New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Carrying a gun? - Page 4

post #91 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post



Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post



I didn't want it to be a non-serious discussion, I wanted to know if anyone thought there was merit in doing so (obviously not). What i didn't expect is it to devolve into personal attacks as things unfortunately tend to do here. I have never and don't have the intention to anytime soon carry a gun for any purpose. While I think people have a right to carry weapons, i do not feel that I posses the maturity to do so. By that I mean that I have not had enough experience to decide whether I would need to pull my gun because someone wants to hurt me or are they simply posturing. The same thing applies for going out into the woods I don't need to be walking around with a gun out because I got scared because I thought I heard something and risk accidentally shooting something/someone that shouldn't be. I have the foresight to see that know but adrenaline and fear tend to cloud judgement. So I don't even consider carrying a weapon.

 

The sad thing is this post has been up for 2 days and there have been 83 responses most calling me idiot, for simply asking a question but posts that have been up for weeks asking for help have less than 20, some haven't been answered at all. Had I said "hey I just bought a gun and am planning on carrying it what do you think?", those responses would be appropriate. However, I simply asked if anyone does or has considered carrying a gun. Simple curiosity.  It's amazing how quickly people are willing to jump in and criticize here yet reluctant to pass out helpful information.

 

As little as I know I can just as easily jump into threads and say your an idiot for wanting to go back country without x or for doing x. It actually takes some experience and skill to pass out helpful information ( not saying you or anyone here doesn't have it). Last year I tried to make this forum better by writing an article that was meant to start a community effort on building a helpful document. I even said that when I posted it but rather than help build it or even point out what was wrong without, the instant reply was about how I was too inexperienced to be writing something or how I had to have plagiarized it.

 

         

I think this was a reasonable question to post, given the current fervor regarding firearms. The passion evident in many of the responses is indicative of this fervor. If the subject had been about carrying some other potentially lethal thing such as for example an ice axe the posts you received in response likely would have been calm objective recommendations as well as a reasonable discussion as to when or whether this might have been useful. Instead you excited a charged response which I find revealing. Here in New Hampshire our legislature is involved in controversy of a similar tenor regarding whether legislators could carry weapons into the Statehouse (passed), whether students can carry firearms on campus and whether to enable permitless concealed carry as well as legislation allowing lethal armed response to perceived threat (passed). For some reason many seem to be agitated about perceived threats to themselves. The New Hampshire Dept. of Fish and Game receives calls all the time from people similarly concerned for their safety wanting to know if they can/should carry guns in the woods for self defense. I'm pretty certain the response from law enforcement generally is to discourage what they see as a dangerous practice that will only add to the problems they have to deal with. Certainly here in New Hampshire the threat from wildlife is virtually non-existent and somewhat laughable which makes the hysteria all the more difficult to explain. I can only guess that contemporary news media that spotlights particularly gruesome and isolated examples of criminal behavior and exploits these at length for their entertainment value have conveyed a certain anxiety and the perception that we are threatened with such behavior. There are even a considerable number who seem to believe, irrationally, that we would be safer if all citizens were carrying firearms. Nothing excites irrationality as much as fear, it would seem. So, thanks for bringing this up. It has been an interesting discussion.

 

 

@oisin, A thoughtful, truth-y observation.  But a question about taking an ice axe bc skiing (or some other lethal device that is ski related) is an apple to the OP's pistol carrying orange.  Another randomized lethal weapon that has little to nothing to do with the task at hand would be a better comparison, but would still be relatively moot unless the OP has Indiana Jones-like throwing abilities.  That is to say, the gun can affect someone a lot further away, a lot more quickly.

 

Other safety concerns in the backcountry are, as the OP pointed out, are not dicussed in a very cavalier fashion on the internet.  Including his questions about safety protocols last year.

 

@lonewolf, your first response was that I hadn't read the whole thread so I didn't know what I was talking about as it was non-serious.  At that point I agreed because the discussion had hinted at a gun control debate.  I closed with a tongue-in-cheek comment that's winky-ness apparently didn't translate across the interwebz (you tend to ask kooky questions (winkeez-smilerz!)).

 

But your response was in fact that you didn't mean it to be a silly discussion.  

 

My subsequent post, admittedly a little robust, was to state that I'm not "one of those gun-control ninnies" but rather that your intention has been blurred and if you didn't see any question about guns on an internet ski forum de-volving into a gun control debate, then your vision is not clear enough for someone that ought to be taking aim at anything.

