Travel with guns
When you are a full timer what issues are there with having a gun for protection? Restrictions when crossing state lines? Thank you.
Forum Discussion
I'm not too sure that anyone that carries a gun legally has ANY sense of security, hence the reason they carry a gun in the first place. If they become over-confident in their safety, that it a character flaw of the person, not a flaw in the gun.
I would agree that a handgun against a bear is nothing more than throwing a rock at it... boy saves his siblings from bear attack by throwing rock. If a rock can be effective, so can a handgun.
The Alaska Dept of Fish and Game recommends "Select a gun that will stop a bear (12-gauge shotgun or .300 mag rifle) and practice firing it at a rifle range." and "If a bear approaches your campsite aggressively chase it away. Make noise with pots and pans, throw rocks, and if needed, hit the bear." I'm sure they are not going to recommend that the average person start shooting at every bear they see, but if they are saying rocks and hitting a bear is effective, 15 handgun bullets *can* potentially be effective too, yes? I'd rather have something then nothing at all.
I do consider a handgun as not enough to stop a big bear that is determined to attack you, but I would hope the sound of a firing gun would turn the average non-rabid-bear around (they have very sensitive hearing). If not, then I would be screwed with or without the gun so the argument is moot. If a handgun is not needed in our nations forests, the Forest Rangers would not have one on their belt. Yet, they are in fact armed just as heavily as our inner-city police.
Don't kid yourself, NOT carrying a gun makes you no more safe in that scenario. Carrying one gives you *some* chance, even if it is small. Why would you disarm yourself?
I would agree that a handgun against a bear is nothing more than throwing a rock at it... boy saves his siblings from bear attack by throwing rock. If a rock can be effective, so can a handgun.
The Alaska Dept of Fish and Game recommends "Select a gun that will stop a bear (12-gauge shotgun or .300 mag rifle) and practice firing it at a rifle range." and "If a bear approaches your campsite aggressively chase it away. Make noise with pots and pans, throw rocks, and if needed, hit the bear." I'm sure they are not going to recommend that the average person start shooting at every bear they see, but if they are saying rocks and hitting a bear is effective, 15 handgun bullets *can* potentially be effective too, yes? I'd rather have something then nothing at all.
I do consider a handgun as not enough to stop a big bear that is determined to attack you, but I would hope the sound of a firing gun would turn the average non-rabid-bear around (they have very sensitive hearing). If not, then I would be screwed with or without the gun so the argument is moot. If a handgun is not needed in our nations forests, the Forest Rangers would not have one on their belt. Yet, they are in fact armed just as heavily as our inner-city police.
Don't kid yourself, NOT carrying a gun makes you no more safe in that scenario. Carrying one gives you *some* chance, even if it is small. Why would you disarm yourself?
