Author Topic: Firearms in the home  (Read 345565 times)

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2450 on: March 06, 2017, 01:16:58 PM »
I thought this was an interesting article.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/boston-the-second-amendment-right-to-be-afraid-the-night-i-came-face-to-face-with-my-gun-toting-neighbour

By the way, those who talk about shootings in Canada - we have lots of long guns, controls in place but perfectly legal.  It is hand guns that are very strictly limited.  I know this has been said here before, but it tends to be forgotten.

Quote
"Somehow, my (veterinary) surgery training kicks in and I keep my cool."
  Thanks for the smile. :D

Though trained as a veterinary surgeon:
Quote
(My car) is extremely quiet (ideal for sneaking up on people and killing them) and also you can drive for hours without stopping for gas after murdering people, which is very convenient. The Yakima roof rack is also perfect for transporting dead bodies without messing up the interior.
- kinda friggin' disturbing.

She was mostly being sarcastic, I thought - but she does make a point.  Maybe the macho big truck people should be thinking about her points?  ;-)

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2451 on: March 06, 2017, 01:21:18 PM »
I thought this was an interesting article.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/boston-the-second-amendment-right-to-be-afraid-the-night-i-came-face-to-face-with-my-gun-toting-neighbour

By the way, those who talk about shootings in Canada - we have lots of long guns, controls in place but perfectly legal.  It is hand guns that are very strictly limited.  I know this has been said here before, but it tends to be forgotten.

Was the author more scared of the gun or the fact he didn't have his shirt on?  I wasn't really sure.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2452 on: March 06, 2017, 01:34:08 PM »
She was mostly being sarcastic, I thought - but she does make a point.  Maybe the macho big truck people should be thinking about her points?  ;-)

That they should wear shirts when they apologize? I was confused on what her point was...
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2453 on: March 06, 2017, 01:41:56 PM »
She was mostly being sarcastic, I thought - but she does make a point.  Maybe the macho big truck people should be thinking about her points?  ;-)

That they should wear shirts when they apologize? I was confused on what her point was...

I took her commentary to mean they should wear shirts unless they were athletic and hairless.

RetiredAt63

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5179
  • Location: Eastern Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2454 on: March 06, 2017, 01:57:33 PM »
I thought this was an interesting article.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/boston-the-second-amendment-right-to-be-afraid-the-night-i-came-face-to-face-with-my-gun-toting-neighbour

By the way, those who talk about shootings in Canada - we have lots of long guns, controls in place but perfectly legal.  It is hand guns that are very strictly limited.  I know this has been said here before, but it tends to be forgotten.

Was the author more scared of the gun or the fact he didn't have his shirt on?  I wasn't really sure.
Considering she wrote "I have no idea who he is or what is going on, but I am pretty sure that I am going to die right here.", I think she was more afraid of the gun.  She is a vet.  She is used to fur.
 
Come on, people, read, don't skim.

ETA: I don't usually post on threads like this, because they get weird.  The point of the article was not to be an anecdata, it was to make the point that the second amendment promotes people living in an attitude of fear.  If that is less important than people having easy access to guns even though they are not part of a well-regulated militia, then let it lie.  But don't be silly about it (the guy wearing no shirt, what kind of car she was driving, etc.).
« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 02:24:55 PM by RetiredAt63 »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2455 on: March 06, 2017, 02:17:30 PM »
http://www.cnsnews.com/blog/stephen-gutowski/

Since we're posting annecdotes; single mother defends herself and young son from home invaders with firearm. It seems that they were very scared of the gun as well.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Midwest

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1077
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2456 on: March 06, 2017, 02:27:47 PM »
I thought this was an interesting article.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/boston-the-second-amendment-right-to-be-afraid-the-night-i-came-face-to-face-with-my-gun-toting-neighbour

By the way, those who talk about shootings in Canada - we have lots of long guns, controls in place but perfectly legal.  It is hand guns that are very strictly limited.  I know this has been said here before, but it tends to be forgotten.

Was the author more scared of the gun or the fact he didn't have his shirt on?  I wasn't really sure.
Considering she wrote "I have no idea who he is or what is going on, but I am pretty sure that I am going to die right here.", I think she was more afraid of the gun.  She is a vet.  She is used to fur.
 
Come on, people, read, don't skim.

I read the entire article. 