 

There are two things you don't discuss at the dinner table.  Religion and guns.  Because it will turn into a heated discussion and end up ruining your holiday dinner.

 

The forum in general is fine, I suppose you had a legitimate reason for posting it in the bc forum.

 

But the repeated, uneducated belief or desire by people wondering if they need such a device in the wilderness is what I find trying.

 

Typically, perhaps not you, the people I find asking that question usually have no business, or at least experience, in the wilderness and in turn are the last people I want carrying a firearm in said wilderness.

 

 

post #92 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by cstreu1026 View Post

I tend to prefer a revolver for their time tested reliable design and the heavy double action trigger pull that takes a very deliberate act to cock and release the hammer.  That's not to say an accidental discharge is impossible but falling on it or dropping it isn't going to cause that to happen.

 



Agree, but even a DA Smith N frame in say .44 mag could be carried with the hammer down over an empty hole. I was not implying only in pistol use, same for a rifle with any action and shotgun too. Is it really neccesary, not really. But it doesn't really cost you anything either.

 

Those who aren't comfortable around firearms can start from there.....

 

I think ALL folks should have exposure to how to safely handle a variety of guns, especially if you are "afraid" of them. Ignorance is not bliss. Even if you never want to shoot one, just to know how to make it safe could be important in your life one day.

 

post #93 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash View Post



You folks don't seem to understand. You can have a firearm loaded but with an empty chamber. There is ZERO chance of a discharge in this condition. NONE.

It can still be brought into use in but a few seconds depending on the exact type of gun in question.

 

So a tumble, yardsale, throwing it at a rock ledge etc. will NOT cause the gun to discharge. If people are not fimilar with firearm operation there are classes available almost anywhere in the US......

 

"We fear that which we don't understand"

 

 

 


Most people aren't mentally equipped to deal with drawing a weapon, chambering a round, flipping off the safety and bring to a firing position when faced with a surprise, high pressure situation, they either freeze, panic, run or simply cannot perform the task(s) in time. Most attack situations (animal or human) the victim probably doesn't see it coming whether they are carrying or not.

 

post #94 of 676
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter View Post

 

@oisin, A thoughtful, truth-y observation.  But a question about taking an ice axe bc skiing (or some other lethal device that is ski related) is an apple to the OP's pistol carrying orange.  Another randomized lethal weapon that has little to nothing to do with the task at hand would be a better comparison, but would still be relatively moot unless the OP has Indiana Jones-like throwing abilities.  That is to say, the gun can affect someone a lot further away, a lot more quickly.

 

Other safety concerns in the backcountry are, as the OP pointed out, are not dicussed in a very cavalier fashion on the internet.  Including his questions about safety protocols last year.

 

@lonewolf, your first response was that I hadn't read the whole thread so I didn't know what I was talking about as it was non-serious.  At that point I agreed because the discussion had hinted at a gun control debate.  I closed with a tongue-in-cheek comment that's winky-ness apparently didn't translate across the interwebz (you tend to ask kooky questions (winkeez-smilerz!)).

 

But your response was in fact that you didn't mean it to be a silly discussion.  

 

My subsequent post, admittedly a little robust, was to state that I'm not "one of those gun-control ninnies" but rather that your intention has been blurred and if you didn't see any question about guns on an internet ski forum de-volving into a gun control debate, then your vision is not clear enough for someone that ought to be taking aim at anything.

 

There are two things you don't discuss at the dinner table.  Religion and guns.  Because it will turn into a heated discussion and end up ruining your holiday dinner.

 

The forum in general is fine, I suppose you had a legitimate reason for posting it in the bc forum.

 

But the repeated, uneducated belief or desire by people wondering if they need such a device in the wilderness is what I find trying.

 

Typically, perhaps not you, the people I find asking that question usually have no business, or at least experience, in the wilderness and in turn are the last people I want carrying a firearm in said wilderness.

 

 



Fair enough. Although as pretty much every philosopher teaches debate and learning are the highest pleasures in life and increase your quality of life. No need to thank me though wink.gif

 

Btw that elk chili sounds awesome.   

post #95 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter View Post

 

...  

