Guns?

[SciFi Chick]

Am I the only one here that now wants to regulate guns and junk food?

[The Supreme Canuck]

Nope. Regulating junk food (proper labelling, for example) is a damned good idea.

[FZR1KG]

Nonsense. Please tell me how a madman can use an ice cream cone to murder a dozen school children.

Or, if you prefer, please tell me why you aren't sitting there with your sundae, your handgun, and your hydrogen bomb?

Your argument boils down to "there is never good reason to regulate anything." That's overly reductive and entirely misses the point of good public policy formulation - the essence of which is to ask "are the good results of this law outweighed by the bad?"

...I see good reason not to allow these weapons; the cons outweigh the pros.

He's not arguing that there is never a good reason to regulate things, he's arguing that you have decided that there is no other use for a handgun and semi-auto firearms other than killing people and that is a conclusion based on ignorance. One which in this case I agree with.

There are uses for both other than killing people.
This also weakens your argument greatly since you don't know of other uses but you are taking a very extreme position.
Again, just pointing it out so you can be more effective at arguing this issue since I'm for regulation.

What I'm not for is banning.
Your posts indicate that regulation and banning are the same thing to you.
In which case you should call it banning since its disingenuous to call it regulation and serves no purpose in making a case for regulation because you come across as misrepresenting yourself to achieve an end.
Call it banning, outlawing, making them illegal etc. It's not regulation that you seem to want.


Add me to the list of those would would ban, not regulate, junk food.
Fast food doesn't have to be junk food. The two aren't interchangeable.

[The Supreme Canuck]

He's not arguing that there is never a good reason to regulate things, he's arguing that you have decided that there is no other use for a handgun and semi-auto firearms other than killing people and that is a conclusion based on ignorance. One which in this case I agree with.

There are uses for both other than killing people.
This also weakens your argument greatly since you don't know of other uses but you are taking a very extreme position.
Again, just pointing it out so you can be more effective at arguing this issue since I'm for regulation.

I specifically made exception for sports shooters. If there are other similar uses, I imagine I'd also make exception for them. But Joe Blow with no training wants a handgun? Fuck no.

What I'm not for is banning.
Your posts indicate that regulation and banning are the same thing to you.
In which case you should call it banning since its disingenuous to call it regulation and serves no purpose in making a case for regulation because you come across as misrepresenting yourself to achieve an end.
Call it banning, outlawing, making them illegal etc. It's not regulation that you seem to want.

Yes and no. Certain guns should be banned outright (say, heavy machine guns). Other guns should be heavily restricted (say, handguns). Other guns should be regulated less strictly (say, bolt action rifles).

I don't say "ban" because I don't mean "ban" - except in cases, such as heavy machine guns, where I do mean "ban."

[FZR1KG]

You responded to fisher that you agreed with his assessment that you want to ban semi-auto's and handguns...
That doesn't seem like regulation.

In any case, heavy and light machine guns are severely regulated in the USA.
They also have not been used in mass killings for a long time, basically due to that ban.

Handguns are heavily regulated in most states.
To carry one you need a permit which requires an approved course to be taken, for conceal carry.

Then there are open carry states where you can pretend to be a gun slinger by carrying it on your person but not concealed.
The regulation is pretty poor in these states in regard to getting one and carrying it openly.

Yes you can go to Macca's packing in Virginia and it's not against the law.

[The Supreme Canuck]

You responded to fisher that you agreed with his assessment that you want to ban semi-auto's and handguns...
That doesn't seem like regulation.

I said he was "essentially correct," not that I wanted a total, categorical ban. Again, earlier in the thread, I specifically laid out an exception to a ban.

And I'm telling you now that I don't want a total, categorical ban. I didn't want to suss out the whole thing right there.

In any case, heavy and light machine guns are severely regulated in the USA.
They also have not been used in mass killings for a long time, basically due to that ban.

I'm aware. I was providing them as an example of a type of weapon that I do want a total and categorical ban on. No one outside of the military (no, not even law enforcement) should have them. Period.

Handguns are heavily regulated in most states.
To carry one you need a permit which requires an approved course to be taken, for conceal carry.