She paints this guy as a fat, hairy ignorant redneck and makes fun of his religion.  He may be be those things, but her portrayal (including at least one obvious inaccuracy), causes me to question her credibility.  After she portrays him in that light, she then decides the 2nd amendment is an utter failure.

If you read the article carefully, you'll not that it wasn't just the farmer that perceived her as a threat, there was another group as well. 

Given her leanings and the fact 2 separate groups perceived her as a threat, I think the story could just as easily be farmer on private property stopped potential intruder while holding (not pointing) a gun.  Farmer found out it wasn't an intruder and apologized.  Anti-gun Canadian refused apology and wrote article.

Obviously neither you nor I was there so who knows what actually happened.  It could have happened exactly as described, or maybe not.

To your point about living in fear.  They are in a rural area.  Maybe they have or are having problems with theft, intruders etc.  Who knows.

« Last Edit: March 06, 2017, 02:31:24 PM by Midwest »

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2457 on: March 06, 2017, 02:56:05 PM »
^agree.  Based on number of times she said "automatic weapon" or "assault rifle" she had some pretty extreme prejudice going in. 
"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: 672
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2458 on: March 07, 2017, 07:52:23 PM »
Hey, what's with open carry?  I saw some photos of protesters carrying and chatting with the police (but now I can't find them.)  It looks like this is regulated at the state level.   i.e. it's banned in New York, but not in New Mexico or Texas.

Do any of you guys open carry?   isn't it a pain lugging a couple of pounds around on your belt?




spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2459 on: March 07, 2017, 08:16:35 PM »
I thought this was an interesting article.

http://ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/boston-the-second-amendment-right-to-be-afraid-the-night-i-came-face-to-face-with-my-gun-toting-neighbour

By the way, those who talk about shootings in Canada - we have lots of long guns, controls in place but perfectly legal.  It is hand guns that are very strictly limited.  I know this has been said here before, but it tends to be forgotten.

Was the author more scared of the gun or the fact he didn't have his shirt on?  I wasn't really sure.
Considering she wrote "I have no idea who he is or what is going on, but I am pretty sure that I am going to die right here.", I think she was more afraid of the gun.  She is a vet.  She is used to fur.
 
Come on, people, read, don't skim.

I read the entire article. 

She paints this guy as a fat, hairy ignorant redneck and makes fun of his religion.  He may be be those things, but her portrayal (including at least one obvious inaccuracy), causes me to question her credibility.  After she portrays him in that light, she then decides the 2nd amendment is an utter failure.

If you read the article carefully, you'll not that it wasn't just the farmer that perceived her as a threat, there was another group as well. 

Given her leanings and the fact 2 separate groups perceived her as a threat, I think the story could just as easily be farmer on private property stopped potential intruder while holding (not pointing) a gun.  Farmer found out it wasn't an intruder and apologized.  Anti-gun Canadian refused apology and wrote article.

Obviously neither you nor I was there so who knows what actually happened.  It could have happened exactly as described, or maybe not.

To your point about living in fear.  They are in a rural area.  Maybe they have or are having problems with theft, intruders etc.  Who knows.
And there's no reason the headline couldn't have read " US woman tourist terrorized by fat hairy shirtless Canadian toting a shotgun when she drove onto his land". Canadians have guns. I learned to shoot a rifle and a shotgun as a kid living in Canada. After I moved to the US I had zero contact with any kind of firearm until I went into the military. I can also imagine that a woman in a road alone in her stopped car blocked by a truck would be equally afraid of someone wielding a tire iron, big knife or machete. As a person who had her car window smashed and dragged out of her car in a remote area no one needs a gun to terrorize you. All ended well btw
« Last Edit: March 07, 2017, 08:21:32 PM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2460 on: March 07, 2017, 08:23:58 PM »
Hey, what's with open carry?  I saw some photos of protesters carrying and chatting with the police (but now I can't find them.)  It looks like this is regulated at the state level.   i.e. it's banned in New York, but not in New Mexico or Texas.

Do any of you guys open carry?   isn't it a pain lugging a couple of pounds around on your belt?
I think there was so.e talk of open carry upthread a bit but basicly its a state decision. Here in Calif its illegal whether loaded or unloaded.
Retired at 42 to play!

