I would like to ammendment all my previous statements..
Taking away our civil rights. Is the insurrection.. getting rid of the people that do it is just securing the free state. Which is the constitutional purpose of firearms and the militia.
It already takes the ATF about 3-9 months to process your $200 tax stamp on suppressors. Pretty sure an extra 7 days won't change a thing. All people are trying to do is save their ears and not annoy their neighbors as much.
And then we have Montana...currently trying to make it legal for concealed carry on campus. Why not allow drunk college students to pack a concealed handgun?
Ridiculous!
Swimmy, you have a hard shell camper. Keep a clean camp and you are fine. A handgun in the hands of someone who has NO experience with firearms is an accident waiting to happen.
Defending yourself against an intruder or a bear with a handgun is useless. Invest in a shotgun with buckshot and slugs. Use buckshot for meth heads. For bears load with alternating buckshot and slugs.
And you better practice shooting...alot.
Bottom line, the shotgun is more effective to shoot under duress.
And then we have Montana...currently trying to make it legal for concealed carry on campus. Why not allow drunk college students to pack a concealed handgun?
Ridiculous!
Swimmy, you have a hard shell camper. Keep a clean camp and you are fine. A handgun in the hands of someone who has NO experience with firearms is an accident waiting to happen.
Defending yourself against an intruder or a bear with a handgun is useless. Invest in a shotgun with buckshot and slugs. Use buckshot for meth heads. For bears load with alternating buckshot and slugs.
And you better practice shooting...alot.
Bottom line, the shotgun is more effective to shoot under duress.
This is partially true... my experience with handguns is very limited so I won't comment.
However the best gun for every situation s the one you are comfortable with, train with and are able to shoot well.. For home invaders. AR-15s have proven themselves to be very effective in the real world, they are easy to use and hold enough ammo.
The biggest exception is bears. I think it would be smart to carry bear spray and a 44 mag.
Interestingly enough the only handgun I have ever fired was a 44 magnum Ruger Blackhawk I think. I found it fired very easily and was comfortable to handle. That's what I'd carry for bears again, along with bear Spray..
Carrying a shot gun in bear country would be cumbersome and likely end up getting left in the truck where it doesn't do anyone any good.
Whatever a person gets, they need to train with it.
Scatter gun for home defense, so a stray round won't hit my neighbors, an large bor handgun for bears because I'm more likely to bring it with me. And yes I'm proficient with firearms, and have lived in grizz county.
Of the attacks that actually end in a mauling i wonder how many of them. Actually had the time to react with anything? I could very well be wrong but I get the impression that most happen too quickly to respond..
I'm surprised that no one on this thread has asked the most important question concerning guns at this junction in our national history. When Raz Simone signature model AR coming out?
I did. I don't see how that, in it's entirety, would ever make it through committee. It's beyond "pie in the sky control". I had to re-read the fine schedule....really? She appears to be doing a pretty decent job, in many areas, for Texas and I will leave it at that.
I haven't read the whole thread, but here's my (probably redundant) 2 cents.
Regarding gun control, I think America can and should do a lot more. I'm from a country (Australia) that has much more stringent gun control and it works; gun violence is basically non-existent. I would never own a gun in my home country. That said, the police force is significantly better than it is here. When my wife and I buy a house, buying a gun and getting some training will be one of the first things I do.
Regarding bear protection, I did a tonne of research on this before I moved to the USA. Apparently, handguns are ineffective, shotguns can be effective and bear spray is most effective. With a 44 magnum, you must shoot the bear in the brain or destroy a limb, which is extremely unlikely in a high stress situation. If you shoot a bear in the heart, it often still has enough time and oxygen in its blood to kill you. Any other shot will enrage the bear further and decrease the probability of survival. I found some evidence that you are actually more likely to die, if you try to shoot a bear with a handgun, than if you do nothing. Shotguns have all the same problems, except that the probability of brain damage or limb removal is higher. Bear spray is far more effective than either. If you hit the bear with spray, it can't see or smell you. If you fail to hit the bear with spray, you're more likely to survive the mauling.
lol. thanks for the laugh. probably never held a firearm or have seen a bear in your life. Ive killed 3 bears with my longbow with wood arrow made by hand and one bear with my 357 mag.ruger sp 101
a regular wiki expert. sad how the internet has really dumbed down the populace
I just read an article that the digiridoo, when played correctly, will calm down a great white and prevent an attack
In this clip Clint effectively shows the differences of hitting your target when using hand guns and shotguns.
