Day Hiker wrote:

Buz Groshong wrote:You also don't have the right to kill someone who is threatening you with physical harm unless they are threatening to kill you.

I don't doubt that's what the (stupid) law reads. But if someone is coming at you with a gun or a knife or a bat or a fist or a grizzly bear, how the hell are you supposed to determine if your life is in danger or if you're just going to be put in a coma?

Fuck the law. Somebody threatens the physical well-being of me or my family or my friends or any innocent person on the street, and I will use whatever force is necessary to prevent it.

A gun, a knife, or a bat are one thing; a fist is another thing, unless the guy is much larger or is in a group. You are entitled to use "whatever force is necessary," just not disproportionately more than is necessary. Your actions are also not expected to be based on a perfect knowledge of the risks, when those actions must be taken in haste.

Laws aren't stupid; only people are.

dskoon wrote:Yeah, except you're assuming the gun "saved a human life," and the human life was in jeopardy.

Yeah. And you are assuming the shooter is a liar. On what grounds? You assume he's an Alaskan?

dskoon wrote:the other side of the story, ie. the Bear's.

Bears don't tell stories. Even living bears. Get over it. We don't bring bears into a courtroom and set them up on the stand and say, "Now, Mr. Bear, can you give us your account of what happened?" A bear is a bear. When it's hungry, it eats. When it's tired, it sleeps. When it's scared, it runs. When it's breeding season, it breeds. That's about as complex as it gets for a bear. A bear is a bear.

dskoon wrote:Some think you need a gun to walk into the woods

That's the misconception. No. Some people WANT a gun when they walk in the woods. And the great thing is that freedom allows those people to do so. Freedom also allows people to walk into the woods without a gun. How ridiculous would it be to have a law that says you MUST carry a firearm when walking in the woods? But, equally as ridiculous, some think there should be a law saying you CANNOT carry a firearm into the woods.

jdzaharia wrote:That's the misconception. No. Some people WANT a gun when they walk in the woods. And the great thing is that freedom allows those people to do so. Freedom also allows people to walk into the woods without a gun. How ridiculous would it be to have a law that says you MUST carry a firearm when walking in the woods? But, equally as ridiculous, some think there should be a law saying you CANNOT carry a firearm into the woods.

Many of you guys have the misconception that "freedom" gives you the right to do anything you want. You can't bring a gun onto an airplane either because you "want" to. There are many things to consider, which don't impinge on your "freedom". If I go now in the woods or wilderness, the one thing I am afraid of most is some lunatic walking around with a gun ready to shoot whenever something stirs in the bushes. That impinges on my "freedom".

SoCalHiker wrote:If I go now in the woods or wilderness, the one thing I am afraid of most is some lunatic walking around with a gun ready to shoot whenever something stirs in the bushes.

And some say the gun-toters are paranoid. Ha ha.

SoCalHiker wrote:

Bombchaser wrote:I have been packing concealed for ten years and have never used it in self defense yet.

.... exactly the point !!!

I think you miss the point. It is a very, very rare occasion that a gun would be necessary. But, on occasions, one could most definitely be useful. To say that no one could ever possible be in need of one is naïve. Sometimes shit just goes bad, even if you’re completely prepared and follow all those good rules of thumb that we all do. It’s my right to carry, and sometimes I do.

Also, I don’t know of to many people that draw down on a rustling bush. While, again on occasions, I hear of something stupid like that happening during hunting season, I do not believe I’ve ever heard of it happening during non-hunting season. I’m not saying it never has but I’m sure it’s pretty rare and it’s not something I’m overly concerned about.

outofstep80 wrote: think you miss the point. It is a very, very rare occasion that a gun would be necessary. But, on occasions, one could most definitely be useful.

I hope you don't use this same logic when you pack for climbing trips.

If there's a 1/100,000 chance that I might need something, I leave it at home.

Buz Groshong wrote:Laws aren't stupid; only people are.

Wait, people are stupid, but none of the laws made by people are stupid? Huh?

battledome wrote:

outofstep80 wrote: think you miss the point. It is a very, very rare occasion that a gun would be necessary. But, on occasions, one could most definitely be useful.

I hope you don't use this same logic when you pack for climbing trips.