 

My subsequent post, admittedly a little robust, was to state that I'm not "one of those gun-control ninnies" but rather that your intention has been blurred and if you didn't see any question about guns on an internet ski forum de-volving into a gun control debate, then your vision is not clear enough for someone that ought to be taking aim at anything.

 

There are two things you don't discuss at the dinner table.  Religion and guns.  Because it will turn into a heated discussion and end up ruining your holiday dinner....

 

Check the thread.  First two pages people primarily responded "it's not a good idea," in various ways.  There was some light-hearted gear talk about ammo and zombies, but no one too worked up.  Talking about gun-toting rednecks could have gotten people worked up, but no one did get worked up.  The only "fervent" posting seems to have been, in fact, from people who find guns just generally distressing, and taking the thread off-topic was done with a gun-control slant.

 

Talking about using skis while hunting would have made total sense and been totally appropriate, for instance.  The o.p. may be a little whacky on some of his posts, but he's far from the only forum participant who can have that said of him. 

 

Talking about ski-fish biathlon wouldn't get anybody worked up, and is something a number of people do.  Fly rods have a legitimate, useful place in our wilderness.  While personally if I see someone with spinning gear, I start to worry about their mental stability and what they might do, I can even concede that spinning rods don't seem to magically do anything bad when I'm around them.  But, taking a musky rod skiing in CO to deal with predator fish would, in fact, be pretty stupid.

 

Obviously, substitute a gun for fishing gear, and we sorta kinda have this thread.  Heck, we should even be able to talk about which dog breeds will stand their ground or even tree bears and mtn lions without getting too worked up.  And dogs are much more a hot point than guns or religion.biggrin.gif

 

 

 

 

post #96 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post

 

Fly rods have a legitimate, useful place in our wilderness.  While personally if I see someone with spinning gear, I start to worry about their mental stability and what they might do, I can even concede that spinning rods don't seem to magically do anything bad when I'm around them.  But, taking a musky rod skiing in CO to deal with predator fish would, in fact, be pretty stupid.

 

Obviously, substitute a gun for fishing gear, and we sorta kinda have this thread.  Heck, we should even be able to talk about which dog breeds will stand their ground or even tree bears and mtn lions without getting too worked up.  And dogs are much more a hot point than guns or religion.biggrin.gif

 

Last time I required semi emergency medical attention it involved a fish hook flipped by a child.  Last time I went camping it happened to another individual that also required medical assistance.  My wife has a cousin that lost an eye completely thanks to an errant cast.  I'll go on record and say based on casual observation over my lifetime that there are far more fish hook related injuries than firearm related ones in back country.
 

 

post #97 of 676
Thread Starter 

You know no one ever did mention the fact that a gun can be used for other things besides shooting dangerous animals. Obviously, it could also be used to kill game should you become lost, but the gun powder and primer in the bullets can be used to start fires as well. Not to mention should you hear rescuers in the area and for some reason be unable to gain there attention by yelling three shortly spaced shots would certainly let them know someone was in the area. 

 

Don't forget you don't need to kill the bear just slow your partner down biggrin.gif

post #98 of 676

It's interesting that the discussion stayed civil, though. Even with all the reactionary-redneck and hippy-peace-freak opinions being rolled out. Well done everyone. Freaks.

post #99 of 676

How about carrying a grenade launcher for avy control?

post #100 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter View Post

 

@oisin, A thoughtful, truth-y observation.  But a question about taking an ice axe bc skiing (or some other lethal device that is ski related) is an apple to the OP's pistol carrying orange.  Another randomized lethal weapon that has little to nothing to do with the task at hand would be a better comparison, but would still be relatively moot unless the OP has Indiana Jones-like throwing abilities.  That is to say, the gun can affect someone a lot further away, a lot more quickly.

 

 