That doesn't constitute heavy regulation, as far as I'm concerned. Heavy regulation is a special class of licence for handguns, mandatory registration, limitations on transportation and storage of the firearm, and no open or concealed carry.

Then there are open carry states where you can pretend to be a gun slinger by carrying it on your person but not concealed.
The regulation is pretty poor in these states in regard to getting one and carrying it openly.

Yes you can go to Macca's packing in Virginia and it's not against the law.

I know. And, forgive me, but that's terrifying.

I would be interested to hear what you feel constitutes legitimate reasons to own a handgun. And legitimate reasons to own a semi-automatic long gun. Because I can tell you right now that if Jim Redneck wants a handgun because the constitution says so? Or because he wants to defend himself from... things? Not good enough for me.

[Rommie]

TSC, you forget, Guns are a right here.
Of all the things you can assign rights to they gave the right to guns.
No right to equality between races or sexes.
But you get to have a gun

Right? This is why I say the Revolution was a mistake. Not because forming the US was a bad idea; because the way they went about it baked some reprehensible things into US political culture.

"Many were increasingly of the opinion that they'd all made a big mistake in coming down from the trees in the first place. And some said that even the trees had been a bad move, and that no one should ever have left the oceans..."

[Swift]

Speaking of wacky laws, what I do in the bedroom with my husband is technically illegal here in Virginia.

Watching Letterman at 11:30 is illegal in Virgina?

That explains so much.

[SciFi Chick]

Speaking of wacky laws, what I do in the bedroom with my husband is technically illegal here in Virginia.

Watching Letterman at 11:30 is illegal in Virgina?

That explains so much.

- Y'all are funny.

No, but I'm sure there are some who would like to make The Daily Show illegal.

[Rommie]

Speaking of wacky laws, what I do in the bedroom with my husband is technically illegal here in Virginia.

Watching Letterman at 11:30 is illegal in Virgina?

That explains so much.

- Y'all are funny.

No, but I'm sure there are some who would like to make The Daily Show illegal.

Actually, that strikes me as one of the best ways ever to start the revolution I've heard yet...

[FZR1KG]

I would be interested to hear what you feel constitutes legitimate reasons to own a handgun. And legitimate reasons to own a semi-automatic long gun. Because I can tell you right now that if Jim Redneck wants a handgun because the constitution says so? Or because he wants to defend himself from... things? Not good enough for me.

Semi-auto: Vermin control.
Firearms are the most effective method of vermin control that is species specific.
Baiting, poison etc all affect other species.
A semi-auto makes the use of a firearm far more effective.
Australia ended up getting bitten in the ass because of the semi-auto ban as well as the over regulation on firearms because of this.
A few years later the government had a feral species blow out and basically asked experienced shooters to sign up and help them to control the populations because they didn't have the man power or skill to do it themselves.
Many, including me told them to go fuck themselves.
Not sure what the status is on this now as it's been a long time since I had anything to do with government controlled culls.
The last one I did was in the 90's, organised by a shooting club where they shut down a few national parks for a couple of weeks and got certified shooters to go in and cull the goat populations. They got rid of that too, then got bitten in the ass when they endangered the yellow footed rock wallaby habitat, which this program was designed to help.



Handgun: Safety when hiking or camping.
It's too awkward carrying a rifle with you everywhere as well as unpractical when going bush.
Certain companies sell things like bear mace etc but these won't stop a hungry bear and they can't be used at very close range if you are surprised unless you want to get a good dose yourself.
I'm not heading out to bear country, mountain lion country etc without one.
Yes, I hear people argue that the risks are minimal and there are a low amount of attacks each year.
Right...
There are also a low amount of hikers and outdoors people that go into the real bush.
You'll note that most attacks happen on established well used trails.
Go to the real outdoors where there are no trails and it's a different story.
Short of now telling people where they can and can't go there is no good solution other than a handgun.
The people that do that are either serious hunters or really keen bushmen. Both would be experienced enough and wise enough to take protection with them.
Those that don't eventually go missing.
Like riding a motorbike, it's reasonably safe if you are experienced but one day, you will fall off, everyone does. So make sure you have the right safety gear.


