-
Posts
-
“Oh, a bear is charging me, I’ll drop both my trekking poles, draw my gun, rack the safety, safety to off, aim, squeeze, repeat.”
That’s why a revolver held in a holster that form fits around the cylinder (to keep it from moving) is 1) safer and 2) 100% ready to shoot when you bring it out of the holster. No racking or safeties to deal with. And if you can’t land a lethal shot with 6 chances then maybe it was just meant to be. Totally agree on the ammo. No hollow points for bear scenarios.
For some time now it’s been unofficial policy at BPL to save gun threads for the coldest parts of the Winter, when entertainment is needed most.
Weight shaming threads are good too. It’s kind of like fat shaming, but only with backpacking gear. You know, looking down your nose at some barbarian’s heavy pack and then noting how inferior all of their stuff is. Such posts often invite replies such as “hey mister,it’s elitist to put down someone’s 50 lb traditional pack.” Thankfully BPL isn’t a cancel culture though. The staff has upheld freedom of speech and allowed staunch proponents of ultralight backpacking to actually promote the tenets of ultralight backpacking, even though it offends some readers who simply won’t remain silent for such heavy pack discrimination on this website.
From the OP “(Strictly philosophial, no gun debates please)”
And where is Carlos now? Laughing I hope.
Such posts often invites replies such as “hey mister,it’s elitist to put down someone’s 50 lb traditional pack.”
But BPL members ARE the elite.Cheers
guns are heavy. Where I hike–up and down the west coast of the U.s. they’re entirely unnecessary for protection from bears. Outside of Alaska and a few well known grizzly areas, they’re not necessary for bear protection.
They’re heavy. I think people are packing their fears, in all senses of the term, if they carry a gun in the wilderness. Too bad! fear keeps us from experiencing what’s really one of our homes.
It’s hard to really come to grips with the wilderness and all that it offers if we’re feeling fearful and anxious. One reason that I advocate for leaving electronics and guns at home (in most circumstances) is my sense that our fearful, grasping nature is abetted by these things; and finding out that the world is safe after all even without our ‘protections’ is liberating in itself.
You can call at 800 guru-4-hire. charges will definitely apply.
Hmmmm. Perhaps I’ll shoot you a note. Though I wouldn’t want to give you any more ammo for your electronics/guns dismissal. And I wouldn’t want to become a target for your followers.
Perhaps you could wear a T-shirt with Trump on the front?
That’s just cruelty to animals. It would be kinder just to shoot them…
Ah you Europeans (are Australians Europeans, or just wanna be Europeans, I never know… :-)
There are plenty of places in the wilderness in the US where such a t-shirt would get you a smile and a handshake.
(are Australians Europeans, or just wanna be Europeans, I never know… :-)
Neither.
We are Australians.We reject Donald Trump, and we reject Boris Johnson. For that matter, we don’t have a great enthusiasm for our own politicians: most of them (especially the top layer) are just self-serving greedy idiots.
My own 2c.Cheers
“most of them (especially the top layer) are just self-serving greedy idiots.”
Yeah, I think that probably describes politicians the world over Roger. It certainly does here.
Doug, my followers have all starved to death after getting lost in the woods without a gps.
But they had a true wilderness experience.
The wilderness is only “safe” because our ancestors used guns to kill anything that disagreed. In the places where there were not enough ancestors we are still bringing guns with the intention of enforcing peace.
I don’t think “safe” or “home” is the right way to view it, at all. Harmless or disarmed would be more accurate.
The wilderness is only “safe” because our ancestors used guns to kill anything that disagreed.
Hum … Mammoths, sabre-toothed tigers, cave bears, …
Yeah, right, guns.Cheers
That’s not my point, substitute “force” or “weapons” if you like. I should be more careful with my words, I did not realize how touchy the subject was. I wonder if packing a sword would be less controversial.
I wonder if packing a sword would be less controversial.
Hum … Mammoths, sabre-toothed tigers, cave bears, …
Yeah, right, swords.I suspect fire and agriculture were more effective at killing them.
Cheers
“I should be more careful with my words”
LOL……..bring out the popcorn now and sit back….
I’ve discovered this fabulous tumeric-spiced ghee. I’ll bet that would be fabulous on popcorn.
@svet: firearms are always a contentious topic on BPL. But I wouldn’t worry too much about it. Everybody is supposed to be UL here, so if they swing something at ya it’ll be too light to hurt too bad.And meanwhile I’ve backpacked in griz country with people on this site who carried firearms and the whole thing couldn’t have been more of a non-issue, completely inconsequential to our conversations, actions, or the quality of the trip, save perhaps for initially informing the party of who had what and where in the event of a bear attack.
Best I can tell, this is only an issue on the internet.
“this is only an issue on the internet.”
Isn’t that the case with every topic?
Roger, I’m going to differ with you on the demise of Pleistocene mega fauna.
So many African critters co-existed with humans until the modern era of firearms, while in North America, so many large and tasty species (23? 26? I’m forgetting now – most all of them, for sure) disappeared right after the bipeds showed up. The biggest difference I see is that African species had 600,000 to 3,000,000 years (depending on what you define as human) to evolve physically and behaviorally to rocks, then sticks, then rocks on sticks, then rock on sticks propelled by other sticks over thousands of animal generations.
Versus North America where I theorize the First Peoples DIDN’T settle down for the first thousand years – not when one valley over there were animals that had never been pursued by the ultimate generalist apex predator who, as a culture and as individuals, had vast experience with taking down exactly such clueless critters.
Hi David
I’m going to differ with you on the demise of Pleistocene mega fauna.
Well, I wasn’t there. :)But I do have some trouble imaging why a few cave men would want to tackle a Mammoth with wooden spears when there was plenty of smaller game around, presenting far fewer hazards. Maybe I am just a coward?
Cheers
I think our situation now is just slightly different than it was in the pleistocene.
Again, outside of grizzly country, why would anyone need a gun for protection from animals? And given global extinction rates, the project of hunting species out of existence is perhaps not needed anymore either. And not even good for OUR species.
that said, hyoh and carry your own pack.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.