No Guns in the Wilderness? Are People Nuts? GRAPHIC!

[Confederate]

I watch the National Geographic Channel a lot and I'm always stunned by the number of numbnuts in the world who go out in the middle of nowhere without any means of defending themselves. And they're constantly being attacked; by bears, by cougars, wolves, even hippos. I don't know what the gun control laws are in Kenya and South Africa, but if I were out in the middle of the wilds, especially in Alaska or Africa, I'd want to have a pretty decent sidearm, even if it was a .357 magnum. I wouldn't expect to drop a hippo with a peashooter like that, but shooting one betwixt the eyes repeatedly might get its attention. Beats a paddle, leastways.

But whatever a person carries, they should carry something, shouldn't they? I've noticed that the vast majority of attackees have been yuppie types. They have their little digital cameras and their bug spray and they probably vote (removed)if they're Americans.

The good Lord gave just about every animal on Earth some sort of defense, both from enemies and from the elements, but He didn't seem to give man anything except a tan and some intelligence. Unfortunately, some men immediately enact laws banning just about any sort of reasonable defense other men might devise to protect themselves. Even when such laws are absent, many American yuppies are conditioned to be adverse to weapons, which kind of lowers them a few notches on the food chain, if you get my drift. Especially amusing (and tragic) was the fellow who decided to go for an evening walk in Alaska without so much as a toenail file for protection. He got eaten by wolves. But what did he expect? Nice doggies?

One fellow whose girlfriend turned out to be a snack for a big black bear did, to his credit, have a 4-inch locking blade knife. He managed to fight off the bruin with both he and the bear sustaining some painful injuries. (But it shows what even a minimal weapon can do. It beats fingernails!)

I've heard that most park rangers will turn a blind eye at folks who discreetly carry handguns in national parks. But even that won't do anyone any good if they think they don't need 'em.

Comments?




Bear attack victims. Above, 30-year-old Li Guoxing received a new upper lip, cheek and nose from a brain-dead donor to repair injuries sustained after an attack by a black bear.

No, dear, I'm not seeing anyone else....



[Removed ankle photo....probable shotgun blast.]

 

[kevin387]

Those pictures are both brutal and worth a thousand words. Better to have it and not need it then to need it and not have it.

 

[Ichiro]

I'm never going into the wild. I need my face and the tissue between my knee and ankle. I just think my quality of life would be lower without them.

GP-100 with 180-grain .357s, just because that's what I have. A couple speedloaders and a big flannel shirt for a cover garment.

Holy (*&^*&*%*% !

 

[Father Knows Best]

People who venture into the wilderness without protection are just proving Darwin right. Natural selection favors the strong and smart, not the weak and stupid.

As for Park Rangers "turning a blind eye", don't count on it. I was a NPS (National Park Service) ranger back in the late 80s. Unless things have changed in the last 20 years, NPS rangers tend to be a pretty liberal lot. Even those authorized to carry guns in the line of duty (not many of them) tend to believe that they should be the only ones with them. An illegal firearm is a big deal to them, and would certainly get them cranked up. If you choose to carry in violation of park regs, you'd better not let anyone find out unless and until your life depends on it.

 

[Claude Clay]

foot pic

seems i remember seeing it b4, was it not the result of a buddies shotgun at very close range???

 

[jlbraun]

Hmmm...

I'm not impugning your message (that we need to carry in the woods). The second is an actual polar bear attack. The last I've heard is an ND with a shotgun at point blank range.

 

[jad0110]

I've noticed that the vast majority of attackees have been yuppie types.

Don't forget hippies!

I used to go hiking every summer in the Appalacian Mountains of western North Carolina. Haven't been in several years. Most of the areas I frequented were Federal and State Parks :banghead: , so I can't even open carry .

Stupid. Would I even be able to carry bear spray?

 

[lebshiff21]

http://www.snopes.com/photos/gruesome/polarbear.asp

still disturbing

 

[Confederate]

Well, I posted in good faith, though that's what I get for Google searches of bear attacks! I've heard that many dangers in the national parks are from two-legged animals. There are not enough rangers to protect everyone and, with animals and biker gangs, drug dealers and the sort hanging out there, it's really not fair to ask people not to carry their guns, especially if the park is in a state where carrying guns is legal.

 

[bensdad]

I would never carry in a national park. What? What bulge? Oh, that bulge. The one in the back... at the waist, under the untucked t-shirt. No, that's a hemorrhoid.

 

[skeeter1]

But whatever a person carries, they should carry something, shouldn't they?

Well, I always did when I was backpacking in the Red River Gorge in Kentucky. A S&W M60 in .38Spl. Never used it, but it was in a side pocket on the backpack. Not the most powerful thing in the world, but I had confidence in it as I still do.

