Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 354907 times)

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2400 on: March 10, 2017, 07:23:02 PM »
YMMV and all . . . but I spent a fair amount of my childhood hunting in Northern Ontario.  We came across black bears in the woods pretty often.  Never had to shoot one (we fired a few rounds in the air to scare them off if they got very close).  Never had one 'sneak up' on me.  I've got a few friends who still live up north and regularly hunt who have never needed to shoot a bear either.

I'm not mad about a hunter carrying a hand gun, but it just seems weird.  It's like wearing a cuirass every time you go hunting.  Theoretically it could be useful, but it doesn't make any kind of sense in reality.  A hand gun isn't going to be more effective than the rifle you're already carrying.

Unless you're not carrying a rifle.
And clearly hunting with a rifle is the only time one would ever run into bears or mountain lions. Perhaps one should have a rifle everytime one ventures into the great outdoors, so that they don't need a cuirass or handgun or such silly things while bouldering or backpacking or on wilderness rafting trips... i mean my uncle's brother's daughter's friend's mom used to hike regularly and never saw a bear, so why would anyone need a pistol while out hiking? She did run into a rather perturbed squirrel once, but was thankfully able to scare it off by blasting Michael Jackson  tunes through her cell phone.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3450
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2401 on: March 10, 2017, 07:31:35 PM »
YMMV and all . . . but I spent a fair amount of my childhood hunting in Northern Ontario.  We came across black bears in the woods pretty often.  Never had to shoot one (we fired a few rounds in the air to scare them off if they got very close).  Never had one 'sneak up' on me.  I've got a few friends who still live up north and regularly hunt who have never needed to shoot a bear either.

I'm not mad about a hunter carrying a hand gun, but it just seems weird.  It's like wearing a cuirass every time you go hunting.  Theoretically it could be useful, but it doesn't make any kind of sense in reality.  A hand gun isn't going to be more effective than the rifle you're already carrying.

Unless you're not carrying a rifle.
And clearly hunting with a rifle is the only time one would ever run into bears or mountain lions. Perhaps one should have a rifle everytime one ventures into the great outdoors, so that they don't need a cuirass or handgun or such silly things while bouldering or backpacking or on wilderness rafting trips... i mean my uncle's brother's daughter's friend's mom used to hike regularly and never saw a bear, so why would anyone need a pistol while out hiking? She did run into a rather perturbed squirrel once, but was thankfully able to scare it off by blasting Michael Jackson  tunes through her cell phone.

I had a habit of stashing my AR in my truck when I went offroading out in the desert.  As they say, better to have and not need than need and not have..

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2642
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2402 on: March 10, 2017, 07:54:08 PM »
YMMV and all . . . but I spent a fair amount of my childhood hunting in Northern Ontario.  We came across black bears in the woods pretty often.  Never had to shoot one (we fired a few rounds in the air to scare them off if they got very close).  Never had one 'sneak up' on me.  I've got a few friends who still live up north and regularly hunt who have never needed to shoot a bear either.

I'm not mad about a hunter carrying a hand gun, but it just seems weird.  It's like wearing a cuirass every time you go hunting.  Theoretically it could be useful, but it doesn't make any kind of sense in reality.  A hand gun isn't going to be more effective than the rifle you're already carrying.

You know there are other kinds of hunting right?  Let me know about the rifle you're carrying during bow season. See what the warden has to say about that.

Also, most hunting rifles are very low capacity, <5 rounds. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2403 on: March 10, 2017, 08:38:46 PM »
I don't know if it's common practice in the states, but you won't see a hunter with a pistol up here because it's illegal!   So it would seem very odd to meet a hunter with a holstered pistol.

I've encountered many bears.   They've all been pretty well behaved and either ignored me or ran away.   I remember one encounter just outside of Jasper national park with my daughter where I was pretty uncomfortable though.

But a rifle wouldn't have been a lot of help because I don't practice enough to use it well in an emergency.   Aside from the problems of getting it from Ottawa to Edmonton in the first place...

Life is full of risks.   We have bears, you guys have umm... well different thread.   

http://forum.mrmoneymustache.com/off-topic/what-are-the-realistic-impacts-of-a-trump-presidency/

Personally, I prefer the bears.



Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2404 on: March 11, 2017, 03:44:07 AM »
Since you're on a 100 acre place, I assume you are in the lower 48 huh Chris?
A couple posts above, you state "Believe it was a Brown bear".   Guess what ... there are no Brown bears in the lower 48, only place they exist in north America is coastal BC and Alaska.