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2461 on: March 08, 2017, 04:43:45 AM »
Hey, what's with open carry?  I saw some photos of protesters carrying and chatting with the police (but now I can't find them.)  It looks like this is regulated at the state level.   i.e. it's banned in New York, but not in New Mexico or Texas.

Do any of you guys open carry?   isn't it a pain lugging a couple of pounds around on your belt?

Open carry is legal in Texas and has been for a couple years. I haven't seen anyone doing it though, I choose to carry concealed because:
I prefer to have the element of surprise
I don't want to spook the soccer moms and cause knee-jerk political backlash

Many people here don't realize that 2 to 4 out of every 100 people they encounter are (legally) carrying.

As for the inconvenience/weight, it doesn't matter if it's open or concealed. As long as you have a quality belt and holster it is pretty comfortable.
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 04:47:34 AM by cheapass »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2462 on: March 08, 2017, 07:14:31 AM »
Hey, what's with open carry?  I saw some photos of protesters carrying and chatting with the police (but now I can't find them.)  It looks like this is regulated at the state level.   i.e. it's banned in New York, but not in New Mexico or Texas.

Do any of you guys open carry?   isn't it a pain lugging a couple of pounds around on your belt?
MishMash addresses why she open carries in reply 2235 on page 45. Just one perspective, but other posters commented that it has changed their views on open carry.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

golden1

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1272
  • Location: MA
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2463 on: March 08, 2017, 07:48:03 AM »
I am pretty sure discrediting someone when you don't agree with what they are saying is about the biggest tell for cognitive dissonance that there is. 


ncornilsen

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 566
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2464 on: March 08, 2017, 08:06:01 AM »
I am pretty sure discrediting someone when you don't agree with what they are saying is about the biggest tell for cognitive dissonance that there is.
If you're referring to the Canadian... well, demonstrating a clear bias on the part of a person telling an anecdotal story is fair play, since all we're offered for actual proof is her credibility. She clearly has none, has an agenda, and her own story partially discredits her.

It's not like she's a scientist offering verifiable data and conslusions, while the plebs make fun of her hair or something.

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 672
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2465 on: March 08, 2017, 04:54:34 PM »
Yeah, I guess.   "Open carry" when you're hunting makes sense, it's not like you can hunt without your rifle.   Or does open carry imply a pistol?

To me carrying a pistol around in the city is a bit like carrying around a chain saw.    I don't live in an area with a high crime rate so I don't see a need for a pistol when I walk around.    Similarly, I'm not cutting down trees, so I can leave my chainsaw at the cottage.    The right tools for the right job and all that.

Plus up here you can get in a lot of trouble for walking around with your pistol.    Even the local range says:

Quote
Can I open/conceal carry a firearm on the property?
NO. You may only carry a holstered firearm on range 4 & 5 and only if you have completed your Black Badge or IDPA holster course with tangible documentation/badges to support it.

You must also obtain permission from the range officer per session to do so, and cannot make any vertical or horizontal movements unless a sanctioned practice or match is in session.

*You cannot step foot off the range past the fence with a holstered firearm. This includes going to your car.

If you want to transport a pistol within Canada, it has to be unloaded, locked (I think this means a trigger lock), the weapon has to be locked in a container and you need a transport authorization.

Back on page 45, I noticed one of the hunters mentioned they carried a pistol for dealing with bears.   Anyone ever had to shoot a charging black bear with their pistol?   I think that would be terrifying.   I used to spend a lot of time in the rockies and I got about 4 weeks in the Yukon.   Bear avoidance was pretty important.    A friend of mine was treed by a young grizzly in the Yukon.   She handled it pretty well.   The bear well, it wandered into a native village a few weeks later and was shot.

spartana

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3599
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2466 on: March 08, 2017, 08:46:25 PM »
Yeah, I guess.   "Open carry" when you're hunting makes sense, it's not like you can hunt without your rifle.   Or does open carry imply a pistol?

To me carrying a pistol around in the city is a bit like carrying around a chain saw.    I don't live in an area with a high crime rate so I don't see a need for a pistol when I walk around.    Similarly, I'm not cutting down trees, so I can leave my chainsaw at the cottage.    The right tools for the right job and all that.