There are other reasons but the ones above will have significant impact by banning.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Semi-auto: Vermin control.
Firearms are the most effective method of vermin control that is species specific.
Baiting, poison etc all affect other species.
A semi-auto makes the use of a firearm far more effective.
Australia ended up getting bitten in the ass because of the semi-auto ban as well as the over regulation on firearms because of this.
A few years later the government had a feral species blow out and basically asked experienced shooters to sign up and help them to control the populations because they didn't have the man power or skill to do it themselves.
Many, including me told them to go fuck themselves.
Not sure what the status is on this now as it's been a long time since I had anything to do with government controlled culls.
The last one I did was in the 90's, organised by a shooting club where they shut down a few national parks for a couple of weeks and got certified shooters to go in and cull the goat populations. They got rid of that too, then got bitten in the ass when they endangered the yellow footed rock wallaby habitat, which this program was designed to help.

I'd give you that in areas with actual vermin problems. I'm not sure that the US is in the same boat as Australia on this one, though - Oz, as I understand it, has a seriously fucked up ecology.

But, fine. Vermin control where necessary. Sure. But only the bare minimum required - smallest effective calibre, smallest effective magazine size, no pseudo-military nonsense to sex up the rifle. And a special class of firearms licence specific to semi-automatic long guns (which means a more rigorous training course and licensing examination).

Handgun: Safety when hiking or camping.
It's too awkward carrying a rifle with you everywhere as well as unpractical when going bush.
Certain companies sell things like bear mace etc but these won't stop a hungry bear and they can't be used at very close range if you are surprised unless you want to get a good dose yourself.
I'm not heading out to bear country, mountain lion country etc without one.
Yes, I hear people argue that the risks are minimal and there are a low amount of attacks each year.
Right...
There are also a low amount of hikers and outdoors people that go into the real bush.
You'll note that most attacks happen on established well used trails.
Go to the real outdoors where there are no trails and it's a different story.
Short of now telling people where they can and can't go there is no good solution other than a handgun.
The people that do that are either serious hunters or really keen bushmen. Both would be experienced enough and wise enough to take protection with them.
Those that don't eventually go missing.
Like riding a motorbike, it's reasonably safe if you are experienced but one day, you will fall off, everyone does. So make sure you have the right safety gear.

I don't buy it. At all. You'll note that Canada has some pretty big wildlife, too - often exactly the same big fauna as the US. And a lot of people up here like to walk out in the deep wilderness. Lots of hunters and serious outdoorsmen. But you can't decide to just carry a handgun in the woods. Ever. Period. You need special dispensation from the RCMP - an even more restricted class of licence which is only granted if you can prove that carrying is absolutely, utterly necessary. Usually they tell you "grab a rifle and stop whining."

Moreover, the vast majority of people going into the outdoors don't bring a firearm of any kind - probably doesn't even cross their minds to do so.

Last I heard, maulings aren't any more common in Canada than the US. They aren't common in the US, either, for that matter. Here are the stats for fatal bear attacks in North America. It works out to around 25 fatal attacks per decade. Out of a population approaching 400 million.

So. No. I don't buy it.

There are other reasons but the ones above will have significant impact by banning.

Well, again, I'll buy vermin control... in places where it's actually needed and subject to restrictions. But handguns in the woods? No, that isn't significantly impacted by heavy restrictions, since carrying a handgun into the woods is already extremely heavily restricted in Canada, with no ill effects that I'm aware of.

So, since bear protection is out... other than competitive target shooting, can you give me a legitimate reason for a private citizen to own a handgun that is not subject to extremely heavy regulation?

[FZR1KG]

You don't buy it?

Attacks in the USA usually happen in national parks, an interesting thing actually.
In 2010 the USA removed the ban on handguns in national parks.
Look at your own link to the bear attacks and notice the significant drop in numbers of fatalities in the USA since that was introduced.
Almost every attack since then was to unarmed hikers in parks.

The number of deaths since 1990 for the USA is:
25 in the wild
3 in captivity

The number in Canada is:
27 in the wild
0 in captivity

Pretty sure we can both agree that the three in the USA that occurred in captivity don't need to be in this discussion of handguns for safety in the wild.