The Wyoming Game and Fish Department, US Forest Service and the Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks department ALL disagree with you. There are brown bears in the lower 48, and they have killed people as recently as 2016. Where do you get your information, if I may ask?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8178
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2405 on: March 11, 2017, 06:00:22 AM »
Perhaps one should have a rifle everytime one ventures into the great outdoors, so that they don't need a cuirass or handgun or such silly things while bouldering or backpacking or on wilderness rafting trips... i mean my uncle's brother's daughter's friend's mom used to hike regularly and never saw a bear, so why would anyone need a pistol while out hiking? She did run into a rather perturbed squirrel once, but was thankfully able to scare it off by blasting Michael Jackson  tunes through her cell phone.

Agreed.  A rifle would be silly to have every time one ventures outdoors, just as a cuirass or handgun are.



Unless you're not carrying a rifle.

You know there are other kinds of hunting right?  Let me know about the rifle you're carrying during bow season. See what the warden has to say about that.

Also, most hunting rifles are very low capacity, <5 rounds. 

Sure, there are other forms of hunting.  I was specifically talking about hunting with a rifle as it's far and away the most common form of hunting up here (which is the action that was being discussed).  What exactly is the scenario you're imagining where five rounds from a hunting rifle is insufficient deterrent?  Do you have armor plated bears south of the border?



If you choose to carry a gun over a can of bear spray, you're actually less safe.  If you're really worried about an attack from a bear in the woods getting a can of bear spray is cheaper, easier to carry, and more effective than a hand gun (http://www.centerforwildlifeinformation.org/BearSprayOrBullets-IslandParkNews-9-17-09.pdf, http://above.nasa.gov/safety/documents/Bear/bearspray_vs_bullets.pdf,http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jwmg.342/abstract).

If someone is carrying a hand gun in the woods for protection . . . that suggests to me that they've pre-decided what is going to happen in certain scenarios.  It doesn't matter if they're actually in danger or not, they're going to shoot the bear because that was the course of action they've set in their mind.  This sounds very much like what was described in Chris's story about his friend.  A guy was hiding in the woods, noticed a bear, and had pre-decided that if he saw a bear he would shoot it.  Nothing described about that scenario required the death of the bear (warning shots would have been a more prudent first step, for example).  This is likely also why you'll notice that so many people who don't carry hand guns into the woods have stories of bears completely ignoring them, or leaving them alone.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2406 on: March 11, 2017, 06:45:02 AM »
Or, you know, you could just admit that while a handgun might be silly everytime one goes out the door, there is no good reason to restrict it while out hunting. A bear that may or may not have been scared off by firing warning shots (really, shooting into the air is the safe plan?), but the downside of a single dead animal on a hunting trip versus a possibly injured person is an acceptable outcome of a scenario.  Or were you suggesting that the bear would be better off with rifle rounds blowing out chunks of fur and flesh than handgun rounds?

And yes, for many people who enjoy the outdoors, it is predecided that a charging bear that is a danger is going to get shot. I  have zero problem with this, and neither does the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, it would seem.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8178
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2407 on: March 11, 2017, 07:03:36 AM »
Or, you know, you could just admit that while a handgun might be silly everytime one goes out the door, there is no good reason to restrict it while out hunting. A bear that may or may not have been scared off by firing warning shots (really, shooting into the air is the safe plan?), but the downside of a single dead animal on a hunting trip versus a possibly injured person is an acceptable outcome of a scenario.  Or were you suggesting that the bear would be better off with rifle rounds blowing out chunks of fur and flesh than handgun rounds?

And yes, for many people who enjoy the outdoors, it is predecided that a charging bear that is a danger is going to get shot. I  have zero problem with this, and neither does the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service, it would seem.

Shooting a bear with a hand gun vs shooting it with a rifle doesn't really make a difference.  Once you've wounded the animal it's your responsibility to kill it.  The thing is, we've already established that a hand gun is a less effective tool to protect yourself from bears outdoors though from the studies I just posted.  Given that it's both less effective than bear spray and will result in the death of the animal, there is a pretty good reason to restrict hand guns from hunting if the purpose of them is supposed to be protection from bears.  They do a poor job for that task.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2408 on: March 11, 2017, 07:15:50 AM »
The most effective means to avoid injury, for both bear and man, as listed by the resources you posted, is avoidance.  Perhaps we should mandate that people avoid all bear contact by staying out of areas bears live? Would be most effective, and cheaper than even bear spray by orders of magnitude.