Plus up here you can get in a lot of trouble for walking around with your pistol.    Even the local range says:

Quote
Can I open/conceal carry a firearm on the property?
NO. You may only carry a holstered firearm on range 4 & 5 and only if you have completed your Black Badge or IDPA holster course with tangible documentation/badges to support it.

You must also obtain permission from the range officer per session to do so, and cannot make any vertical or horizontal movements unless a sanctioned practice or match is in session.

*You cannot step foot off the range past the fence with a holstered firearm. This includes going to your car.

If you want to transport a pistol within Canada, it has to be unloaded, locked (I think this means a trigger lock), the weapon has to be locked in a container and you need a transport authorization.

Back on page 45, I noticed one of the hunters mentioned they carried a pistol for dealing with bears.   Anyone ever had to shoot a charging black bear with their pistol?   I think that would be terrifying.   I used to spend a lot of time in the rockies and I got about 4 weeks in the Yukon.   Bear avoidance was pretty important.    A friend of mine was treed by a young grizzly in the Yukon.   She handled it pretty well.   The bear well, it wandered into a native village a few weeks later and was shot.
This is the same in California when you transport any firearm - handgun, rifle or shotgun. Unless you have a concealed carry permit (hard to get here) they have to be transported unloaded in a locked case (or locked in your cars trunk) with the ammo separate.  Every state is different with very different regulations.  When I lived in Alaska, which allows open carry, I carried a largish revolver when I went hiking. It was fairly common there. Never carried in town though. Here in Calif I have a CCW permit because of former job and carry a smallish pistol in a specially made front facing fanny pack when I hike. Not for bears though just for personal protection. 
« Last Edit: March 08, 2017, 08:48:40 PM by spartana »
Retired at 42 to play!

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2467 on: March 09, 2017, 07:55:29 AM »
Back on page 45, I noticed one of the hunters mentioned they carried a pistol for dealing with bears.   Anyone ever had to shoot a charging black bear with their pistol?   I think that would be terrifying.   I used to spend a lot of time in the rockies and I got about 4 weeks in the Yukon.   Bear avoidance was pretty important.    A friend of mine was treed by a young grizzly in the Yukon.   She handled it pretty well.   The bear well, it wandered into a native village a few weeks later and was shot.

I have not, but one of the guys I hunt with has, on our property.  He was in a ground blind with basically no way to get out easily and the bear approached him.  Emptied his sidearm into the bear (he was bow hunting, or he would've shot him with his rifle).  Not sure if he was carrying a .45 or a .44 Mag, but it killed the bear just fine.  It would be terrifying, but it would be more terrifying to not have the sidearm.  Believe it was a brown bear. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

cheapass

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2468 on: March 09, 2017, 08:00:54 AM »
I have not, but one of the guys I hunt with has, on our property.  He was in a ground blind with basically no way to get out easily and the bear approached him.  Emptied his sidearm into the bear (he was bow hunting, or he would've shot him with his rifle).  Not sure if he was carrying a .45 or a .44 Mag, but it killed the bear just fine.  It would be terrifying, but it would be more terrifying to not have the sidearm.  Believe it was a brown bear.

Sad that many people would prefer he not have that method of self-defense and that he be mauled to death instead.

Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2469 on: March 09, 2017, 08:02:41 AM »
The whole "bear threat" thing is very over stated.
I've hunted Alaska six times in the middle of grizzly / brown bear country and we cooked and kept food in the tent every trip.  I challenged the guide on the matter on my first trip, and his response was ..... I hope one does show up, then we won't have to wander all over the countryside tomorrow looking for one.

In most cases, bears avoid you and run off just like deer do. 
In places such as national parks where they are protected, is where most problems occur.  They have no natural fear of man in these locations.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2470 on: March 09, 2017, 08:19:31 AM »
The whole "bear threat" thing is very over stated.

Maybe, maybe not.  We have two buried on our property.  We have trail cam footage of more.  It was three years ago the guy I mentioned above shot that one.  We have plenty of evidence of stuff getting trashed by bears (blinds, chairs, damage to sheds where they tried to get in, etc).  Pretty easy to say it is over stated when it's not your hide.  Also, AK is very very big and open.  We're on 100 acres, but it is MUCH more dense, there's simply fewer places for the bear to run off to. 
"If I could get all the money back I ever spent on cars, I'd spend it on cars." - Nick Mason

Fishindude

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1236
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2471 on: March 09, 2017, 09:05:52 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.