Regarding the ice axe, I guess it is normally mainly a hazard to the person carrying it (as well as a potentially useful tool), although there's always the Trotsky thing. I agree though that the gun is primarily a weapon and therein lies its limited usefulness as regards backcountry skiing. It is as you point out a lethal weapon with little or nothing to do with the task(s) at hand (skiing and survival).  As for hunting wild game (as some others have suggested) in order to survive while lost in the backcountry, well I suppose if you're lost in northern Canada or the wilds of Alaska for a protracted period of time but, in that case, I hope you've provided yourself with some more basic survival tools like a sleeping bag, firestarter, bivy sack, a cup or pot for melting snow. Lack of shelter and the cold are going to do you in while you're out there hunting. Incidently Armalite used to produce a compact folding .22 cal survival rifle for USAF crew in such situations. Its not going to stop a bear but it might actually be useful in a real wilderness survival situation and you can pack a lot more .22 rounds realistically than the large caliber ammo people have been mentioning. I suppose the big question is: where do you plan to ski that you anticipate being lost or incapacitated in the wilderness for such a time? Actively hunting for wild game kind of presupposes you are not incapacitated so the question becomes more one of, beyond the immediate problem of warmth, hydration and shelter,  mobility and navigation. There really aren't that many places in the lower 48 where you are more than a few miles from some kind of road or trail. (Montana, Idaho come to mind). You might be better off putting your time and precious energy to other uses than wild game hunting.

By the way Splitter I am not necessarily directing these comments to you but rather in response to some of the other posts here in this thread.

post #101 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post

Don't forget the holy hand grenade...

 



avalanche control

 

post #102 of 676
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post

Regarding the ice axe, I guess it is normally mainly a hazard to the person carrying it (as well as a potentially useful tool), although there's always the Trotsky thing. I agree though that the gun is primarily a weapon and therein lies its limited usefulness as regards backcountry skiing. It is as you point out a lethal weapon with little or nothing to do with the task(s) at hand (skiing and survival).  As for hunting wild game (as some others have suggested) in order to survive while lost in the backcountry, well I suppose if you're lost in northern Canada or the wilds of Alaska for a protracted period of time but, in that case, I hope you've provided yourself with some more basic survival tools like a sleeping bag, firestarter, bivy sack, a cup or pot for melting snow. Lack of shelter and the cold are going to do you in while you're out there hunting. Incidently Armalite used to produce a compact folding .22 cal survival rifle for USAF crew in such situations. Its not going to stop a bear but it might actually be useful in a real wilderness survival situation and you can pack a lot more .22 rounds realistically than the large caliber ammo people have been mentioning. I suppose the big question is: where do you plan to ski that you anticipate being lost or incapacitated in the wilderness for such a time? Actively hunting for wild game kind of presupposes you are not incapacitated so the question becomes more one of, beyond the immediate problem of warmth, hydration and shelter,  mobility and navigation. There really aren't that many places in the lower 48 where you are more than a few miles from some kind of road or trail. (Montana, Idaho come to mind). You might be better off putting your time and precious energy to other uses than wild game hunting.

By the way Splitter I am not necessarily directing these comments to you but rather in response to some of the other posts here in this thread.


A few miles through waist deep snow in extremely mountainous terrain is not a trivial thing. Sure there could be a highway a mile away but a 12,000 foot mountain is a pretty big barrier to simply walking over there.

 

post #103 of 676
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post

How about carrying a grenade launcher for avy control?



If only it didn't cost like $10,000 for the permit frown.gif

post #104 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by CTKook View Post



...

 

Basically, you seem to be advocating frequent handgun practice.  Coolicon14.gif

 

All in good fun, I really liked both your posts.  smile.gif

 

 

 


If you own a handgun (and I have owned many and still own one--compact .45 ACP for when the meth-heads get active) and think you might use it someday, I do advocate frequent practice (at a range, not in your back yard in the subdivision like my neighbor the deputy sheriff).  If you feel the need for a defensive weapon of greater utility, say home defense or in case a dog or bear is chasing the grandkids around the house, I recommend a rifle that is easy to use (I have a Ruger mini-14 with a gunsmith modified trigger and a 1X scope) and regular practice (at a range).  But when you are pretty sure you will be running up against brown bears or grizzly bears, as I was when fly-fishing in Alaska and rafting salmon streams in northern British Columbia), I recommend something a little more powerful--I used a .338 magnum and both my wife and I practiced with it.  It was very effective we never saw a brown bear while fishing streams in Alaska or grizzly while rafting in the 2nd highest grizzly concentration in NA.  Saw lots of partially eaten fish, bear tracks, and scats, tho. :-)  BTW, my rafting buddy got pulled over at the Canadian border and his entire kit searched because he admitted to  having bear spray whereas they didn't flinch at my rifle.  For hiking in grizzly country I recommend bear spray (and practice with it--my wife and I also use it for walking and biking through neighborhoods with pesky dogs).  For skiing, don't worry about it.