 

[mec]

A local guy here took a job with some game bureaucracy. It had to do with counting Kodiak bears in alaska. He and a partner had to kayak in. They carried all their food in smell proof containers to keep the bears from being too interested. No guns allowed at all. Sure enough a bear came charging after him and he would have been ate except his woman partner charged at the bear and let him have it with a large cannister of capsicum. I guess they were lucky the government let them have that much protection.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

People who venture into the wilderness without protection are just proving Darwin right. Natural selection favors the strong and smart, not the weak and stupid.

Obviously you think the Darwin Awards are what defines natural selection. Natural selection does not necessarily favor the strong and smart. Natural selection favors those that live long enough to, and manage to, pass on their genes to the next generation.

If you take a look at the descriptions of many of the Darwin Awards, family (children) are sometimes mentioned. If that person has passed on his or her genes to the next generation already, then that person really hasn't done much to better the population by being removed from the gene pool.

I'm not impugning your message (that we need to carry in the woods), but the first image I've heard is a Korean dude that got his face blown off in an industrial accident. The second is an actual polar bear attack. The last I've heard is an ND with a shotgun at point blank range.

Right, so the last image is a reason folks should NOT be carrying guns because they can hurt themselves, but that image is now removed as it does not support the claim about the need to be armed in the woods, does it?

If you check the stats, I think you will find that more people are killed in hunting "accidental shootings" than by bear, wolf, and mountain lion attacks in the USA. Similarly, more people are killed by dogs than by mountain lions.

Y'all won't like the site, but check ....
http://www.all-creatures.org/cash/accident-center.html

How about this video posted a while back of some fine hunters? Nobody got shot, but not because the hunters showed muzzle discipline.
http://www.huntingfootage.com/data/5...ging_Boar1.wmv

A few other examples/data
http://www3.sympatico.ca/d.rosen/accidents2.htm
http://www3.sympatico.ca/d.rosen/accidentstats.htm

for Texas, showing improvement, but still showing problems...
http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/publications/pwdpubs/media/pwd_rp_k0700_1124_2004.pdf

http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg04_HuntingTrapping/Hunting_accident.pdf

This is old data, but the IHEA tracks "accidents" and it shows an improving trend, no doubt, but still a lot of injuries and deaths, many of which are from firearms.
http://www.dfg.ca.gov/ihea/ihea96b.html

The bottom line here is that it is pretty easy to post a couple of pictures of folks hurt or killed by animals in the wild and suggest they are Darwin candidates, naive, or stupid for not being armed. HOWEVER, it is also pretty easy to come up with data to support the notion that having guns out in the wild makes you look like you haven't really properly assessed the risks given the number of folks who screw up and shoot themselves or shoot others in 'events' that were not intended as aggression toward humans. Being armed is not the be all to end all answer to safety in the wild. Sure, being armed may protect you from the animals, but doesn't seem to protect you from yourself or other hunters.

In looking through different years of IHEA data, something I noticed that was interesting is that a person was more likely to be shot by another hunter if that person was part of a group of hunters versus a person hunting alone. However, a person who is part of a group is more likely to get medical aid when shot by a buddy than a person who is hunting alone. Also, deer hunting seems to be the game animal preference that results in hunter deaths most commonly.

Just how strong and smart are hunters who shoot themselves or their hunting buddies?

 

[ZeSpectre]

I've noticed that the vast majority of attackees have been yuppie types.
Don't forget hippies!

Oh boy, you just reminded me of an incident from YEARS back. I'm hiking along the AT in Shenandoah National Park and up ahead I see a bobcat sitting at the edge of the trail. I start smacking my walking stick on a nearby tree and the noise startles it and it vanishes into the bush. I resume walking and suddenly I hear this voice up in a tree. It was this over-the-top hippie type yelling at me to run 'cause there's a COUGAR stalking him and he only just made it safely up the tree.

I finally convince the guy that it was a Bobcat not a Cougar and that I'd chased it off so he was safe. Once he was on the ground he starts in again about how he barely made it to safety up that tree, you should have seen the look on his face when I reminded him that cougars and bobcats are both cats and are excellent climbers who could have gone up that tree far faster than he could.

Anyway, more directly on the topic, I've been going out in the backcountry of the eastern coast of the US for a lot of years, had a few encounters with various critters, and am firmly convinced that I would like to stay at the TOP of the food chain thank you very much!

Having said that I'm going to post another plug for the "Carry in National Parks" project (see THIS THREAD here at THR)

 

[mljdeckard]

Yeah, watch it when you carry in OR AROUND a national park. I've done some long-distance hiking between parks in Utah, and I get varying opinions when I ask local rangers if they mind if I keep a defensive firearm on my pack. Some say they don't care, some say no, I had one guy tell me it was ok as long as it was just a .22. (As if there's any legal distinction.)