So the figures are:
25 vs 27
Canada has more deaths by bears.

Canada's population is about 38million
The USA is about 313 million

The ratio there is then about 9:1 more deaths in Canada than the USA.
Now that the USA has removed restrictions on handguns in national parks, that will change significantly.

Now you might argue that these numbers aren't that significant given the population size, I would argue that the amount of people going to national parks per year is not the same as its population so we'd have to factor that. Like shark statistics, there may be few deaths per year but you can't include people that don't go into the ocean as part of the statistic because that is misrepresenting the actual danger.

You may disagree and personally I don't care if you do, but the reason is valid. I don't want to be eaten by a bear and I sure as hell don't want someone telling me that it's a risk I should bear (pun intended) if I want visit areas where it is a factor because someone thinks that risk is justified on some other grounds.
Last I checked, there were also zero mass killings in a national park or the wilderness.

[The Supreme Canuck]

No, I don't buy it. For a number of reasons.

First, I think you've misunderstood the statistics a little bit - those numbers are broken down by decade. The number of attacks for the decade of the "2010s" is a little less than half the average not because the numbers are dropping but because we are currently less than halfway through this decade. Seems to me that means the numbers are holding steady. This despite the change in US handgun regulations.

Letting people bring handguns into national parks apparently has had no statistical effect on the number of bear deaths.

Second, yes, per capita there are more deaths by bear in Canada than in the US. There's a good reason for that.

Here is the natural range of the brown bear:



And here is the natural range of the black bear:



And, heck, let's throw the polar bear in there, too:



I'm sure you see my point. Of course there are more per capita bear fatalities in Canada. I bet there are more per capita bear attacks in general in Canada, too. I even bet there are more per capita bear sightings.

That's what happens when you have more bears.

Third, since you want to talk about parts of the populations of Canada and the US, let's do that. What percentage of the US population lives within the natural range of black or brown bears? Now what percentage of the Canadian population does so?

Yeah. Near 100% of Canadians live within the natural range of bears. A far, far, far smaller proportion of Americans do so. As you say - you can't include the number of people who don't go near the ocean when talking about shark attacks. Most Americans never get near the "bear ocean." Most Canadians? Right on the "bear coast," all the time. So you can't compare the total populations of the two countries to calculate per capita fatalities; you need to compare the portions of each nation's population that reside within the natural range of bears. For Canada, that's nearly 100%. For the US? Well. Look at the maps.

Moreover, if we're just talking national parks, pretty much all Canadian parks have bears. Not so American parks. So we can't just compare the number of people going to Canadian parks with the number of people going to American parks; we must compare the number of people going to Canadian parks with bears with the number of people going to American parks with bears.

What does that do to your ratio? Surely you see why your numbers are skewed when comparing Canada and the US.

Fourth, I do argue these deaths aren't significant compared to population size, no matter how you calculate that. So people don't want to get eaten by a bear. Great. Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that having a gun solves that problem (which I dispute). How much more likely are they now to die from being shot? Far more likely than they were to be eaten by a bear. It's irrational, just like wanting a handgun for home defence.

Fifth, no, there are no mass shootings in national parks. But do handgun owners leave their weapons at the parks? Nope. They bring them home. Which is where people do get shot.

So. Yeah. I don't buy it. If you want a handgun because you're afraid of bears, you should need to get a special class of licence to carry one and you should need to convince whoever is regulating firearms that you actually need it.

[FZR1KG]

Sorry, I don't buy it.

For the record I knew the bear distribution difference between the US and Canada, you're on the ball to pick it up.
Thing is, one small variable affects statistics greatly if used incorrectly. You found that easily but what of the rest?
I ask because you brought the statistics in and equated the two for Canada and the USA.

So, statistics can be a fun and confusing thing.
The US fatalities, 16 of the 25 are in national parks, obviously where bears are present, hence my shark statement.
People in the USA go to where the bears are then get killed. People in Canada live with them for some part but not to the extent that you're implying.
Canada while in the heartland of bear country also has most of it's population in two states and it's very concentrated. Over 50% in two provinces alone.
Bears aren't in the big cities or heavily developed areas in any significant numbers and when found they are relocated very quickly if deemed dangerous.

