you still have to drive to get there.
Guess the constant reports of violence is fake news and is really just a remote possibility that we don't need to worry about.

I guess I will have been safe to boondock on the south side of Chicago next time I head west.
Well, a proper analysis of the situation is a bit more subtle than that.
It is not the likelihood of a risk that is relevant to decision making, it is the likelihood&severity divided by the cost of the mitigation. The name for this statistic is "cost effectiveness". All useful decision making is based of cost-effectiveness estimates. The cost of a propane detector as a ratio of the risks involved is so vanishingly low that its cost-effectiveness cannot be in doubt. Some of the mitigations people consider out of fear of a highly-unlikely violent crime--perhaps not so much.

News doesn't have to be "fake" in order to be misleading. It is not that "the constant reports of violence" aren't true. It is just that without a valid statistical context, we have no way to judge how relevant they are to our lives. As reported earlier in this thread, the simple fact is that America is the safest that it has ever been. Averaged over more than a few years, violent crime is at an all-time low. This is not the impression one gets from watching the news, but it is fact. Now, as has also been pointed out earlier, these very low risks are not distributed uniformly across the population. For example, the risk of violent crime is, sadly, far greater for black make urbanites than for the population as a whole. So, nuances matter.

A single isolated incident, such as the one being discussed here, can be extremely valuable in telling us the available methods for mitigating them (which, as I understand it is exactly what Interblog is doing). But it tells us exactly NOTHING about our individual risks, and therefore is inadequate for judging the cost-effectiveness of a proposed mitigation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RossWilliams View Post
Yep. That's about the size of it. We boondocked in South Minneapolis just last month. Like almost all violent crime, the crime in those areas is mostly between people who know one another. Is it as safe as boondocking on a remote road outside a resort town in New Zealand? Probably not.

Neither one is as dangerous as driving. Its the folks that are talking on their phone while driving that are the real threat.
This is exactly right. Humans are simply awful and risk-assessment. This fact causes all kinds of irrational behavior.
__________________
Formerly: 2005 Airstream Interstate (Sprinter 2500 T1N)
Now!: 2014 Great West Vans Legend SE (Sprinter 3500 NCV3 I4)
avanti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 03:50 PM   #346
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by rowiebowie View Post
Once again, to each his or her own. Lucky to live in a land that we can individually choose (mostly) to go where and when we please and take precautions and risks we are comfortable with.

I'm just saying that where it is legal to do so, I would not have been a victim as in the New Zealand case.
Actually, you think you wouldn't have been. But frankly, inside a camper you would have just as likely been a sitting duck. Even if you got your gun out when the guy knocked on your window, as soon as he saw you had a gun he could have stepped out of view, got out his gun and started shooting. Just as likely both you and your partner would end up shot.
RossWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 03:54 PM   #347
Site Team
 
avanti's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 3,587
Default

Moderator's Note:
Just a friendly reminder to keep on-topic. This discussion is fine so far (I am being proactive), but discussions of guns or politics that lack RV content will not be tolerated.
__________________
Formerly: 2005 Airstream Interstate (Sprinter 2500 T1N)
Now!: 2014 Great West Vans Legend SE (Sprinter 3500 NCV3 I4)
avanti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 04:27 PM   #348
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Location: Arizona
Posts: 515
Default

avanti: Agree. IMO It's understandable that an incident would rekindle an already long discussion, but anyone reading the thread from the beginning can see that we're only rehashing a topic which was exhaustively discussed earlier. There is a lot of good information in this thread and anyone new to it should definitely go back to the beginning and read through the posts. Again, IMO.
GallenH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 06:05 PM   #349
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2018
Location: Minnesota
Posts: 534
Default

Quote:
MO It's understandable that an incident would rekindle an already long discussion
I don't think its understandable, if by that you mean it was a natural consequence of what happened. This "incident" happened on the other side of the planet and the links to the local media reports about it posted here were accompanied by a huge dose of baseless speculation. The only real question is what purpose that fear mongering serves.
RossWilliams is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-19-2019, 06:18 PM   #350
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Arizona, Tempe
Posts: 766
Default

The question is what could the couple have done to survive the incident?

Have a dog for warning? Not be there? Have a firearm?
I'm not coming up with much.

Has the other forum come up with a better response? I looked for the thread but couldn't find it.
__________________

hbn7hj is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
blm, boondocking, security

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


» Featured Campgrounds

Reviews provided by

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 01:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
×