People hunt bears with bows and arrows, a far less effective means than hand guns. Should we ban this too? I suppose it would be covered by the "don't hike or mountain bike or camp or raft or climb or picnic or visit areas bears live" regulation.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8178
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2409 on: March 11, 2017, 07:38:32 AM »
The most effective means to avoid injury, for both bear and man, as listed by the resources you posted, is avoidance.  Perhaps we should mandate that people avoid all bear contact by staying out of areas bears live? Would be most effective, and cheaper than even bear spray by orders of magnitude.

Sure, we could mandate that if you think it's a fair balance between personal freedom and public good.

In my eyes it's more restrictive than necessary though.  What I'm advocating for is that if you are concerned about defense from bears, you are allowed to bring the most effective (and cost effective) defense from bears with you . . . regulation only exists for a less effective (more expensive) defense that is more damaging to the wildlife.  Similar to how you're restricted from using dynamite to defend yourself from bears.


People hunt bears with bows and arrows, a far less effective means than hand guns. Should we ban this too? I suppose it would be covered by the "don't hike or mountain bike or camp or raft or climb or picnic or visit areas bears live" regulation.

There's certainly a case to be made for restricting hunting with certain weapons in an attempt to render the hunt more humane.  I don't really know enough about the subject to pass judgement one way or another though.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2410 on: March 11, 2017, 08:13:39 AM »
The most effective means to avoid injury, for both bear and man, as listed by the resources you posted, is avoidance.  Perhaps we should mandate that people avoid all bear contact by staying out of areas bears live? Would be most effective, and cheaper than even bear spray by orders of magnitude.

Sure, we could mandate that if you think it's a fair balance between personal freedom and public good.

In my eyes it's more restrictive than necessary though.  What I'm advocating for is that if you are concerned about defense from bears, you are allowed to bring the most effective (and cost effective) defense from bears with you . . . regulation only exists for a less effective (more expensive) defense that is more damaging to the wildlife.  Similar to how you're restricted from using dynamite to defend yourself from bears.


People hunt bears with bows and arrows, a far less effective means than hand guns. Should we ban this too? I suppose it would be covered by the "don't hike or mountain bike or camp or raft or climb or picnic or visit areas bears live" regulation.

There's certainly a case to be made for restricting hunting with certain weapons in an attempt to render the hunt more humane.  I don't really know enough about the subject to pass judgement one way or another though.
Rather weak and inconsistent arguments. Why should cost effectiveness have any meaning in the regulation of peoples outdoor activities? Should we also out law campers over a certain price point or tents of certain materials or climbing gear of certain brand or features because other options are more cost effective? That's ludicrous, and so grossly restrictive it's laughable.

Peopleare still injured while carrying bear spray. If they wefe truly concerned about bear attacks, they would protect themselves by avoiding them. It's much cheaper, safer for their children (whom have been sprayed with bear spray) and vastly more effective, than carrying bear spray.

Or, we could stop and realise that there are about 30 bear attacks a year in North America, approximately 2-4 which are deadly conclude that such a low number poses zero threat to human or bear population, and thus any restriction of otherwise legal means of defending oneself is vastly more onerous than helpful.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8178
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2411 on: March 11, 2017, 11:21:14 AM »
The most effective means to avoid injury, for both bear and man, as listed by the resources you posted, is avoidance.  Perhaps we should mandate that people avoid all bear contact by staying out of areas bears live? Would be most effective, and cheaper than even bear spray by orders of magnitude.

Sure, we could mandate that if you think it's a fair balance between personal freedom and public good.

In my eyes it's more restrictive than necessary though.  What I'm advocating for is that if you are concerned about defense from bears, you are allowed to bring the most effective (and cost effective) defense from bears with you . . . regulation only exists for a less effective (more expensive) defense that is more damaging to the wildlife.  Similar to how you're restricted from using dynamite to defend yourself from bears.


People hunt bears with bows and arrows, a far less effective means than hand guns. Should we ban this too? I suppose it would be covered by the "don't hike or mountain bike or camp or raft or climb or picnic or visit areas bears live" regulation.

