When bears get to be a recurring problem in specific areas, said bears are killed or relocated by government employees. Action is taken proportionate to the threat, and data is collected to better deal with future threats.
One thing bear and school attacks also have in common is that they do not happen when the rules are followed.
Government is species profiling bears?!?!?! Say it isn't so!
Seriously though, we do allow the police forces in high crime areas to do some profiling as well as community outreach and or increased presence as a way to deter criminal activity. The problem is that we can not prepare for something that happens outside of the profile.
"That bear attacked a camper? But he only ever stole picnic baskets..."
"That intelligent kid shot up the school? But he was always such a good kid..."
We also apply different standards to animals than we do to humans. The parents of the Santa Barbara "why do womenz hate me?" Killer tried to warn authorities but they were unsuccessful. You call animal control and they will not think twice about putting down an animal.
I had a bear in my room in Yosemite. It dragged my bag outside and ate some emergency chocolate I'd forgotten was in a side pocket and hadn't put in the food container outside. It was my own fault, but I was still shitting myself.
Thankfully bears are more interested in chocolate than killing. Kids going into schools with handguns and rifles aren't.
I had a bear in my room in Yosemite. It dragged my bag outside and ate some emergency chocolate I'd forgotten was in a side pocket and hadn't put in the food container outside. It was my own fault, but I was still shitting myself.
Thankfully bears are more interested in chocolate than killing. Kids going into schools with handguns and rifles aren't.
Maybe if we sat them down with some chocolate we could figure out why they want to shoot up schools.
So what about my encounter with a bear? It happened like this.
On Wednesday night I got to my cabin/tent thing (see above), and put out my blankets. I was pretty tired, but wanted to go through the photos of the day. My laptop gets hot while doing photo editing, so I made a little tent under my blankets and used it as a heater. That worked well!
After a while I got too tired, so turned off the light and fell asleep.
And then I woke to noises outside my cabin. First I thought it might be a raccoon, but soon the noises told me it was a bear!
I thought if I just kept quiet it would leave. But instead it came inside my cabin/tent! I was shitting myself, as it was utterly dark! I couldn't see anything, so just curled up as small as possible on my bed and kept quite.
The info signs say that if you see a bear, you should make noise to scare it away. I would have done this right away, if I'd been fully awake, but before I thought about it, the bear was within a metre of my bed, I couldn't see it, and it was between me and the exit. That LAST thing I wanted to do was make noises to scare a bear so close that I could have reached out and touched it. Or, more to the point, so close it could have reached out and touched me.
It turns out I had my Ritter Sport chocolate bars stashed away in my camera bag, and had forgotten all about them. I'm an idiot! So the bear dragged my camera bag outside, and routed through the open compartments (I'd taken much of my gear out, and left it totally open to let it dry, thankfully). It took the chocolate and left.
I called the camp front office, and some kind of ranger came over, and we stored my bag again properly in the locker.
And then I tried to get back to sleep. That was harder than it sounds! I'd had a close encounter with a bear. And I didn't see it. It was exactly like a horror movie. You hear it, you know it's close, but seeing nothing is what made it extra scary!
It had dragged my bag out from beside the very bed I slept in. It was my fault for not paying full attention to the storage of food, and I have no excuses as there are signs EVERYWHERE about leaving food outside of lockers. You can get fined and thrown out of the camp for that kind of thing.
In the morning I checked my camera bag. That was a very dirty bear! It left muddy marks all over the inside of my bag.
Turns out it's really easy to find out why they shoot up schools. Most of them tell people in advance, the rest leave behind plenty of evidence.
Then maybe we need a police force that takes such things more seriously. And have worse repercussions for police who were informed about the person's intentions but chose not to do anything about it. This goes for Counselors, administrators, and teachers as well.
The rabies cop out is stupid, that's the reason you're vaccinated. If a country wanted to legitimately get rid of this disease it is possible but would require a lot of money (it does have long term benefits for the Government and the population).
The animal excuse is stupid. Rym and Luke have already gone over what I would consider appropriate.
Apparently Australia has the craziest critters I lived and worked in incredibly rural areas for over half a year. The only antagonising bit was making sure to not disturb a King Brown while it was shedding, a bunch of Emus that surrounded me while surveying a farm plot.
Kangaroos jumping out in front of traffic.
Never felt I needed a lethal tool except for putting down animals that were half dead on the side of the road.
I value bear life even more than most. I would equate a bear to human life. If you are fucking around with a bear to the point that you need to draw a gun, it's not a fair fight.
I personally never understood hunting, doesn't animal husbandry cover us for good quality safe to eat meat?
I personally never understood hunting, doesn't animal husbandry cover us for good quality safe to eat meat?