Having said that, I did work a summer as a survival instructor in bear country, and the 'court referred youths' I was in the company of made it a bad idea to have guns around. (At least, that was the company guideline I did honor.) There is something to be said for knowing how to be out on your own without backup. (People lived in the wilderness for thousands of years before firearms were invented.) But where I was, there were a few black bears, rattlesnakes, and cattle. I would feel very differently in the land of black mambas and pachyderms.

 

[hrgrisso]

Addressing Hunting vs. not hunting

Double Naught, while I agree there are a lot of shmucks out there who should NOT be hunting. Using hunting accidents, yes accidents (at least I hope they are) to say your in greater danger of hunters than animals, so carrying to defend yourself accordingly is silly, that doesn't tow the logical sense.

I don't believe the original post was about hunting at all. I go outdoors hiking, walking etc. quite often where hunting is not the objective. Often not even during season. So I should be safe right? I've been stalked by Mountain lions in southern arizona before. I've also had to shoot and kill rabid coyote and I must say I'm glad to have had a gun.

Should everyone hunt? No, in fact if my brother in law takes it up, I will never allow anyone I know to go with him. But, the dangers associated with hunting and related risks, hunters no this, accept this, and we do it anyway.

The pain, is when not hunting, there are certain places won't let you carry. And sometimes, people decide not to carry an icky gun and they suffer the consequences.

The point is, you sleep in the bed you make.

 

[Rinspeed]

As a general I just don't go in the woods without some sort of handgun.

 

[go_bang]

The bottom line here is that it is pretty easy to post a couple of pictures of folks hurt or killed by animals in the wild and suggest they are Darwin candidates, naive, or stupid for not being armed. HOWEVER, it is also pretty easy to come up with data to support the notion that having guns out in the wild makes you look like you haven't really properly assessed the risks given the number of folks who screw up and shoot themselves or shoot others in 'events' that were not intended as aggression toward humans. Being armed is not the be all to end all answer to safety in the wild. Sure, being armed may protect you from the animals, but doesn't seem to protect you from yourself or other hunters.

In looking through different years of IHEA data, something I noticed that was interesting is that a person was more likely to be shot by another hunter if that person was part of a group of hunters versus a person hunting alone. However, a person who is part of a group is more likely to get medical aid when shot by a buddy than a person who is hunting alone. Also, deer hunting seems to be the game animal preference that results in hunter deaths most commonly.

Just how strong and smart are hunters who shoot themselves or their hunting buddies?

The question that comes to mind for me is what is the experience and overall responsibility level of those hunters who shoot themselves or shoot others? Are we talking about hunters that only bring out the guns for hunting season and then stash them away for the rest of the year? How many of these accident victims were drinking a good bit the night before? For accidents in groups of hunters how many were because the victim failed to tell his partners where he was going to be, or did and one or more of his partners forgot.

It would not surprise me if the better answer to the problem would be for these hunters to spend a little more time with their firearms throughout the year.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Okay, look. NONE of the examples with the graphic images match the claim about people being numbnuts for going into the wilderness unarmed. No, the original post was not about hunting, but that doesn't mean being armed in the wilderness makes you are more safe. Sure, you can claim hunters who shoot themselves or others may not have been doing the right things. D'uh! You can also say that about folks who have gotten attacked by animals. More often than not, they were doing something wrong such that they were attacked. Maybe the didn't know the signs, didn't know how to respond when faced by an animal, encroached on the animal, its family, or food supply, or were simply clueless.

So let's look at the examples provided by Confederate and see if they match the claim of folks being unarmed numbnuts in the wilderness who end up being attacked and unable to defend themselves. Do the graphic examples support Confederate's argument?

Take Li Guoxing, the face transplant guy. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14088742/

Li's face was mauled in 2003 when he tried to use a stick to chase away a black bear attacking his cows. So first, he wasn't in the wilderness, but on his farm. Second, he was armed with a stick. Third, he attacked the bear and not the other way around. So the horrific face injury and transplant pictures don't match the claims of being an unarmed numbnuts in the wilderness.

What about the guy with the caption

No, dear, I'm not seeing anyone else....

Was he a numbnuts who went into the wilderness unarmed? Was this a non-hunting example as suggested by go_gang? Not exactly. The maulee was Kootoo Shaw, the hunting guide for three American hunters. They were armed. They ignorantly or neglectfully thought it okay to sleep in cloth tents in polar bear country and not post a guard or lookout to keep everyone safe. So, the attack occurred against an group of armed hunters who were caught like sleeping seals. http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_polar_bear_attack3.htm

Sure, gunfire was used to save Kootoo Shaw, but had the hunters been more pro-active in their own safety, nobody would have been attacked.