With pepper spray, the bear lives. With guns, you are more likely to become more proficient than administering pepper spray. What is the best? I imagine it depends on the person and the situation.
I'm surprised that no one on this thread has asked the most important question concerning guns at this junction in our national history. When Raz Simone signature model AR coming out?
According to what I am reading handguns have a 90+% effectiveness rate of having ended bear attacks. This is based on actual bear encounters. Nothing theoretical. Many of the encounters with 22 calibers, of course this is all bears not just grizz.
73 documented bear attacks. Hsndguns 96% effectiveness in stopping the attack. Many of these after bear spray failed.
Moreover, firearm bearers suffered the same injury rates in close encounters with bears whether they used their firearms or not. Bears were killed in 61% (n = 162) of bear-firearms incidents. Additionally, we identified multiple reasons for firearms failing to stop an aggressive bear.
Firearms failed to protect people for a variety of reasons including lack of time to respond to the bear (27%), did not use the firearm (21%), mechanical issues (i.e., jamming; 14%), the proximity to bear was too close for deployment (9%), the shooter missed the bear (9%), the gun was emptied and could not be reloaded (8%), the safety mechanism was engaged and the person was unable to unlock it in time to use the gun (8%), people tripped and fell while trying to shoot the bear (3%), and the firearm's discharge reportedly trig-gered the bear to charge that ended further use of the gun (1%).
We encourage all persons, with or without a firearm, to consider carrying a non-lethal deterrent such as bear spray because its success rate under a variety of situations has been greater (i.e., 90% successful for all 3 North American species of bear; Smith et al. 2008) than those we observed for firearms.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.?
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.
Yeah, they can be amended, just as with any part of the Constitution. Of course, amending the Constitution is no easy thing, and that is by design. I don't think you need to lose any sleep over the 2nd A being amended. But keep a sharp eye on what some advocates will propose as "reasonable" restrictions in order to fall within the bounds of current case law.
I did. I don't see how that, in it's entirety, would ever make it through committee. It's beyond "pie in the sky control". I had to re-read the fine schedule....really? She appears to be doing a pretty decent job, in many areas, for Texas and I will leave it at that.
It's amusing how so many firearms threads merge into one : the gun vs bear debate. I'm surprised the gun vs bear debate hasn't shown up in the classifieds yet. lol
I like the belt, suspenders, and chest holster approach, especially if hunting in bear country. i.e. common sense situational awareness, spray, and 15 rds of hard-cast 10mm applied in that order of preference. Yes there are more powerful options out there, but that's what strikes my balance (as well as many Alaskan guides) on the weight/firepower ratio. If you're not experienced and proficient with the firearm(s) you'd be carrying, obviously leave them behind. Knowing how to chamber a round and how not to hit the magazine release while trying to figure out how to chamber a round is not enough, but it's a good start. <- An allusion to a relatively recent, tragic incident leading to a fatal bear encounter during a WY elk hunt.
"Studies on pepper spray vs. firearms for bear defense have been cited by government agencies and pundits as pure fact, despite deep flaws. These studies have gone unchallenged...until now." :
Hey Rob - Yes, science is self-correcting, but I have had this with you before (on the old Westfly). You seem to decide what is good science and what is bad based on you personal beliefs; evolution - not so good - Creationism - very good (to be very clear, I have no issue with you believing in Creationism, its just not science). I'd also like to know who the "real scientists" are, and how you decide they are real (though this is probably a discussion for a different thread).
On the bright side Rob, I couldn't agree with you more about "a scientist doubles down when proven wrong" (though I'd like to know who you might be referring to, or provide an example of such) "or when a politician grabs ahold of it and uses it badly, which also happens on a daily basis." - A pox on the both of them.
Cheers
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Related Threads
?
?
?
?
?
Washington Fly Fishing Forum
1.8M posts
21.4K members
Since 2000
A forum community dedicated to fishers, anglers and enthusiasts in the Washington area. Come join the discussion about safety, gear, boats, tackle, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!