Do you feel the need to have a weapon when camping

[tweeek]

I really dont understand the mentatilty you all share. I live in Canada, where carrying a handgun outside of your home or a range is never legal, in any circumstance. I did not grow up around guns, nor did anyone I have ever known. Its not that you can't get guns, its just simply not a normal thing that most people pursue.

I live in BC, which has some of the highest concentrations of black/brown bear in North America.

I have never carried a gun, never even remotely felt the need to carry one. Bear bangers, bear spray, keeping food stowed properly and being aware of my surroundings has always been enough for me and the other 35 million people in my small country.

I have had close proximity encounters with bears more than once, all of which ended in a very scared bear high tailing it away after a little noise.

It is interesting to see the mentatilty of people who have obviously grown up in a different culture than I have.

The only need I feel for a gun now is when I am visiting the States. Any idiot can carry a gun, myself included, and though I'm sure most of you are responsible owners, I can't help but believe if nobody was carrying a gun down there, you might actually feel a little safer.... not the other way around. Hard to believe.... I'm know. But Im telling you, there is something to be said about living a life where you are not always afraid of your family or yourself being attacked.

 

[tacksman]

While I understand your viewpoint from living up there. It is nice that you validate mine by saying you carry while visiting the states. I'm not afraid of anything. I grew up with firearms they are a part of my life like baseball is to some others.
It is a shame there is so many restrictions on weapons up there.

 

[tweeek]

While I understand your viewpoint from living up there. It is nice that you validate mine by saying you carry while visiting the states. I'm not afraid of anything. I grew up with firearms they are a part of my life like baseball is to some others.
It is a shame there is so many restrictions on weapons up there.

This is true. I am not saying your view is wrong, just different. I meant that carrying in the states thing as more of a joke than anything, I dont actually carry a gun.

I do disagree that it is a shame on weapons restrictions though. Most people here strongly agree with the heavy restrictions on handguns. Most wish they were stronger. There is obviously exceptions to this statement, but it is generally the mentality.

 

[quickfarms]

That might be true if you live in an area where the 'inordinately large police forces' are close at hand, but where I live (which is, ironically 600' outside a city of 18,000), sheriff's response is likely to be 12-20 minutes, depending on time of day, and how busy the (typically 4) deputies on duty in my county are (this from a close friend who is a deputy). His advice: you'd better be able to take care of yourself until help gets there, which can be a very long time in a real emergency. That would apply even more if you are off road somewhere where the nearest town is 30 minutes (perhaps much more) away, and it could take some time for help to find you. As any cop will tell you, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away (sometimes quite a few minutes away).

I feel your pain.

But there is another side to it.

We live a block outside of a certain city in Los Angeles county and that city had a large force that is more interested in writing tickets than helping. One of my friends could not get them to do anything about a homeless person who was trespassing and looking for open doors. This agency also spike striped a car during a pursuit but abandoned the pursuit when it left the city limits. The car stopped in front of our house.

The sherif took care of business eventually.

We have the sherif but they can be slow to respond.

 

[tacksman]

I'm in SO CA as well. I feel your pain.

 

[98OzarksRunner]

I feel your pain.

No pain. Just the reality, and perhaps why the 2nd amendment still has some relevance to a few of us.

 

[brentbba]

To answer the OP's original question...it's exactly why I'm looking into my first handgun. Registered for a safety/shooting class at local range this coming Monday. Remote travels and some close to the border. I'd rather be safe than sorry from both two and four legged animals. Secondary reason is Obuma and Gov. Moonbeam here in the PRK insulating us with regs from 2nd amendment rights.

 

[SeattleFJs]

Thanks for the feedback, yeah, I'm leaning towards getting a handgun, either a .380 or a 9mm. I've had both as a young man as well as many other guns..22s, 38,32, 357, Uzi 9mm, AR-15.

I haven't owned a gun in years, and never felt the need to cary one until lately as I spend more and more time in the backcountry. I don't know if things have changed or I'm just more aware as being a parent.

Anyway thanks,
Kye

Neither one of those will do you much good if you need to use it against a large predator. Might as well throw pebbles at a bear. A .45 would be a much better choice (I always carry my .45 while my 9mm sits at home waiting for a range day). If you're going to get a handgun, get one with stopping power.

 

[JWP58]

Neither one of those will do you much good if you need to use it against a large predator. Might as well throw pebbles at a bear. A .45 would be a much better choice (I always carry my .45 while my 9mm sits at home waiting for a range day). If you're going to get a handgun, get one with stopping power.

"Stopping power" does not exist, unless of course there is a magical handgun round that hits the CNS of whatever you're shooting at, every time.

By your advice, everyone should be lugging around 500s&w's....since you know "get one with stopping power". lol. I mean honestly if you want to look at lb ft of energy, why get a .45acp? Why not a 10mm? Why not a 454? Why not a .44mag? 475? They'll all out perform a 45acp.

Or could it be that maybe someone is taking in to account what THEY CAN SHOOT ACCURATELY???? Hmmmmm crazy thought I know...... Or maybe what they can shoot comfortably???? Since 45acp handguns are usually larger framed in comparison to .380's or 9mm's. Or maybe since he referenced "backcountry" he's looking for something lighter???

But to say "get something with stopping power" is ridiculous, since there is no such thing. The target will feel as much impact as the shooter, its called science. The only shot that will immediately stop anything is a direct hit to the CNS.

 

[tweeek]

Your guys' bears must be alot meaner than ours. I usually tell people that bears are more afraid of us, than we are of them (they are). The US of A must have extremely brave bears or you guys are all paranoid.