There are three reasons to hunt. One is for sport, ignoring whether or not you eat what you hunt (though there are people who enjoy the flavor of wild game). Two is for sustenance as there are some people in some parts of the country where it's cheaper to buy a basic hunting rifle and ammo and hunt wild game (ranging from squirrels to deer) than it is to go to the store and purchase meat and/or raise your own food animals. Three is for population control of wild animals and it overlaps with cases one and two.
When bears get to be a recurring problem in specific areas, said bears are killed or relocated by government employees. Action is taken proportionate to the threat, and data is collected to better deal with future threats.
Hmm. From watching this thread for the last few months, I'm not sure if there is any single point people can agree to. I hope I'm wrong. I'd like to see if I can establish some kind of baseline. Muppet, Steve, et. al (anyone arguing against Luke): Would you agree that, among the many problems the United States has (education, healthcare, etc), the prevalence and ease of access to guns is a problem?
Because if we can't agree on that point, then there's so reason for anyone in this country to even try to debate the issue with each other. If you do agree that it's a problem, then let's work on establishing some baseline actions that we all agree (and that are empirically verified) would probably cause a decrease in various negative gun-related effects that stem from the problem (including but not limited to homicides, suicides, accidental deaths, etc).
Ease of access varies based on where you live. What I can agree on is that there is a huge "need difference" between urban and rural settings.
What I mean by that is that it is easier to justify owning a firearm in the boonies than it is in the city. John Doe living in a co-op next to Central Park has a far lower need to own a firearm than Grizzly Adams living in a cabin in the middle of Montana.
My issue over the last few days isn't with access to guns for people in "the boonies" at all. My issue was the framing of the idea. There are two honest positions for people who live in houses at a distance from cities or towns:
A. I want a gun for reasons of hunting, target shooting, skeet shooting, or other forms of sports.
B. I think the police are incapable of protecting me and I property due to their distance in miles/minutes. I want a gun for self defense and/or deterrence.
I understand both positions, and that someone in the country falls into one, the other, or both. What muddies the water is when people conflate the issues. If you think A is acceptable, like I do, then access to hunting and sporting firearms is no problem, but then again I think that shouldn't be a problem for people who live in towns too, because they should be allowed to go hunting and/or sports shooting too.
If you think B is acceptable (which I think is arguable, but whatever), what kind of gun is suitable for life and property defense? Should it be a free-for-all? Should they use hunting guns and hope they work okay against humans? Should they use small handguns that are good at close range but be difficult to see from a distance so not so good as a deterrent, like walking onto a porch with a shotgun might be?
So, if there is a difference between country and city gun owners, start by being honest about the reasons.
Country gun owners, as a general statement but not as an absolute, are likely to be in both A and B. They're also likely to be in category C: I think all government agencies including police forces can't be trusted because [insert your conspiracy theory du jure here]
There are differing circumstances in either location though. A person living in Goatfuck, Kentucky might like to use their hunting weapons as defense weapons out of convenience, whereas in the city the hunting weapons have to be stored and handguns have to be used for personal defense due to laws or public perception. Even if the law states you can openly carry any firearm in a public space where it isn't otherwise legal to bring weapons, you're still probably gonna get approached by the police after some concerned citizen calls them. More well-versed police might ask you to conduct your business quickly, though it is a far better bet you'll be asked to leave the space as not to disturb the peace.
Personally I think those people who brought their guns to Chili's to demonstrate were absolute idiots for the reason I just mentioned above. While establishments have the right to set their own rules, most places aren't going to frisk you at the door so you're far better served carrying concealed rather than wearing that Dirty Harry .44 on your hip, or your AR-15 slung on your back.
I look at the carry laws as laws designed to let you take your firearms out of your home without being hassled by the cops. I do not see them as laws designed to allow people to carry their arsenal everywhere they go! You don't need to bring your AR15 with you to pick up a burger and fries at Whataburger. Unless you live in Detroit, Chicago or New Orleans right after Katrina.
I am agreement with what Luke posted above. Not in agreement with Jack's C reason.
As to Luke's question of what type of gun is suitable from life and property defense... In the boonies I would say a shotgun with a non-lethal load is the best option for basic home defense vs people. I suppose with a double barrel you could put a non lethal load in one side and lethal in the other. If the non lethal shot does not quickly end the incident the lethal shot is there as a backup.
For animal related problems a long gun should work fine. Actually pretty much any type of gun will work but a long gun allows you to deal with the animal at range.
Position C is understandable too, if the person in the country really believes they might have to defend themselves against the government or other internal/external existential threats.
But now you are conflating that with position D, which is "I want guns because guns." People who demonstrate with guns because guns is a different issue again. It doesn't matter if they want guns because A, B or C, because, to be honest, they probably don't know or care themselves. It just becomes guns because guns.
While position C is understandable I think it is an outlier belief held by a minority of gun owners (boonies or otherwise). However I would say that there probably is a correlation between the type and size of the arsenal and a persons belief in C.