Truth be told, cities are far safer than the wilderness, even with all the murders and accidents.
Many people fail to acknowledge this but the fact of the matter is that you can take a person from wilderness areas and put them in a city and they have a pretty good chance of surviving a long life. Put a person from the city into a real wilderness area and they have life spans measured in days or at best weeks.

My argument was for taking owning a handgun for protection in a national park/forest where bears exist.
When I look at the statistics for the USA I see 16 of 28 people killed are in national parks, including those killed in captivity.
Over 50%.

Your point about them taking a handgun home and that's where the killings are, is moot.
How many serious outdoors men are involved in mass killings or murders?
Answer, insignificant numbers. There is no real correlation to being an outdoors type and being a murderer.
You also can't take a handgun and expect to be able to defend yourself without training.
Hence you need to take it home and you need to practice.
Firing a handgun is easy, being accurate and repeatable is not.

Finally, population distribution, if you look at the range of habitat for the black bears you gave and overlay that with the population density you'll see that the bears live mainly in the populated states. If you total up the populations you'll probably find that they are in excess of the population of Canada. Then you also have to factor bear density. If you look at Canada's population density its mainly down near the borders of the USA. Where I'm going with this is I don't trust those maps for shit. According to them Toronto has bears in the city center, so does L.A... maybe they are counting the ones in zoo's?

All of that however distracts from my point: going into a national park where bears do exist in large numbers. I want protection from bear attack. I want to shoot the damned bear rather than have a ranger shoot it after my demise which was how it used to be. I want it because I'm a fucking awesome cook and every bear in a 200 mile radius will want to try some of my food. So I'll say it again, over half the deaths involving bears in the USA are in national parks/forests. I have the right to protect myself in such areas without someone using an argument that somehow me protecting myself in a national park somehow makes everyone else's life significantly more dangerous than what I'd be dealing with without a gun. This is what I consider unnecessary intrusion and making laws that will make my life more dangerous rather than less. Especially when I'm cooking steak or the new honey soy chicken I made today on a bbq.

What I find confusing is that you'd put people at risk because your belief is that others remotely from the situation, would somehow be safer, and you think not carrying is not a factor in bear attack/defense.
That's faith, I'm not into that, and you're putting others lives on the line based on your faith that you have it right.

The more confusing part is that you stated that you don't want the death penalty because what if an innocent man is sentenced to death.
One innocent life lost is not worth it.
What happens here?
You are using the same reasoning that the proponents of the death penalty are using.
If we do this, then society will be safer. The only difference is your version has an element of luck, like Russian roulette. Though with the state of the legal system here there is also a huge element of luck in the death penalty issue, I guess they are the same then.

So when one person dies because of a bear attack in a national park and that person would have taken a gun if allowed, then your ideology becomes responsible for that death. But the same argument can't work in reverse, i.e. if you don't let that guy have a gun for visiting bear areas, no one can show that a life was saved.

Then we'' get a person requesting to take a handgun into the wilderness for protection, being denied by the do gooders and then getting killed and eaten.
Bit like Rick Perry letting an innocent man die because he couldn't be bothered to read the last minute appeal...see what I mean, luck in the death penalty laws exist too.

[FZR1KG]

tl;dr the above?

Summary:
Basing a law on the loose association of broad statistics such as the correlation of firearm numbers and firearm deaths, and applying it to a specific situation where no such association is present nor demonstrable, but where significant negative impacts are expected if implemented, is not a good foundation for law.
IMHO.

[SciFiFisher]

[Your argument boils down to "there is never good reason to regulate anything." That's overly reductive and entirely misses the point of good public policy formulation - the essence of which is to ask "are the good results of this law outweighed by the bad?"

Actually, I have addressed the issue of public policy previously in other gun threads. Cigarette Smoking, Cancer, Cardiac Disease, Obesity, and even automobile deaths are significantly more deadly than guns are as far as raw numbers go. The US has engaged in a vigorous public policy campaign against most or all of these hazards. Including gun safety.

