When your government takes away self defense means this is what makes headlines


PDA






Fisherman_48768
August 17, 2007, 08:03 PM
Fri, August 17, 2007

Man kills grizzly with knife
UPDATED: 2007-08-17 01:12:57 MST

This is what happens when your government takes away a means of self defense. Just glad the guy is doing okay after this encounter.


http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2007/08/17/4424593-sun.html

GRANDE PRAIRIE -- A man is recovering in hospital after being attacked by a female grizzly.

The victim, a man in his 30s, was preparing for bow-hunting season south of Grande Prairie Wednesday night when he encountered the bear.

He managed to kill the bear with a knife, but suffered serious arm and elbow injuries.

The area has been closed off to the public while wildlife officers search for the bear's cubs.

If you enjoyed reading about "When your government takes away self defense means this is what makes headlines" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
scubie02
August 17, 2007, 08:56 PM
while canada had made disquieting steps in the direction of gun control and had the registration fiasco, afaik you can still own guns, sounds like this guy was just a bow hunter

Car Knocker
August 17, 2007, 09:25 PM
This is what happens when your government takes away a means of self defense.
What means of self-defense was taken away?

kingpin008
August 17, 2007, 09:44 PM
Why is this in the handgun forum? Seems much more at home in the now-closed L&P.

Autolycus
August 17, 2007, 11:13 PM
That is one tough man. I dont know if a handgun would necessarily be enough for a bear. But it is better than a knife I imagine...

Fisherman_48768
August 17, 2007, 11:45 PM
What means of self-defense was taken away?

Our neighbors to the north do not have the constitutional right to self defense like we do. They can own a handgun but it is worthless as they cannot hunt with them, cannot carry unless they are LEO. The only use and it is controlled is for target shooting, then the gun owner has to take tests, register themselves and the firearm, cannot even purchase ammunition with out a Purchase and Acquisition License. The Liberal Canadian Parliment has essentially disarmed their citizens. Guess I assumed that more people were aware of the draconian gun laws across the border both north and south of the US.

Why is this in the handgun section? Because with a handgun at least the guy would not have had to rely on a knife to fight off a bear.

I'm sorry but I thought the posting was note worthy with several postings asking what handgun to use for self defense in a bear attack.

Deer Hunter
August 17, 2007, 11:45 PM
Now that's what I call Manly.

Double Naught Spy
August 18, 2007, 12:09 AM
When your government takes away self defense means this is what makes headlines

I think you may be a bit confused. The government did not take away the hunter's self defense means or rights. It only made getting handguns more difficult.

The article says the hunter was preparing for bow hunting season. I wonder if he had a bow or not and if so, why he didn't use it before the knife.

Also, shotguns and rifles are used for hunting in Canada, so I have to wonder why he would be out in bear country and not armed with a long gun. Pepper spray could have been used as well, but no mention was made of it either. So like the guns, we have to assume he probably didn't have any. Why?

The article does not mention anyone else with the hunter. He could have reduced his chances for being attacked had he taken along one or more other people.

The article mentioned that the attack was at night. Bears tend to be most active during the evening-night-dawn. The hunter could have reduced his chances for attack by not being out at night.

In other words, he had options he could have used, but apparently didn't bring them along.

jefnvk
August 18, 2007, 01:40 PM
Also, shotguns and rifles are used for hunting in Canada, so I have to wonder why he would be out in bear country and not armed with a long gun. Pepper spray could have been used as well, but no mention was made of it either. So like the guns, we have to assume he probably didn't have any. Why?

If I was a betting man, I would assume it has to do with game laws.

loose cannon
August 18, 2007, 08:11 PM
we all have choices to make,,,

if im in bear country i choose to have a 12ga pump loadedd with rifled slugs.
if i cant have my 12 i will not go into bear country.

Houston Tom
August 18, 2007, 08:20 PM
I would say this is a case of poor planning (not taking handgun on hunting trip)

maclean
August 18, 2007, 08:40 PM
>>if im in bear country i choose to have a 12ga pump loadedd with rifled slugs.
if i cant have my 12 i will not go into bear country.<<

If I'm in bear country I'd choose something crew served and on wheels. :D
Jack

ArchAngelCD
August 18, 2007, 08:42 PM
I also feel this thread should be in L&P and probably ended up here because L&P is closed. I have a feeling the Mods aren't going to like this.

Coronach
August 18, 2007, 10:54 PM
This is not L&P. This is for technical discussions of handguns.

If you enjoyed reading about "When your government takes away self defense means this is what makes headlines" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!