There's certainly a case to be made for restricting hunting with certain weapons in an attempt to render the hunt more humane.  I don't really know enough about the subject to pass judgement one way or another though.
Rather weak and inconsistent arguments. Why should cost effectiveness have any meaning in the regulation of peoples outdoor activities? Should we also out law campers over a certain price point or tents of certain materials or climbing gear of certain brand or features because other options are more cost effective? That's ludicrous, and so grossly restrictive it's laughable.

No.  Cost was mentioned because we're on this forum.  I'd assume that many people here consider it before taking actions.


Peopleare still injured while carrying bear spray. If they wefe truly concerned about bear attacks, they would protect themselves by avoiding them. It's much cheaper, safer for their children (whom have been sprayed with bear spray) and vastly more effective, than carrying bear spray.

Or, we could stop and realise that there are about 30 bear attacks a year in North America, approximately 2-4 which are deadly conclude that such a low number poses zero threat to human or bear population, and thus any restriction of otherwise legal means of defending oneself is vastly more onerous than helpful.

My original response was to the comments that indicated that a hand gun was somehow necessary to have while hunting for protection from bears.  You appear to have come to the same conclusion that I have . . . that argument is demonstrably wrong.  There are better, cheaper ways to defend yourself from bears than a hand gun.  Carrying a hand gun with you for the purpose of defending yourself from a bear puts you in the 'everything is a nail because I've got a hammer' mindset.  Bear attacks are also incredibly rare to begin with.  Truly, a terrible argument.

If you still want to carry a hand gun in the woods with you, knock yourself out.  The original comment I (originally) made still stands:
Quote from: GuitarStv
I'm not mad about a hunter carrying a hand gun, but it just seems weird.  It's like wearing a cuirass every time you go hunting.  Theoretically it could be useful, but it doesn't make any kind of sense in reality.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2642
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2412 on: March 11, 2017, 11:33:23 AM »
It's not cheaper if you already own a handgun...   none of us went out and bought a handgun expressly for the point of protection from bear, but since we own them, it's cheap easy and convenient to carry one in case it's needed.

The whole thing is frankly stupid. We are, remember, carrying on our own private land so it really isn't anyone's business what we do or how we do it.
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2413 on: March 11, 2017, 11:42:51 AM »
Meh. Seems at least one dead bag of fur in WI would disagree that guns are not used to kill bears in reality. :)  I did not see anyone suggest a gun was necessary to defend against bears, only that it could be used for such, and as so should be "allowed." As there are no good reasons to disallow this, as you've pointed out, my default state is "allow."
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8178
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2414 on: March 11, 2017, 12:35:35 PM »
Meh. Seems at least one dead bag of fur in WI would disagree that guns are not used to kill bears in reality. :)

I didn't say that hand guns aren't used to kill bears.

My contention (and what you also pointed out in your previous post) is that 'defense from a bear' is not a very valid reason to bring a hand gun on a hunting trip.



I did not see anyone suggest a gun was necessary to defend against bears

Chris said that he regularly feels the need to carry a large caliber hand gun because of the threat of bears:
lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3450
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2415 on: March 11, 2017, 01:02:36 PM »
Sure, there are other forms of hunting.  I was specifically talking about hunting with a rifle as it's far and away the most common form of hunting up here (which is the action that was being discussed).

I must have missed that - I was going off of the post I thought that started this tangent:

Emptied his sidearm into the bear (he was bow hunting, or he would've shot him with his rifle).

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8178
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2416 on: March 11, 2017, 01:17:34 PM »
I forgot to respond to this comment earlier:

A bear that may or may not have been scared off by firing warning shots (really, shooting into the air is the safe plan?)

No, that's a reckless action to take.  You don't know where the hell your bullet will come down when firing up into the air.  Warning shots should be fired 6 - 10 ft in front of your target.  At least, that's what I was always taught to do.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2417 on: March 12, 2017, 03:58:01 AM »
Meh. Seems at least one dead bag of fur in WI would disagree that guns are not used to kill bears in reality. :)

I didn't say that hand guns aren't used to kill bears.

My contention (and what you also pointed out in your previous post) is that 'defense from a bear' is not a very valid reason to bring a hand gun on a hunting trip.