But, if you have limited resources and you can save 250,000 lives vs 8,000 or so which public safety policy would you vigorously champion?

[FZR1KG]

But, if you have limited resources and you can save 250,000 lives vs 8,000 or so which public safety policy would you vigorously champion?

The one that is plastered all over the media in a spectacular display of sensationalism.

IIRC though, all these pale compared to medical screwups: http://www.propublica.org/article/how-m ... -hospitals

When I was a total pro gun nutjob, I always threw out these facts to doctors and anti gun crowd that were championing the case for firearms regulations in Australia where it is also one of the big killers.
Almost everyone knows a person who died due to medical mistakes, hardly anyone of a gun related death and far fewer who know a person that died in a massacre.

Yet reform in the health industry is hard to do apparently.

But, all that is irrelevant really, if we were forced to pick a case to tackle and let go all the others it would be wise to make an informed decision.
When you are not limited to only one choice then your options are whatever takes your fancy and that's actually a good thing.

[Rommie]

Regarding bears, y'all are both missing a crucial detail here and that is the gigantic difference between black bears and grizzlies. The odds of a black bear hurting you if you run into it are pretty minimal unless you surprise a mom and her cubs, grizzly bear you're fucked over pretty easily. Most of my family lives these days in New Hampshire which has had an explosion in the bear population in recent years (bear season used to coincide w deer season, now it doesn't, so most people who would shoot one out of opportunity now don't)- like my parents saw one twice on the road driving to their place common, and there's plenty of people in the area this time of year, and I've run into them while hiking/geocaching on trails right next to towns. But no one in my family has a gun or is thinking of getting one for this particular reason TBH...

Grizzlies on the other hand only live in the continental USA in the Yellowstone area, and Alaska of course. Turns out they have a rather nice breakdown of grizzly vs black bear fatalities over the years, both for front and back country here. Long and short, one injury/year from grizzlies in the backcountry, far lower for bears, only seven deaths in the ~30 year period we're considering. Frankly more people have died falling into the geysers than by bear attack.

I will further mention that honestly the details you are arguing about are such small number statistics that I think "not fucking likely" is what I will say it is regardless of country, especially if you aren't an inexperienced person in the backcountry, and call it a day.

I do think also though that regardless of hangun vs rifles vs whatever and what is appropriate, I'm sure there are more macho guys who think they need a gun for car camping and then don't secure it at home than are responsible, so I still have no clue why they can get them without taking a class and getting a permit. I have to do that to drive my car or boat or hell even to operate my Ham radio, though last I checked the last one there is in no danger of killing anyone.

[FZR1KG]

But you didn't address the awesome smells of my cooking attracting bears, did you????

[The Supreme Canuck]

Sorry, I don't buy it.

For the record I knew the bear distribution difference between the US and Canada, you're on the ball to pick it up.
Thing is, one small variable affects statistics greatly if used incorrectly. You found that easily but what of the rest?
I ask because you brought the statistics in and equated the two for Canada and the USA.

Certainly there are other variables. But the fact remains that, irrespective of those other factors, the number of fatal bear attacks is comparable between the two countries. Comparably low - low enough that no one up here wants to strip away handgun regulations to save us all from the bears. It's nonsense.

Furthermore, we can eliminate those other factors. Ignore Canada entirely. You yourself said that the US changed the law such that people can bring handguns into national parks in 2010. This has evidently has zero effect on the number of fatal bear attacks in the US. This decade is exactly on track to match the average number of fatal bear attacks in previous decades.

The handguns don't help. The lifting of restrictions has not had the beneficial effect that it was intended. So, given that it also has deleterious effects (more on that below), why refuse to reinstate the regulations?

So, statistics can be a fun and confusing thing.
The US fatalities, 16 of the 25 are in national parks, obviously where bears are present, hence my shark statement.
People in the USA go to where the bears are then get killed. People in Canada live with them for some part but not to the extent that you're implying.
Canada while in the heartland of bear country also has most of it's population in two states and it's very concentrated. Over 50% in two provinces alone.
Bears aren't in the big cities or heavily developed areas in any significant numbers and when found they are relocated very quickly if deemed dangerous.

