4 ms·

Millions of people get by just fine in the national parks without carrying any firearms every year. Maybe carrying a tiny gun could help, but with a large anima

by briga 7y ago

Millions of people get by just fine in the national parks without carrying any firearms every year. Maybe carrying a tiny gun could help, but with a large animal like a grizzly or a wolf it could just as easily escalate the situation.

i_am_proteus 7y ago
Not all national parks are the same. Carrying a self-defense weapon in backcountry where grizzlies range is a smart idea. I agree with you that it should be a large bore weapon, something like .45-70 or .44 magnum.
AdrianB1 7y ago
Carrying a tiny gun is pointless, a .22LR handgun is practically useless against a wolf (please, don't come with the 1 in a billion exception). If millions of people get by just fine it does not mean you should never take any precaution because "it will not happen to me either". With this mindset it is better to carry some salt and pepper and prepare yourself to be tastier :)
- rolltiide 7y ago
  > If millions of people get by just fine it does not mean you should never take any precaution because "it will not happen to me either" I used to be with a woman that was on the extreme end of "it won't happen", and in some cases was outright denial of bad things happening mention any precaution and she would always resort to saying that Americans are so afraid of everything so I did a little introspection while I was with her, and there was a bit of truth to what she said, I've had great experiences that I would have avoided, and it is clear that many of my American friends and colleagues are overly cautious on a cultural level but at the same time you still have to call it. some of the stuff she was talking about was dumb and fraught with disaster.
- uwagan 7y ago
  millions of poeple fly on airplanes too yet dont wear a parachute.
  - AdrianB1 7y ago
    But they have trained pilots and certified airplanes with redundant systems. That means they take all the precautions possible.
MrLeap 7y ago
> with a large animal like a grizzly or a wolf it could just as easily escalate the situation. Perhaps, but this is unclear. I've seen tests that corroborate and contradict the statement that "a .22LR can't penetrate a big bear's skull". I've read more stories about .22LR's killing bears than the wielders perishing. It could be argued that people eaten by animals don't do much writing. Truth be told, I can't find data to pin to the bushy mustachioed alaskan guides who suggest "don't go in bear country without something that shoots ammo with a "4" in it. Since I love being obstinate, I'm definitely comfortable arming myself for the Alaskan wilds with my 7.62x51mm rifle, and 10mm side arm. If I ever made it in the paper, maybe the "4" police would get curious enough to learn more about metric. If you're going into country inhabited by natures best predators, it's a risk analysis problem that should be evaluated individually. If the idea of getting devoured by gnashing teeth and claw is more unsettling than the rarity of such events is comforting, might I suggest defense in depth? Air horn, bear spray, and yes -- maybe a high velocity long range paper hole punch. I wouldn't recommend the last one lightly. Carrying a gun with which you aren't intimately familiar and well practiced is stupid and dangerous. The data shows that way more than caliber, shot placement determines "stopping power". That's why practice is more important than your gear. Being able to bring a gun up to eye level, sights aligned, from muscle memory, has to be learned through practice. There's also flinch control, malfunction clearing, gear proofing, accurate and prompt follow up shots.. It's a lot of things you have to learn if you want to carry right. (Start with the 4 rules..) Whose the better guide into Alaska. Pat, who hits up the local range regularly, IDPA sometimes, and carries a self assembled custom .223, or Robin who saw happy feat, bought a .50cal and decided to take the fight to the bears? Robin pays 16$ a round and only carries match grade armor piercing incendiary. Robin's gun should be able to bore a kevlar bear stem to stern, from 2 miles away, through a cinder block wall. The answer is Pat.

by briga 7y ago

i_am_proteus 7y ago

Not all national parks are the same. Carrying a self-defense weapon in backcountry where grizzlies range is a smart idea. I agree with you that it should be a large bore weapon, something like .45-70 or .44 magnum.

AdrianB1 7y ago

Carrying a tiny gun is pointless, a .22LR handgun is practically useless against a wolf (please, don't come with the 1 in a billion exception). If millions of people get by just fine it does not mean you should never take any precaution because "it will not happen to me either". With this mindset it is better to carry some salt and pepper and prepare yourself to be tastier :)

rolltiide 7y ago
> If millions of people get by just fine it does not mean you should never take any precaution because "it will not happen to me either" I used to be with a woman that was on the extreme end of "it won't happen", and in some cases was outright denial of bad things happening mention any precaution and she would always resort to saying that Americans are so afraid of everything so I did a little introspection while I was with her, and there was a bit of truth to what she said, I've had great experiences that I would have avoided, and it is clear that many of my American friends and colleagues are overly cautious on a cultural level but at the same time you still have to call it. some of the stuff she was talking about was dumb and fraught with disaster.
uwagan 7y ago
millions of poeple fly on airplanes too yet dont wear a parachute.
- AdrianB1 7y ago
  But they have trained pilots and certified airplanes with redundant systems. That means they take all the precautions possible.

MrLeap 7y ago

> with a large animal like a grizzly or a wolf it could just as easily escalate the situation. Perhaps, but this is unclear. I've seen tests that corroborate and contradict the statement that "a .22LR can't penetrate a big bear's skull". I've read more stories about .22LR's killing bears than the wielders perishing. It could be argued that people eaten by animals don't do much writing. Truth be told, I can't find data to pin to the bushy mustachioed alaskan guides who suggest "don't go in bear country without something that shoots ammo with a "4" in it. Since I love being obstinate, I'm definitely comfortable arming myself for the Alaskan wilds with my 7.62x51mm rifle, and 10mm side arm. If I ever made it in the paper, maybe the "4" police would get curious enough to learn more about metric. If you're going into country inhabited by natures best predators, it's a risk analysis problem that should be evaluated individually. If the idea of getting devoured by gnashing teeth and claw is more unsettling than the rarity of such events is comforting, might I suggest defense in depth? Air horn, bear spray, and yes -- maybe a high velocity long range paper hole punch. I wouldn't recommend the last one lightly. Carrying a gun with which you aren't intimately familiar and well practiced is stupid and dangerous. The data shows that way more than caliber, shot placement determines "stopping power". That's why practice is more important than your gear. Being able to bring a gun up to eye level, sights aligned, from muscle memory, has to be learned through practice. There's also flinch control, malfunction clearing, gear proofing, accurate and prompt follow up shots.. It's a lot of things you have to learn if you want to carry right. (Start with the 4 rules..) Whose the better guide into Alaska. Pat, who hits up the local range regularly, IDPA sometimes, and carries a self assembled custom .223, or Robin who saw happy feat, bought a .50cal and decided to take the fight to the bears? Robin pays 16$ a round and only carries match grade armor piercing incendiary. Robin's gun should be able to bore a kevlar bear stem to stern, from 2 miles away, through a cinder block wall. The answer is Pat.