I did not see anyone suggest a gun was necessary to defend against bears

Chris said that he regularly feels the need to carry a large caliber hand gun because of the threat of bears:
lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.
I think we just agreeded that a handgun IS a valid form of defense against bears, as the agressive wild fur-ball found out in Chris's annecdote. Handguns are not the only way nor the single best way to protect oneself against bear attacks, but a handgun will kill a bear, and can be used to scare one off with warning shots if needed- thus it is perfectly valid for this use. No reason one can't carry a handgin to fire warning shots if the bear spray they are also carrying doesn't work. Plenty of legitimate uses for a handgun in the woods and zero legitimate reasons for any regulation against carrying one in the woods. Some people will choose not to, nothing wrong with that.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2418 on: March 12, 2017, 05:16:02 AM »
Swedish educational video showing how you can scare off an attacking brown bear: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TtC14cpwwXg

Polars are a different story. They have no instinctual fear of anything. Which is why the authorities on Svalbard won't let you travel outside the center of Longyearbyen without a rifle. Still, if you shoot a polar, you have to prove that you did everything you could to scare it off first.
« Last Edit: March 12, 2017, 07:47:19 AM by gaja »
Travelling southern Norway, Iceland and the Faroes in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3450
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2419 on: March 12, 2017, 05:32:00 AM »
Swedish educational video showing how you can scare off an attacking brown bear: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TtC14cpwwXg

Polars are a different story. They have no instinctual fear of anything. Which is why the authorities on Svalbard won't let you travel outside the center of longyearbyen without a rifle. Still, if you shoot a polar, you have to prove that you did everything you could to scare it off first.

Polars are scary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZY3lmiIj2g

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2420 on: March 12, 2017, 08:44:29 AM »
Swedish educational video showing how you can scare off an attacking brown bear: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TtC14cpwwXg

Polars are a different story. They have no instinctual fear of anything. Which is why the authorities on Svalbard won't let you travel outside the center of longyearbyen without a rifle. Still, if you shoot a polar, you have to prove that you did everything you could to scare it off first.

Polars are scary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZY3lmiIj2g
A government that forces someone to carry a gun is similarly scary.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8178
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2421 on: March 12, 2017, 09:15:54 AM »
Meh. Seems at least one dead bag of fur in WI would disagree that guns are not used to kill bears in reality. :)

I didn't say that hand guns aren't used to kill bears.

My contention (and what you also pointed out in your previous post) is that 'defense from a bear' is not a very valid reason to bring a hand gun on a hunting trip.



I did not see anyone suggest a gun was necessary to defend against bears

Chris said that he regularly feels the need to carry a large caliber hand gun because of the threat of bears:
lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.
I think we just agreeded that a handgun IS a valid form of defense against bears, as the agressive wild fur-ball found out in Chris's annecdote. Handguns are not the only way nor the single best way to protect oneself against bear attacks, but a handgun will kill a bear, and can be used to scare one off with warning shots if needed- thus it is perfectly valid for this use. No reason one can't carry a handgin to fire warning shots if the bear spray they are also carrying doesn't work. Plenty of legitimate uses for a handgun in the woods and zero legitimate reasons for any regulation against carrying one in the woods. Some people will choose not to, nothing wrong with that.

I didn't ever disagree that you can kill a bear with a gun.  Guns are made to kill things, that's their whole point.  I said that carrying a gun in the woods because you feel the need to defend yourself isn't really valid logic.  It's of similar use as carrying grenades to defend against bears.  Both are poor tools for the job, and kinda weird to be walking around in the woods with.  Both will probably (unnecessarily) kill a bear that you happen upon.  Both would be better traded for bear spray if you are really concerned about preventing a mauling.

The problem with Chris's use of a handgun in the woods is that he (and his friends) carry them in lieu of bear spray, apparently due to the same false sense of security that you're bolstering with your comments here.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8178
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2422 on: March 12, 2017, 09:20:20 AM »
Swedish educational video showing how you can scare off an attacking brown bear: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TtC14cpwwXg

Polars are a different story. They have no instinctual fear of anything. Which is why the authorities on Svalbard won't let you travel outside the center of longyearbyen without a rifle. Still, if you shoot a polar, you have to prove that you did everything you could to scare it off first.

Polars are scary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZY3lmiIj2g
A government that forces someone to carry a gun is similarly scary.

Interesting that the frightening government responsible for that rule has been governing one of the most consistently happy, and least corrupt countries in the world (for decades).

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3450
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2423 on: March 12, 2017, 09:27:20 AM »
Meh. Seems at least one dead bag of fur in WI would disagree that guns are not used to kill bears in reality. :)

I didn't say that hand guns aren't used to kill bears.

My contention (and what you also pointed out in your previous post) is that 'defense from a bear' is not a very valid reason to bring a hand gun on a hunting trip.