Sent from my SM-N900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Christophe Noel]

Having this thread in this particular category will elicit a certain percentage of answers of a given predilection. To offer an opinion from outside this sub category, I will put my answer in the mix. This is the logic I subscribe to and by no means offer this to suggest anyone else do so as well.

While I don't care to infringe on anyone's right to carry a firearm, I have never found a need to do so, and never will. Even living in thick bear country in Alaska where encounters with huge browns was a weekly occurrence, I never felt a gun of any kind would have improved my safety beyond what was afforded by common sense and bear spray.

Statistically, roughly 750 people die of accidental shootings PER YEAR in the US. There are roughly 3 bear-related deaths per year, in NA. That dwarfs the 26 killed by dogs, or those whacked by lighting. According to a study initiated by bear expert Tom Smith over the course of two decades, there were more fatalities whereby a gun was used for bear defense than that associated with bear spray. In fact, of 133 spray-thwarted attacks, there were only three reported injuries. Of 269 gun-related defenses, there were 17 dead people as an end result. Just having a gun statistically is less safe than not having one.

Regarding the two-legged threat, again, statistics provide a powerful, and frankly pleasant report. For every one report of violence in the back county, there are millions of safe visitations to the woods.

I understand the argument that having a gun simply increases your statistical odds, but the odds of needing to augment those odds is.....you get the idea.

So, no. Count me amongst those who feel no need to carry.

 

[john101477]

Having this thread in this particular category will elicit a certain percentage of answers of a given predilection. To offer an opinion from outside this sub category, I will put my answer in the mix. This is the logic I subscribe to and by no means offer this to suggest anyone else do so as well.

While I don't care to infringe on anyone's right to carry a firearm, I have never found a need to do so, and never will. Even living in thick bear country in Alaska where encounters with huge browns was a weekly occurrence, I never felt a gun of any kind would have improved my safety beyond what was afforded by common sense and bear spray.

Statistically, roughly 750 people die of accidental shootings PER YEAR in the US. There are roughly 3 bear-related deaths per year, in NA. That dwarfs the 26 killed by dogs, or those whacked by lighting. According to a study initiated by bear expert Tom Smith over the course of two decades, there were more fatalities whereby a gun was used for bear defense than that associated with bear spray. In fact, of 133 spray-thwarted attacks, there were only three reported injuries. Of 269 gun-related defenses, there were 17 dead people as an end result. Just having a gun statistically is less safe than not having one.

Regarding the two-legged threat, again, statistics provide a powerful, and frankly pleasant report. For every one report of violence in the back county, there are millions of safe visitations to the woods.

I understand the argument that having a gun simply increases your statistical odds, but the odds of needing to augment those odds is.....you get the idea.

So, no. Count me amongst those who feel no need to carry.

Could those statistics been skewed to reflect what the seekers was hoping to find? I have found that usually when someone wants to prove their theory they will bias their findings to substantiate thier feelings on the subject. Also a bear attack does not always lead to deaths. remember in August of 2013 their were 7 mauling in 1 week in the US across 5 states and none were gun related. I am just saying that statistics can be skew to ones favor. That said while I do go armed in the outdoors most times, just this weekend I had a bear walking into my camp, he was about 20ft from my tent, where my wife was sleeping lol. I simply let him know he was not welcome in camp and he got the message. He was not aggressive nor in the mood to be so I chock that up to a good encounter. I have had more run ins with 2 legged in the wild than other wise and it seems to be becoming more frequent.

 

[Christophe Noel]

Could those statistics been skewed to reflect what the seekers was hoping to find?

Nah. Even working from outside those numerical sample-sets, my own extensive experience leads me to believe that for the way I travel, and where I travel, a gun would simply elevate the potential danger rather than mitigate it. Again, this is purely my position framed by my experiences. Others can and will draft their own opinions. I don't aspire to change anyone's mind on their position on this topic. I'm just adding my answer to the OP's question, which is a reoccurring one.

...but....my guess is, someone will challenge my position. Kinda how that seems to work.

 

[tweeek]

Having this thread in this particular category will elicit a certain percentage of answers of a given predilection. To offer an opinion from outside this sub category, I will put my answer in the mix. This is the logic I subscribe to and by no means offer this to suggest anyone else do so as well.

While I don't care to infringe on anyone's right to carry a firearm, I have never found a need to do so, and never will. Even living in thick bear country in Alaska where encounters with huge browns was a weekly occurrence, I never felt a gun of any kind would have improved my safety beyond what was afforded by common sense and bear spray.

Statistically, roughly 750 people die of accidental shootings PER YEAR in the US. There are roughly 3 bear-related deaths per year, in NA. That dwarfs the 26 killed by dogs, or those whacked by lighting. According to a study initiated by bear expert Tom Smith over the course of two decades, there were more fatalities whereby a gun was used for bear defense than that associated with bear spray. In fact, of 133 spray-thwarted attacks, there were only three reported injuries. Of 269 gun-related defenses, there were 17 dead people as an end result. Just having a gun statistically is less safe than not having one.

Regarding the two-legged threat, again, statistics provide a powerful, and frankly pleasant report. For every one report of violence in the back county, there are millions of safe visitations to the woods.

I understand the argument that having a gun simply increases your statistical odds, but the odds of needing to augment those odds is.....you get the idea.

So, no. Count me amongst those who feel no need to carry.

I could not possibly agree with this more. Well put.

x1000

 

[hurstjd]

If you are overlanding, what weapon do you use? You can't carry a gun because of all of the different state laws on conceal-carry? What about bear spray? Seems that would be better than nothing.