 

post #105 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post

Incidently Armalite used to produce a compact folding .22 cal survival rifle for USAF crew in such situations. Its not going to stop a bear but it might actually be useful in a real wilderness survival situation and you can pack a lot more .22 rounds realistically than the large caliber ammo people have been mentioning.


A friend of mine had something similar.  It was a small folding two barrel rifle, 22 cal on top and 410 under it.  Safe to say it wouldn't be likely to discharge while folded up. 

2009-03-23_190402_m6vn3.jpg

post #106 of 676

This post reminds me of he Story from a Kansas State Highway Patrol officer:

I made a traffic stop on an elderly lady the other day for speeding on  U.S. 166 Eastbound at mile Marker 73 

just East of Sedan, KS. I asked for her drivers licence, registration, and proof of insurance.

The lady took out the requried information and handed it to me. In with the cards I somewhat

surprised (due to her advanced age) to see she had a conceal carry permit. I looked at her

and asked if she had a weapon in her possession at this time. She responded that she indeed had a 

.45 automatic in her glove box.Something--- body language, or the way she said it--- made me

want to ask if she had any other firearms. She did admit to also having a 9m  Glock in her center

console. Now I had to ask once again that she did have just one more, a .38 special in her purse. I then 

ask her what she was afraid off.

 

 She looked me right in the eye and said, "Not a F---ing thing!"

post #107 of 676

Well, it depends.  The term brown bear refers to grizzlies, but there are brown-colored bears that are actually black bears.  This guy is right outside my kitchen window and is clearly a black bear.  

 

 

IMG_6226a.JPG

 

 

I don't have any real interest in the discussion here, but as a MT resident surrounded by both, I like to keep the facts straight.  

 

Have at it, guys.

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter View Post

brown bears are grizzlies.

 

 

 

post #108 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Well, it depends.  The term brown bear refers to grizzlies, but there are brown-colored bears that are actually black bears.  This guy is right outside my kitchen window and is clearly a black bear.  

IMG_6226a.JPG

 

 

I don't have any real interest in the discussion here, but as a MT resident surrounded by both, I like to keep the facts straight.  

 

Have at it, guys.

 


 

 



NIce link to the taxonomy.  Years ago the Boone & Crockett, IIRC, rule was "within 50 miles of the ocean, a brown bear, more than 50 miles, a grizzily."  I used to work at Spotted Bear Ranger District in the Flathead NF in MT in the 60s.  The coloration of the black bears there ranged from coal black to light brown to blonde and, yes, spotted bears; we also had grizzly bears on that District which, at the time, include part of the Bob Marshal Wilderness, and later, the Great Bear Wilderness (not sure which bear this is).

post #109 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post

You know it's curious how much movies affect our perception. I went back and looked at statistics. Black bears and Brown bears (Grizzlies) actually kill the same aproximate number of people a year. In the 2010's Black bears have killed 3, brown 4 so far. In the 2000's black 16, brown 12. So the people saying they would consider carry in Alaska but not Colorado don't make much sense.

 

Neither case is very likely just interesting to note. All that info is from wikipedia so subject to error   


It's not about the kill statistics; it's about the behaviour.  Most black bears will retreat when threatened (except for that rare predatory male bruin), whereas most grizzlies will likely accept your challenge.  They tell you to yell, shout and throw rocks at black bears, but play dead for grizzlies.  I just can't see myself playing dead while some bear has a taste and tries to make up its mind whether or not to eat me for supper.  If a bear starts in on my I'll die the way I've lived, fighting.

 

post #110 of 676

Spotted Bear not too far from me.  A friend of my daughter's works down that road at Spotted Bear Ranch.  
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Carey View Post



Nice link to the taxonomy.  Years ago the Boone & Crockett, IIRC, rule was "within 50 miles of the ocean, a brown bear, more than 50 miles, a grizzily."  I used to work at Spotted Bear Ranger District in the Flathead NF in MT in the 60s.  The coloration of the black bears there ranged from coal black to light brown to blonde and, yes, spotted bears; we also had grizzly bears on that District which, at the time, include part of the Bob Marshal Wilderness, and later, the Great Bear Wilderness (not sure which bear this is).