I did not see anyone suggest a gun was necessary to defend against bears

Chris said that he regularly feels the need to carry a large caliber hand gun because of the threat of bears:
lots of times we're out in the woods building deer stands, maintaining the land, etc etc, and we're open carrying large caliber handguns in case of a bear wandering through.
I think we just agreeded that a handgun IS a valid form of defense against bears, as the agressive wild fur-ball found out in Chris's annecdote. Handguns are not the only way nor the single best way to protect oneself against bear attacks, but a handgun will kill a bear, and can be used to scare one off with warning shots if needed- thus it is perfectly valid for this use. No reason one can't carry a handgin to fire warning shots if the bear spray they are also carrying doesn't work. Plenty of legitimate uses for a handgun in the woods and zero legitimate reasons for any regulation against carrying one in the woods. Some people will choose not to, nothing wrong with that.

I didn't ever disagree that you can kill a bear with a gun.  Guns are made to kill things, that's their whole point.  I said that carrying a gun in the woods because you feel the need to defend yourseisn't really valid logic.  It's of similar use as carrying grenades to defend against bears.  Both are poor tools for the job, and kinda weird to be walking around in the woods with.  Both will probably (unnecessarily) kill a bear that you happen upon.  Both would be better traded for bear spray if you are really concerned about preventing a mauling.

The problem with Chris's use of a handgun in the woods is that he (and his friends) carry them in lieu of bear spray, apparently due to the same false sense of security that you're bolstering with your comments here.

Incidentally, it appears there was a study in 2008 that indicated bear spray was more effective than a handgun:
http://midcurrent.com/experts/does-bear-spray-work/

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2424 on: March 12, 2017, 10:24:00 AM »
Swedish educational video showing how you can scare off an attacking brown bear: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TtC14cpwwXg

Polars are a different story. They have no instinctual fear of anything. Which is why the authorities on Svalbard won't let you travel outside the center of longyearbyen without a rifle. Still, if you shoot a polar, you have to prove that you did everything you could to scare it off first.

Polars are scary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZY3lmiIj2g
A government that forces someone to carry a gun is similarly scary.

Interesting that the frightening government responsible for that rule has been governing one of the most consistently happy, and least corrupt countries in the world (for decades).

And has very strict gun regulations on the mainland.

Svalbard is not a place where you just happen to wander around. Everything you do there is regulated, do to the dangers and fragile environment. Most people are happy to follow the sysselmann's advice, rather than being eaten.
Travelling southern Norway, Iceland and the Faroes in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2425 on: March 12, 2017, 01:38:41 PM »
Swedish educational video showing how you can scare off an attacking brown bear: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TtC14cpwwXg

Polars are a different story. They have no instinctual fear of anything. Which is why the authorities on Svalbard won't let you travel outside the center of longyearbyen without a rifle. Still, if you shoot a polar, you have to prove that you did everything you could to scare it off first.

Polars are scary.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZY3lmiIj2g
A government that forces someone to carry a gun is similarly scary.

Interesting that the frightening government responsible for that rule has been governing one of the most consistently happy, and least corrupt countries in the world (for decades).
Why can't we be more like Europe! :)
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2426 on: March 13, 2017, 03:22:39 PM »
Pretty sure you require an armed escort to wander around in polar bear country in Canada as well (i.e. James Bay, the Torngat mountains) with any of the tourist organizations.

I think it'd be pretty hard to enforce if you really wanted to avoid it though.

gaja

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 612
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2427 on: March 13, 2017, 04:03:24 PM »
Pretty sure you require an armed escort to wander around in polar bear country in Canada as well (i.e. James Bay, the Torngat mountains) with any of the tourist organizations.

I think it'd be pretty hard to enforce if you really wanted to avoid it though.

Depend on your point of view. Death by polar bear is a pretty efficient way to enforce regulations.
Travelling southern Norway, Iceland and the Faroes in an electric car: http://travelelectric.blogspot.no/

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2428 on: March 13, 2017, 06:56:40 PM »
Pretty sure you require an armed escort to wander around in polar bear country in Canada as well (i.e. James Bay, the Torngat mountains) with any of the tourist organizations.

I think it'd be pretty hard to enforce if you really wanted to avoid it though.

Depend on your point of view. Death by polar bear is a pretty efficient way to enforce regulations.
Doesn't the Canadian government know that bear spray is better than a gun? Why would they force people to use such an inferior means of defense?