There are inherent risks in going outside, be it armed or unarmed. If you are ignorant of nature or fail to use proper caution when interacting with nature, you can get into trouble. Sometimes the trouble is from nature, sometimes from other humans in nature with you.

go_bang has some excellent post-hoc rationalizations as to why hunters get injured by guns, but the problems really boil down to the same basic issues as with being unarmed in the wilderness, being ignorant of the factors in the situation or failing to use proper caution while uses guns. The problem isn't the wilderness and the problem isn't guns. The problem is with the people.

As a general I just don't go in the woods without some sort of handgun.

As a general rule, I don't go anywhere without some sort of handgun.

 

[BigO01]

Well from my years of hunting and hiking/scouting I have been attacked by zero animals yet it could happen so a 4 inch 357 goes with me , it is almost the exact same odds of running into a Ranger or whatever in the woods and getting caught with the gun which happened once in all those years and he was so far away on another trail headed away from me he didn't even know I was there taking a break leaning on a tree .

Cavemen had enough sense to take rocks and sharpened sticks to protect them why would I NOT take a gun with me ?

 

[Confederate]

...except his woman partner charged at the bear and let him have it with a large cannister of capsicum. I guess they were lucky the government let them have that much protection.

Only there was a woman badly injured not too long ago doing the same sort of thing. Noise and pepper spray didn't do the job and she required all sorts of surgery. I have her account around here somewhere. Why people would not be given adequate forms of protection is beyond me. Why don't they catch all the bears and declaw them?

Oh, ye can't do that! Ye'd take away their only means of defense!!!

Well, no one worries about people not having any defense. Skin, hair and fingernails is all we've got. No one would pass a law saying a person couldn't go into a national park with protective clothing. And no one would bar the use of arms to Park Police. It should be a no-brainer.

Okay, look. NONE of the examples with the graphic images match the claim about people being numbnuts for going into the wilderness unarmed. No, the original post was not about hunting, but that doesn't mean being armed in the wilderness makes you are more safe.

Debatable. I think anyone who goes into an area with no means of defense, sometimes trekking miles and miles into the wilderness, should have their heads examined. Now if you're driving through, okay, you probably won't need a magnum, but if you're on foot and you're wandering miles and miles into the wilderness, you probably ought to have a handgun. If you get lost, it goes *BOOM!* Ditto if you fall into a ravine. Then there are dog packs, wolves, cougars (had a friend who was attacked by one of them), bears, snakes and Dirty George and his goons who like to beat up or kill hikers. (I've had friends who have had to fend off two-legged predators, too.)

The pictures simply show what can happen to you, not exactly case points, okay? I won't go into the wilderness without packing heat. Certainly wouldn't camp out without it, either.

 

[Boats]

One shouldn't so readily dismiss capsacium on bears. The concentrations, distance, and duration of specially prepared bear chemical warfare is much better than those preparations approved for use on meth freaks in the lower 48.

Of course I object to OC being the only line of defense, but it's easier to get an effective hit with the OC than attaining multiple hits with the most bear effective handgun loads.

 

[grimjaw]

I don't watch much TV or read magazines. However, the last National Geographic mag I read, on a flight a few months ago, had a story about two men trying to hit one of the poles (south/north, don't remember) during the worst season of the year to do so. Among their equipment was, shock me dead, a S&W .44 Magnum "for bears."

So it's not all bad.

jm

 

[hagar]

I grew up in South Africa. Do you know what we called US Peace Corps volunteers that came to Africa? Crocodile food. These naive, save the world and the animals types, more often than not met an untimely demise, and went home in a body bag.

We had a more realistic view there of the danger wild animals pose, and even in most National Parks there they would allow you to carry a gun in your car, if you declare it and they put an easily removable seal throught it. Remove the seal without a very good reason, and you will be in a world of hurt, but it did not leave you defenceless.

 

[Dave1]

There are some places in this country where if you venture far into the woods or wilderness you become part of the food chain. It is only common sense to carry a firearm for protection. The Nat Park Service should not have a problem with legal carry for self protection but they have a different perspective.

Some LEOs are looking for the big score and making an arrest for a firearms violation would really look good on their record and probably ruin yours forever. It is a lousy situation.

If you are traveling on vacation, have CWP, have a firearm in your vehicle, and want to visit a Nat Park as part of your vacation, what are you supposed to do? Leave/hide the weapon in the bushes alongside the highway before entering the park?

Conflicting gun laws leave us all in a very risky sitaution frequently and you are at the mercy of the locals if caught in a unfortunate situation. It is likely we would lose our gun and maybe our rights and ultimately pay a high price for trying to protect ourselves.

Dave