New anti-gun legislation

Status
Not open for further replies.

Rob Allen

Active Member
Stupid people putting themselves in bear country without awareness isn't and shouldn't be justification for killing bears.
Yes, it is, anything that threatens your life gives you justification for killing the threat .

So your saying only stupid people get attacked by bears?
If that's the case , your simply wrong and I have nothing more to say on the issue.

One human life even a stupid one has more value than every bear on the planet.
 

O' Clarkii Stomias

Active Member
So your saying only stupid people get attacked by bears?
I didn't say that. I'm all for people having the right to defend themselves under imminent threat. Unfortunately plenty of bears have been killed by people claiming they were "threatened".
The stupid people I refer to are people who place themselves in a wild situation with no awareness of the risks.
Bears typically kill humans under 2 circumstances: defensive and predatory. Predatorial bears that kill deserve to be killed, and generally are. Defensive bears that kill don't deserve to be killed , and generally aren't.
That being said everyone has the right to defend themselves. My concern is that with the ever increasing amount of outdoor recreation, bears lose. I for one like having them around.
 
Last edited:

Salmo_g

WFF Supporter
Can you post the source? I'm guessing its the "research" below. That's not exactly a good source.

https://www.ammoland.com/2019/08/ha...r-attack-73-cases-96-effective/#axzz6mEhsAyKS

I'm trying to find the research that I read, but it was too long ago for me to remember. It might have been one of the ones below.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...acy_of_Firearms_for_Bear_Deterrence_in_Alaska
https://wildlife.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.2193/2006-452

Below are some quotes.







I only gave it a quick skim, but I think I remember now that the thing about being more likely to die was only in close encounters or something to that effect. Also, my point about shotguns was maybe inferred or from somewhere else, because those studies say there wasn't a big difference between the gun types.
Maybe the available data has increased. Seems like the last I read was that bear spray was 85% effective, which was still quite a bit higher than firearms. 90% makes me feel even better.

Meanwhile, back on topic, has anyone seen an update on the proposed legislation? It's so far out in la la land that I expect even most liberal Democrats will reject it.
 

Rob Allen

Active Member
I didn't say that. I'm all for people having the right to defend themselves under imminent threat. Unfortunately plenty of bears have been killed by people claiming they were "threatened".
The stupid people I refer to are people who place themselves in a wild situation with no awareness of the risks.
Bears typically kill humans under 2 circumstances: defensive and predatory. Predatorial bears that kill deserve to be killed, and generally are. Defensive bears that kill don't deserve to be killed , and generally aren't.
That being said everyone has the right to defend themselves. My concern is that with the ever increasing amount of outdoor recreation, bears lose. I for one like having them around.
Everyone has the right to defend themselves regardless of how they got in their situation and I am not going to sit in judgment over people who do it and I don't think anyone else should either.
 

jaredoconnor

WFF Supporter
If a bear comes at me, I'll use the most effective deterrent that I have available. Harm to the bear is not my concern, in such a scenario. There is solid evidence that non-lethal deterrents are the most effective, most of the time. However, I would have no problem using lethal deterrents, if that wasn't the case.

That isn't a license to go into a bear den and start shooting the place up though. If an area has a high bear population, you should stay out of there. Killing animals, because you think your right to be there supersedes their right to live, is just flat out dumb.

Edit: I missed some of the previous posts, so I've edited mine in light of now seeing them.
 
Last edited:

adamcu280

Active Member
Rob just wants to put a cap in Yogi's ass.
There's so much to unpack in the one line of his that I quoted. I can't help but want to get more details.

Is it that he values a single human life over anything in nature, or is it just bears? Is there anything in nature that might be worth sacrificing a human life for?

Also, are all humans equal in his mind? Would he really sacrifice all the bears on the planet to save someone like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin, etc.?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Support WFF | Remove the Ads

Support WFF by upgrading your account. Site supporters benefits include no ads and access to some additional features, few now, more in the works. Info

Latest posts

Top