On the plus side, by 2050 these polar bears should no longer have enough habitat to survive in these areas, thankfully removing the need for guns.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2429 on: March 14, 2017, 05:56:47 PM »
That's sad.   This organization thinks that polar bears may be able to adapt though.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/09/150904-polar-bears-dolphins-seals-climate-change/

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8178
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2430 on: March 15, 2017, 05:55:11 AM »
Doesn't the Canadian government know that bear spray is better than a gun? Why would they force people to use such an inferior means of defense?

If you read the many studies posted in this thread regarding bear spray you would have noticed that pepper spray has been extensively tested on grizzly/black bears.  As far as I can tell not enough testing has been done regarding polar bears to draw a clear conclusion yet.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2431 on: March 15, 2017, 04:59:42 PM »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2432 on: March 16, 2017, 04:30:33 AM »
Doesn't the Canadian government know that bear spray is better than a gun? Why would they force people to use such an inferior means of defense?

If you read the many studies posted in this thread regarding bear spray you would have noticed that pepper spray has been extensively tested on grizzly/black bears.  As far as I can tell not enough testing has been done regarding polar bears to draw a clear conclusion yet.
Well then it's a good thing guns work on polar bears, I guess.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2433 on: March 18, 2017, 08:37:50 AM »
When in doubt, get a bigger hammer!

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2434 on: March 20, 2017, 05:05:41 AM »
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/us/beyond-the-call-of-duty-arizona/index.html

Interesting story. Armed ex-felon saves State Trooper who was being attacked by an armed assailant.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

libertarian4321

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1093
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2435 on: March 20, 2017, 01:54:27 PM »
I just wanted to share our joy.

This past weekend, we welcomed a new baby AR-15 into our household.

My wife and and I can't wait to take it to the range.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2436 on: March 20, 2017, 03:39:55 PM »
I read this article about police forced entry raids:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-entry-warrant-drug-raid.html

Police *preferring* forced entry raids to arresting someone at work or on the sidewalk?   Flash bang grenade tossed into a baby's crib?   Officers shot in self defense by people in their homes during a raid?    Storms of bullets from the police?

Holy s**t.   The US has way bigger problems than gun control.   

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2437 on: March 21, 2017, 04:40:22 AM »
I read this article about police forced entry raids:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-entry-warrant-drug-raid.html

Police *preferring* forced entry raids to arresting someone at work or on the sidewalk?   Flash bang grenade tossed into a baby's crib?   Officers shot in self defense by people in their homes during a raid?    Storms of bullets from the police?

Holy s**t.   The US has way bigger problems than gun control.
Right?
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

hoosier

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 77
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2438 on: March 21, 2017, 08:29:33 AM »
I read this article about police forced entry raids:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-entry-warrant-drug-raid.html

Police *preferring* forced entry raids to arresting someone at work or on the sidewalk?   Flash bang grenade tossed into a baby's crib?   Officers shot in self defense by people in their homes during a raid?    Storms of bullets from the police?

Holy s**t.   The US has way bigger problems than gun control.
Right?

Operators gotta operate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2439 on: March 21, 2017, 10:21:04 AM »
I read this article about police forced entry raids:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-entry-warrant-drug-raid.html

Police *preferring* forced entry raids to arresting someone at work or on the sidewalk?   Flash bang grenade tossed into a baby's crib?   Officers shot in self defense by people in their homes during a raid?    Storms of bullets from the police?

Holy s**t.   The US has way bigger problems than gun control.
Right?

Operators gotta operate.
High speed, low drag.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Gin1984

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 4182
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2440 on: March 22, 2017, 07:06:20 AM »
I read this article about police forced entry raids:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-entry-warrant-drug-raid.html

Police *preferring* forced entry raids to arresting someone at work or on the sidewalk?   Flash bang grenade tossed into a baby's crib?   Officers shot in self defense by people in their homes during a raid?    Storms of bullets from the police?

Holy s**t.   The US has way bigger problems than gun control.
Right?
I have to agree with this.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8178
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2441 on: March 22, 2017, 04:23:37 PM »
I read this article about police forced entry raids:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-entry-warrant-drug-raid.html

Police *preferring* forced entry raids to arresting someone at work or on the sidewalk?   Flash bang grenade tossed into a baby's crib?   Officers shot in self defense by people in their homes during a raid?    Storms of bullets from the police?

Holy s**t.   The US has way bigger problems than gun control.