While position C is understandable I think it is an outlier belief held by a minority of gun owners (boonies or otherwise). However I would say that there probably is a correlation between the type and size of the arsenal and a persons belief in C.
I wish I had the link to the article here, but I can't even remember enough about it to do a Google search. Essentially, the article discussed a retired Marine who basically said "if the government wants all gun owners to register with them, so what? The only people who realistically stand a chance against the government should armed resistance be necessary are all of us retired military personnel, and they already have our info anyway via the VA and what not."
Your average redneck yahoo who has enough firearms to equip a small army isn't going to be able to do squat against an organized government military because they don't have the knowledge and/or training to know how to fight back. There is even precedent in US history over this. With a couple of exceptions, the British were pretty much dominating the US during the Revolutionary War until the US got serious about training the rebels (with some thanks to the French, specifically LaFayette, for help in training as well as providing additional forces and supplies). There were many times where the rag tag US forces consisting of local militia men and whatnot would just run screaming when facing British troops in conventional battles. The only times when the rag tag forces were actually able to put up a good fight where the odd guerilla battles in the backwoods where you have a combination of backwoodsmen who were familiar with the land and (perhaps from experience from hunting and/or fighting Native tribes who were guerilla expoerts themselves) were capable of picking off the British while hiding.
"if the government wants all gun owners to register with them, so what? The only people who realistically stand a chance against the government should armed resistance be necessary are all of us retired military personnel, and they already have our info anyway via the VA and what not."
Pretty much. And guess who they're going to go after first?
Maybe it would be a different story if your militias equaled something like the Swedish Home Guard or the Swiss Militias, rather than angry paranoid rednecks, but alas.
"if the government wants all gun owners to register with them, so what? The only people who realistically stand a chance against the government should armed resistance be necessary are all of us retired military personnel, and they already have our info anyway via the VA and what not."
Pretty much. And guess who they're going to go after first?
Maybe it would be a different story if your militias equaled something like the Swedish Home Guard or the Swiss Militias, rather than angry paranoid rednecks, but alas.
The state National Guards are supposed to be the militias in the US. Again though, guess who they're coming after/who will be coming after you.
Comments
Government is species profiling bears?!?!?! Say it isn't so!
Seriously though, we do allow the police forces in high crime areas to do some profiling as well as community outreach and or increased presence as a way to deter criminal activity. The problem is that we can not prepare for something that happens outside of the profile.
"That bear attacked a camper? But he only ever stole picnic baskets..."
"That intelligent kid shot up the school? But he was always such a good kid..."
We also apply different standards to animals than we do to humans. The parents of the Santa Barbara "why do womenz hate me?" Killer tried to warn authorities but they were unsuccessful. You call animal control and they will not think twice about putting down an animal.
Thankfully bears are more interested in chocolate than killing. Kids going into schools with handguns and rifles aren't.
So what about my encounter with a bear? It happened like this.
On Wednesday night I got to my cabin/tent thing (see above), and put out my blankets. I was pretty tired, but wanted to go through the photos of the day. My laptop gets hot while doing photo editing, so I made a little tent under my blankets and used it as a heater. That worked well!
After a while I got too tired, so turned off the light and fell asleep.
And then I woke to noises outside my cabin. First I thought it might be a raccoon, but soon the noises told me it was a bear!
I thought if I just kept quiet it would leave. But instead it came inside my cabin/tent! I was shitting myself, as it was utterly dark! I couldn't see anything, so just curled up as small as possible on my bed and kept quite.
The info signs say that if you see a bear, you should make noise to scare it away. I would have done this right away, if I'd been fully awake, but before I thought about it, the bear was within a metre of my bed, I couldn't see it, and it was between me and the exit. That LAST thing I wanted to do was make noises to scare a bear so close that I could have reached out and touched it. Or, more to the point, so close it could have reached out and touched me.
It turns out I had my Ritter Sport chocolate bars stashed away in my camera bag, and had forgotten all about them. I'm an idiot! So the bear dragged my camera bag outside, and routed through the open compartments (I'd taken much of my gear out, and left it totally open to let it dry, thankfully). It took the chocolate and left.
I called the camp front office, and some kind of ranger came over, and we stored my bag again properly in the locker.
And then I tried to get back to sleep. That was harder than it sounds! I'd had a close encounter with a bear. And I didn't see it. It was exactly like a horror movie. You hear it, you know it's close, but seeing nothing is what made it extra scary!
It had dragged my bag out from beside the very bed I slept in. It was my fault for not paying full attention to the storage of food, and I have no excuses as there are signs EVERYWHERE about leaving food outside of lockers. You can get fined and thrown out of the camp for that kind of thing.