If there's a 1/100,000 chance that I might need something, I leave it at home.

What, I like 100+ pound packs. Keeps me in shape

I actually only carry when I'm bow hunting up in the north woods all by me lonesome. I don't have much stuff with me then anyways. I'm not to worried about encounters with animals when I'm in a group.

outofstep80 wrote:I think you miss the point. It is a very, very rare occasion that a gun would be necessary. But, on occasions, one could most definitely be useful.

Of course it could be useful on occasions. But as everybody seems to admit, it is very, very rare. So why do you feel the need to prepare for something so rare? I am sure you are not so well prepared for all eventualities if you drive your car, cross the road, or anything else. Matter of fact seems to me that the main reason why you feel the need to carry a gun is because you like it. Simple as that.

SoCalHiker wrote:the main reason why you feel the need to carry a gun is because you like it. Simple as that.

I think this applies to a lot of the gun toters out there.

Day and Buz- you two are arguing over an area that would be covered by state laws. To say 'You are entitled to use "whatever force is necessary," just not disproportionately more than is necessary.' might be the threshold in one state, but not another. Each one defines what is appropriate in its own jurisdiction.

SoCalHiker wrote:

outofstep80 wrote:I think you miss the point. It is a very, very rare occasion that a gun would be necessary. But, on occasions, one could most definitely be useful.

Of course it could be useful on occasions. But as everybody seems to admit, it is very, very rare. So why do you feel the need to prepare for something so rare? I am sure you are not so well prepared for all eventualities if you drive your car, cross the road, or anything else. Matter of fact seems to me that the main reason why you feel the need to carry a gun is because you like it. Simple as that.

I understand your point but my logic is more sound than that. The only time I carry is when my chances of actually having an encounter are increased as a result of what I’m doing.

When I’m by myself at 5am and quietly stalking into the woods towards my tree stand I’m a lot more likely to came across a bear and it’s cub or some other scenario. As mentioned before I’ve only ever drawn my gun once. The reason was, I was being stalked for about a mile by something when I was making my way to my tree stand. To this day I have no idea what it was but I was happy I had a side arm.

Now, again, I am always as prepared as I can be. I scout my areas, go out of my way to avoid dens and other areas with signs of animals that I wish to avoid, and so on. But the fact is, in some situations it does make sense to carry. Would I ever carry on a day hike in the afternoon when I’m trouncing around with a group of people, that’s a big negative.

mrchad9 wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:the main reason why you feel the need to carry a gun is because you like it. Simple as that.

I think this applies to a lot of the gun toters out there.

Day and Buz- you two are arguing over an area that would be covered by state laws. To say 'You are entitled to use "whatever force is necessary," just not disproportionately more than is necessary.' might be the threshold in one state, but not another. Each one defines what is appropriate in its own jurisdiction.

Yeah, I think I'm rambling more at this point than actually contributing to the discussion by the op.

outofstep80 wrote:Yeah, I think I'm rambling more at this point than actually contributing to the discussion by the op.

Well I think that's what we're all doing. That's fine. Not much else to say about this murdered bear until his family files a civil suit against the Alaskan for damages.

outofstep80 wrote:I understand your point but my logic is more sound than that. The only time I carry is when my chances of actually having an encounter are increased as a result of what I’m doing.

When I’m by myself at 5am and quietly stalking into the woods towards my tree stand I’m a lot more likely to came across a bear and it’s cub or some other scenario. As mentioned before I’ve only ever drawn my gun once. The reason was, I was being stalked for about a mile by something when I was making my way to my tree stand. To this day I have no idea what it was but I was happy I had a side arm.

Now, again, I am always as prepared as I can be. I scout my areas, go out of my way to avoid dens and other areas with signs of animals that I wish to avoid, and so on. But the fact is, in some situations it does make sense to carry. Would I ever carry on a day hike in the afternoon when I’m trouncing around with a group of people, that’s a big negative.

Fair enough

outofstep80 wrote:When I’m by myself at 5am and quietly stalking into the woods towards my tree stand I’m a lot more likely to came across a bear and it’s cub or some other scenario.

Not being "quietly" will almost certainly eliminate any "danger" just by itself.