Do you think that militarization of the population plays an impact on more extreme tactics used by police?

yuka

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 322
  • Location: East coast for now
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2442 on: March 22, 2017, 05:11:15 PM »
I read this article about police forced entry raids:

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/03/18/us/forced-entry-warrant-drug-raid.html

Police *preferring* forced entry raids to arresting someone at work or on the sidewalk?   Flash bang grenade tossed into a baby's crib?   Officers shot in self defense by people in their homes during a raid?    Storms of bullets from the police?

Holy s**t.   The US has way bigger problems than gun control.

Do you think that militarization of the population plays an impact on more extreme tactics used by police?

Can you define or substantiate a militarization of the population? More relevantly, a militarization of the groups who are being attacked like this?

For my part, I'm more inclined to blame two things:
(a) Land use patterns of the last 70 years mean that you're less likely to encounter police officers in non-threatening ways that embed them into the community. More likely they're chasing after you in their cars. Or blinding you on the roadside with their bright blue lights, confusing all your fellow drivers and consequently making your commute even more dangerous.
(b) Agreements between federal agencies and local police departments. In the same way we feed the war machine by selling arms to foreign nations, we do it at home with local agencies.

Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1259
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2443 on: March 23, 2017, 07:46:01 AM »
I just wanted to share our joy.

This past weekend, we welcomed a new baby AR-15 into our household.

My wife and and I can't wait to take it to the range.


Got a real kick out of this post.   Congratulations!
I recently adopted a new .257 Weatherbaby.






cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2444 on: March 23, 2017, 08:44:04 AM »
Do you think that militarization of the population plays an impact on more extreme tactics used by police?

I would think that militarization of the population would incentivize police NOT to kick down doors with no-knock raids because they're less likely to get shot with normal policing tactics.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 703
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2445 on: March 31, 2017, 03:33:32 PM »
This article says it all:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541

3 teenage boys armed with brass knuckles and knives were shot when they broke into an occupied home.

My liberal side  wants to cry "What a waste of 3 lives.   Those poor boys"

But wait - these 3 invaded someone's home armed with potentially lethal weapons.  They had prepared to encounter occupants and deal with them violently.     This sort of incident explain why Americans keep firearms in their homes.    This I understand.

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 350
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2446 on: April 10, 2017, 08:44:11 AM »
But wait - these 3 invaded someone's home armed with potentially lethal weapons.  They had prepared to encounter occupants and deal with them violently.     This sort of incident explain why Americans keep firearms in their homes.    This I understand.

That's the bottom line. If someone enters my home forcefully with a weapon, I'm not leaving my family's safety up to the whim of a criminal with questionable judgment. Sorry.

zolotiyeruki

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1938
  • Location: State: Denial
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2447 on: April 10, 2017, 08:48:08 AM »
My liberal side  wants to cry "What a waste of 3 lives.   Those poor boys"

But wait - these 3 invaded someone's home armed with potentially lethal weapons.  They had prepared to encounter occupants and deal with them violently.     This sort of incident explain why Americans keep firearms in their homes.    This I understand.
Yes, it *is* a waste of what could have been happy, fulfilling, productive lives.  I feel like the two sides of the argument come down to two different views on that statement, like so:

"That homeowner destroyed the lives of three young men and their families."
vs.
"It wasn't the homeowner that destroyed their lives.  They made their choice.  Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2448 on: April 12, 2017, 02:56:18 PM »
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/17/us/beyond-the-call-of-duty-arizona/index.html

Interesting story. Armed ex-felon saves State Trooper who was being attacked by an armed assailant.
  Thanks for sharing that story.   I had not seen it yet.  That Trooper is a very rough looking dude.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 656
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2449 on: April 12, 2017, 02:59:47 PM »
This article says it all:

http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/oklahoma-man-uses-ar-15-kill-three-teen-home-intruders-n739541

3 teenage boys armed with brass knuckles and knives were shot when they broke into an occupied home.

My liberal side  wants to cry "What a waste of 3 lives.   Those poor boys"

But wait - these 3 invaded someone's home armed with potentially lethal weapons.  They had prepared to encounter occupants and deal with them violently.     This sort of incident explain why Americans keep firearms in their homes.    This I understand.
  They were expecting an old man.  They did not know his son was there.  What do you think three young robbers with knives and brass knuckles were going to do to that old man if things had gone as they expected?  I do not feel sorry for them.  I feel thankful that things did not turn out as they had hoped.