Solo Wilderness Security

I want them take one of those small 5 shot .357 revolvers and convert it into a 4 shot .44 magnum! Yes I know how hard that would kick.

On a more serious note I just thought of another upside to bear spray. I've heard plenty of stories of people who hesitated to shoot a gun during a bear attack because they were afraid of hitting the victim. With bear spray you can just spray away.

…

nm

Thanks, Dena – also found links to a 2010 article on a man who was killed by wolves outside a village on the Alaska peninsula, very enlightening.

Spray doesn't work:
1) when it's windy
2) when victim is inside the tent, attacking bear/wolves/serial killer outside
3) when wolf is already biting your jugular artery or attacker penetrating your privates

Gun doesn't work:
1) when you didn't buy one.
2) when you own one but left it at home.
3) when you own one but not trained to use it.

So far none of my trips to the 4 corners states or California in the past 25 years have involved a wilderness reenactment of "Custer's Last Stand" with assorted growling beasties surrounding my tent and being held at bay by a spork (or by the smell of my hiking socks).

Maybe Anaheim is different, though. :-)

Think it's easy to overblow the danger or demonize others. If in the arctic, having valuables, or walking in a high crime area, then an appropriate firearm may be wise in a solo situation ..or not.

Reminds me of that movie Jumanji …

ed: cell phone fat fingers

"BTW I'm a huge Gandhi fan."

The mention of Ghandhi in the context of this thread brings to mind an observation he once made when asked what he thought about Western civilization. He replied that he thought it would be a good idea.

"The mention of Ghandhi in the context of this thread brings to mind an observation he once made when asked what he thought about Western civilization. He replied that he thought it would be a good idea."

Ghandi never quite made it as a headliner in Vegas.

–B.G.–

[..]

edit

… with a 4 inch barrel.

S&W or Tarus

Nuff sed.

"The mention of Ghandhi in the context of this thread brings to mind an observation he once made when asked what he thought about Western civilization. He replied that he thought it would be a good idea."

So true Tom!

"For how I like to live my life… Die with your boots on with dignity, is far better than dying as an old man wearing a turban diaper."

Such bravado! Well done sir!

JK! I prefer "Madame, tomorrow I'll be sober but you'll still be ugly!" but as you said you do you I do me.

Nothing wrong with Churchill but I've hit a point in my life where babysitting adults who do not know how to behave is becoming tiring so I found the peaceful ways of Gandhi to be very inspiring in an otherwise ugly world.

Take care.

"I have no respect for Ghandi or passive resistance (aka passive victim) …
I'm a huge Winston Churchill fan."

Another quote attributed to Churchill that is pertinent to this thread:

“A gentleman rarely needs a pistol, but when he does he needs it very very badly.”

Ghandi’s method of passive resistance did manage to pluck the last jewel of the British Empire and probably deserves a little respect; however, I'm with you in that Churchill's world view more accurately reflects its state today.

Churchill is certainly a man for the real world. No doubt about that.

"For how I like to live my life… Die with your boots on with dignity, is far better than dying as an old man wearing a turban diaper."

He who prefers to die with his boots on will likely get his wish, and soon be forgotten. Gahdhi on the other hand, while he died violently for an ideal, lived to a ripe old age and to this day is venerated by countless hundreds of millions, if not in the billions, of people inspired by his appeal to us to listen to our better angels. Among others, he was a guiding light for MLK. Enough said.

I hope you do not get your wish, just to be clear.

[..]

If you haven't demonstrated and been arrested, you *are* living on your knees.

but your comment "wearing a turban diaper" is just gratuitous bigotry

it's okay to argue whether peaceful or armed resistance is more effective. You can find examples of peaceful resistance being effective like Ghandi, Mandella, or MLK. On the other hand, the U.S. was more formed by armed resistance.

You can find many examples of armed resistance not being so effective like Syria right now. Or our civil war – maybe we would be better off today split into two countries.

Roger Dodger, I'm beginning to fear you're actually serious about all this.

"For some, living a long life but on their knees, is acceptable.

My point is that Ghandi was a domesticated mule. That is not the life for me."

It is evident that you understand very little about the life of Gandhi. In fact, he raised an enslaved nation from its knees by the moral force of passive resistance while the British were dying with their boots on by the millions. When they had finished their dying, they no longer had the psychological, or even military, wherewithal to resist that moral force, and India became a free nation.

But you are surely right about one thing: that is not the life for you. Fight on, then, but against who? And for what?

Edited for content.

[…]

Soooo… I clicked on this thread out of curiosity. Read the first few pages, and then the last few. Whoa.

Tyranny in the wilderness.

Roger, I completely agree with some of what you've written here. But why the "turban diaper" bit?

Loving freedom is fine. I like that part of what you said. Being racist just makes you sound like a simple-minded buffoon.

[..]

[..]