In the morning I checked my camera bag. That was a very dirty bear! It left muddy marks all over the inside of my bag.
Prophecy 1979:
I remember seeing that on the precursor to cable TV. Afterwards I was terrified at the thought of camping.
The animal excuse is stupid. Rym and Luke have already gone over what I would consider appropriate.
Apparently Australia has the craziest critters I lived and worked in incredibly rural areas for over half a year. The only antagonising bit was making sure to not disturb a King Brown while it was shedding, a bunch of Emus that surrounded me while surveying a farm plot.
Kangaroos jumping out in front of traffic.
Never felt I needed a lethal tool except for putting down animals that were half dead on the side of the road.
I value bear life even more than most. I would equate a bear to human life. If you are fucking around with a bear to the point that you need to draw a gun, it's not a fair fight.
I personally never understood hunting, doesn't animal husbandry cover us for good quality safe to eat meat?
Because if we can't agree on that point, then there's so reason for anyone in this country to even try to debate the issue with each other. If you do agree that it's a problem, then let's work on establishing some baseline actions that we all agree (and that are empirically verified) would probably cause a decrease in various negative gun-related effects that stem from the problem (including but not limited to homicides, suicides, accidental deaths, etc).
What I mean by that is that it is easier to justify owning a firearm in the boonies than it is in the city. John Doe living in a co-op next to Central Park has a far lower need to own a firearm than Grizzly Adams living in a cabin in the middle of Montana.
A. I want a gun for reasons of hunting, target shooting, skeet shooting, or other forms of sports.
B. I think the police are incapable of protecting me and I property due to their distance in miles/minutes. I want a gun for self defense and/or deterrence.
I understand both positions, and that someone in the country falls into one, the other, or both. What muddies the water is when people conflate the issues. If you think A is acceptable, like I do, then access to hunting and sporting firearms is no problem, but then again I think that shouldn't be a problem for people who live in towns too, because they should be allowed to go hunting and/or sports shooting too.
If you think B is acceptable (which I think is arguable, but whatever), what kind of gun is suitable for life and property defense? Should it be a free-for-all? Should they use hunting guns and hope they work okay against humans? Should they use small handguns that are good at close range but be difficult to see from a distance so not so good as a deterrent, like walking onto a porch with a shotgun might be?
So, if there is a difference between country and city gun owners, start by being honest about the reasons.
There are differing circumstances in either location though. A person living in Goatfuck, Kentucky might like to use their hunting weapons as defense weapons out of convenience, whereas in the city the hunting weapons have to be stored and handguns have to be used for personal defense due to laws or public perception. Even if the law states you can openly carry any firearm in a public space where it isn't otherwise legal to bring weapons, you're still probably gonna get approached by the police after some concerned citizen calls them. More well-versed police might ask you to conduct your business quickly, though it is a far better bet you'll be asked to leave the space as not to disturb the peace.
Personally I think those people who brought their guns to Chili's to demonstrate were absolute idiots for the reason I just mentioned above. While establishments have the right to set their own rules, most places aren't going to frisk you at the door so you're far better served carrying concealed rather than wearing that Dirty Harry .44 on your hip, or your AR-15 slung on your back.
I am agreement with what Luke posted above. Not in agreement with Jack's C reason.
As to Luke's question of what type of gun is suitable from life and property defense... In the boonies I would say a shotgun with a non-lethal load is the best option for basic home defense vs people. I suppose with a double barrel you could put a non lethal load in one side and lethal in the other. If the non lethal shot does not quickly end the incident the lethal shot is there as a backup.
For animal related problems a long gun should work fine. Actually pretty much any type of gun will work but a long gun allows you to deal with the animal at range.
But now you are conflating that with position D, which is "I want guns because guns." People who demonstrate with guns because guns is a different issue again. It doesn't matter if they want guns because A, B or C, because, to be honest, they probably don't know or care themselves. It just becomes guns because guns.
Your average redneck yahoo who has enough firearms to equip a small army isn't going to be able to do squat against an organized government military because they don't have the knowledge and/or training to know how to fight back. There is even precedent in US history over this. With a couple of exceptions, the British were pretty much dominating the US during the Revolutionary War until the US got serious about training the rebels (with some thanks to the French, specifically LaFayette, for help in training as well as providing additional forces and supplies). There were many times where the rag tag US forces consisting of local militia men and whatnot would just run screaming when facing British troops in conventional battles. The only times when the rag tag forces were actually able to put up a good fight where the odd guerilla battles in the backwoods where you have a combination of backwoodsmen who were familiar with the land and (perhaps from experience from hunting and/or fighting Native tribes who were guerilla expoerts themselves) were capable of picking off the British while hiding.
Maybe it would be a different story if your militias equaled something like the Swedish Home Guard or the Swiss Militias, rather than angry paranoid rednecks, but alas.