You also state AK is very big and open.  Guessing you've not been there either. 
Yea it's big, but there areas of brush so dense you can't see ten feet, try to walk thru an Alder thicket.

Your buddy in the ground blind probably could have hollered and ran that BLACK bear off, but instead chose to shoot it.
Not to be a dick, but your bear expertise is suspect at best.

Chris22

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2472 on: March 09, 2017, 10:19:13 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.

Guilty.  Northern WI.  I'm not a bear expert.  Guess it was a black bear.


Quote
You also state AK is very big and open.  Guessing you've not been there either. 
Yea it's big, but there areas of brush so dense you can't see ten feet, try to walk thru an Alder thicket.

I have been there, but only briefly and not in the wild.  However, it's not about how dense the brush is, it's about how densely populated the land is.  In a place that is sparsely populated, you are less likely to run into a bear because there is more open land.  Shark in a swimming pool versus shark in an ocean. 

Quote
Your buddy in the ground blind probably could have hollered and ran that BLACK bear off, but instead chose to shoot it.

Woulda coulda shoulda.  In WI, you have to be in imminent fear for your life to shoot a bear without an (extremely hard to get) bear tag.  DNR warden called it a good shoot.  I wasn't there, and neither were you. 


Quote
Not to be a dick, but your bear expertise is suspect at best.

It's completely suspect.  I don't know squat about bears.  But I DO know that they are prevalent where we hunt given how many we've encountered and seen on trail cams, so the thought that "it's overstated" is laughable to me. 
"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 #2473 on: March 09, 2017, 10:55:58 AM »
I am pretty sure discrediting someone when you don't agree with what they are saying is about the biggest tell for cognitive dissonance that there is.
Yes, the author was clearly experiencing strong cognitive dissonance around the events. Her terrible off- color descriptions of her neighbors was a clear sign; good to point it out.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 11:01:34 AM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2474 on: March 09, 2017, 11:39:02 AM »
The whole "bear threat" thing is very over stated.
I've hunted Alaska six times in the middle of grizzly / brown bear country and we cooked and kept food in the tent every trip.  I challenged the guide on the matter on my first trip, and his response was ..... I hope one does show up, then we won't have to wander all over the countryside tomorrow looking for one.

In most cases, bears avoid you and run off just like deer do. 
In places such as national parks where they are protected, is where most problems occur.  They have no natural fear of man in these locations.
Are people actually mad about hunters carrying a pistol? I mean, they have a high powered rifle in their other hand; I can't imagine that having a pistol in the woods is more of a danger to anyone other than bears. And yes, if a bear is close enoigh to be taken with a pistol, it clearly is far too close. We could argue whether yelling would stop a bear: can't argue with a dead bear full of lead.
« Last Edit: March 09, 2017, 04:02:17 PM by Metric Mouse »
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

scottish

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 672
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2475 on: March 09, 2017, 03:53:07 PM »
Nope, I'm not angry about hunters carrying a pistol.    Black bears are pretty common and they can take their chances as far as I'm concerned.   Grizzly bears are endangered though so I have mixed feelings about shooting one if there are other options.   There was a really nasty video on youtube of some kids shooting a grizzly, I think it was in the BC coast ranges.   That made me pretty unhappy.

I was trying to picture a 400 lb bear charging me whilst I try to aim and shoot it.   (Doesn't help that I haven't shot in over 20 years).

We've been breeding bears to be afraid of people for what, 500 years?   Most of them are shy and will run away.    If they get habituated to people they cause problems.   Up north, once in a while, you get one that just avoided the breeding program and thinks people are food, but this is unusual.

GuitarStv

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2476 on: March 10, 2017, 04:08:42 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.

JLee

  • Magnum Stache
  • ******
  • Posts: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2477 on: March 10, 2017, 04:50:06 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.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5313
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2478 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: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2479 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: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2480 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: 672
  • Location: Ottawa
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2481 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 #2482 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2483 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 #2484 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2485 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 #2486 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2487 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 #2488 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2489 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: 2579
  • Location: Chicago NW Suburbs
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2490 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 #2491 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2492 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: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2493 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2494 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 #2495 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: 595
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2496 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: 3352
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2497 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 #2498 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: 8157
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Re: Firearms in the home
« Reply #2499 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.