 

post #111 of 676

post #112 of 676

So, lonewolf, see what you started? This (internet forum responses and manners)  would be an interesting topic for discussion in your sociology classes. I have noticed that forums populated by blue collar working types are far more cordial and less "in your face, jerk!!" than those inhabited by supposedly higher income groups. Maybe a hasty conclusion but I'm still studying the thesis myself.

post #113 of 676


I was referring to grizzlies being the species brown bear and all other bears, no matter the color, being black bears.

Quote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Well, it depends.  The term brown bear refers to grizzlies, but there are brown-colored bears that are actually black bears.  This guy is right outside my kitchen window and is clearly a black bear.  

 

 

IMG_6226a.JPG

 

 

I don't have any real interest in the discussion here, but as a MT resident surrounded by both, I like to keep the facts straight.  

 

Have at it, guys.

 


 

Quote:
Originally Posted by splitter View Post

brown bears are grizzlies.

 

 

 



 

post #114 of 676


 

nQuote:
Originally Posted by sibhusky View Post

Well, it depends.  The term brown bear refers to grizzlies, but there are brown-colored bears that are actually black bears.  This guy is right outside my kitchen window and is clearly a black bear.  

 

 

IMG_6226a.JPG

 

 

I don't have any real interest in the discussion here, but as a MT resident surrounded by both, I like to keep the facts straight.  

 

Have at it, guys.

 


 

 


No, no, no.  That's a bird feeder, right?  So it must be a bird.

 

post #115 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post


A few miles through waist deep snow in extremely mountainous terrain is not a trivial thing. Sure there could be a highway a mile away but a 12,000 foot mountain is a pretty big barrier to simply walking over there.

 


Not a trivial thing at all. Good luck hunting in that.

 

post #116 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by crgildart View Post


A friend of mine had something similar.  It was a small folding two barrel rifle, 22 cal on top and 410 under it.  Safe to say it wouldn't be likely to discharge while folded up. 

2009-03-23_190402_m6vn3.jpg

That looks similar to another survival gun manufactured for the USAF.

This is the one I was thinking of:

http://www.henryrepeating.com/rifle-survival-ar7.cfm
 

It isn't likely to discharge I agree but then neither is it anywhere near being ready to fire. Both are credible survival guns. Neither are intended for defense.

post #117 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdf View Post


 


No, no, no.  That's a bird feeder, right?  So it must be a bird.

 



I think the "brown bear" usually referred to is a grizzly however "black bears" so called can indeed come in a variety of colors. When we were backpacking in Yellowstone last we encountered a blond "black bear" on the trail. Cute little buggar.

post #118 of 676
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by oisin View Post


Not a trivial thing at all. Good luck hunting in that.

 


 

That wasn't my point. My point is that just because you are technically within a few miles of a road doesn't mean you couldn't be lost for a few days. 

 

In my opinion the best argument for not carrying is simply weight. The argument that it;s not likely enough is kinda a poor argument. How many times have you been in a situation where it was necessary to use the survival gear you carry? I would venture that for most people it's never. You still take it.

 

On the other hand there are more functional items that can be carried for the same weight.

 

wooley12 I am actually pretty impressed with how cordial it has stayed although it was close to going over board at one point

post #119 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post

wow calm down I don't carry a gun. Just something I was curious about as people do routinely carry one when hiking.

 

As far as regulations Colorado allows open carry by anyone (ecept in the obvious places like schools) and Obama passed a bill saying that allows carry in national parks and national forests have always allowed it.

 

The mountain lion attack was confirmed and emails were sent to all military members on base encouraging people to stay on the look out. Bears are also an issue for us during summer training. They routinely come through our camps and my friend had his backpack taken by one when he left it by a tree.
 

 

I feel ya. A black bear broke into my parents in law's home twice (well, it got the front half of its body in a window), and a few of their neighbors. I was in the house one of the times, and it was terrifying. Bears don't always fear humans. I friend of my father in law was attacked by a bear and nearly had his leg torn off. Courgars are sighted at Vail on or near the slopes regularly, and notices are posted near the lifts. I've seen wild moose in CO, and I've heard they're very dangerous. A gun may or may not do much good against these things, but it can't hurt. I won't hike alone on deserted trails in early-mid summer for these reasons. 

 

But I do agree that by the time you realize a hungry cougar is attacking, you'll already be dead or close to it.
 

 

post #120 of 676
Quote:
Originally Posted by lonewolf210 View Post

On the other hand there are more functional items that can be carried for the same weight.

 


This is the nut of the discussion.

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Après-Ski