My point with the bear range maps was to show that the applicable portion of the Canadian population is far, far greater than the applicable portion of the US population. Because, yes, while there are unlikely to be bears in downtown Toronto or New York City, more Canadian wilderness and more Canadian national parks are within the bears' range than US wilderness or parks.

Which means that if you go traipsing through the woods in Canada, there are probably bear. If you do that in the US, there probably aren't.
If you go to a Canadian park, there are bear. If you do that in the US, there's a huge chance there aren't.

All of which means that of the Canadians who go into the wilderness, probably 90% are in the bears' range. And of the Americans who do so? Far lower. Far lower.

This goes a long way towards eliminating your ratio argument - per capita, calculated using these appropriate populations, the number of fatal bear attacks in Canada and the US become comparable. It's disingenuous to say that bear attacks happen at a 1:1 ratio while the populations are at a 1:10 ratio, therefore the US is safer and guns are good. It's disingenuous for exactly the reason that you point out with your shark example: most of the US population never comes into it, so the appropriate population ratio gets much farther from 1:10.

Also, as an aside, yeah... we do get big wildlife in major urban centres in Canada. I can't recall bears in the city, but every couple of years we get moose rampaging through the suburbs here in Ottawa - crashing through backyard fences and generally causing havoc. And let me tell you, a bull moose in rut is probably the most terrifying animal on the continent. I'd take a bear over that any day.

So it's not just people who like hiking who are relevant, here.

My argument was for taking owning a handgun for protection in a national park/forest where bears exist.
When I look at the statistics for the USA I see 16 of 28 people killed are in national parks, including those killed in captivity.
Over 50%.

What of it? That's where most are still killed following the lifting of the ban in 2010. And those who were killed outside of parks? As far as I'm aware, there was no ban on them having handguns, either.

Your point about them taking a handgun home and that's where the killings are, is moot.
How many serious outdoors men are involved in mass killings or murders?
Answer, insignificant numbers. There is no real correlation to being an outdoors type and being a murderer.
You also can't take a handgun and expect to be able to defend yourself without training.
Hence you need to take it home and you need to practice.
Firing a handgun is easy, being accurate and repeatable is not.

I disagree entirely. Yes, there is no correlation between being outdoorsy and being a murderer. No one claimed there was.

There is, however, a correlation between having guns (especially handguns) in the home and dying from gunshot wounds - intentionally self-inflicted, unintentionally self-inflicted, intentionally shooting another member of the household, unintentionally shooting another member of the household, whatever. Point is, you have guns at home, you increase your chance of getting shot. Significantly.

And here's the crux of my point: all that statistical stuff above? It's meant to show that your chances of getting killed by a bear are tiny, no matter who we consider to be the relevant population. Tinier than your chances of being shot by the gun you have to protect you from bears. That's the real point. Having a handgun to protect from bears is more likely to kill you than not having one. So why the hell is that a good law?

That's the calculation I've been harping on this entire thread, by the way: look at your policy, then weigh the benefits against the drawbacks. If it's more beneficial than otherwise, it's good policy. If it isn't, it's bad policy. To base policy formulation on anything other than this calculation is irrational.

Finally, population distribution, if you look at the range of habitat for the black bears you gave and overlay that with the population density you'll see that the bears live mainly in the populated states. If you total up the populations you'll probably find that they are in excess of the population of Canada. Then you also have to factor bear density. If you look at Canada's population density its mainly down near the borders of the USA. Where I'm going with this is I don't trust those maps for shit. According to them Toronto has bears in the city center, so does L.A... maybe they are counting the ones in zoo's?

Once again, people in those cities go out into the wilderness - we've agreed they're the relevant population. If you go outside a city in Canada, you are more likely to be in the bears' range than if you do so in the US. If you go to a Canadian park, you are more likely to be in the bears' range than if you do so in the US. Moreover, we do get large animals in city centres in Canada.

All of that however distracts from my point: going into a national park where bears do exist in large numbers. I want protection from bear attack. I want to shoot the damned bear rather than have a ranger shoot it after my demise which was how it used to be. I want it because I'm a fucking awesome cook and every bear in a 200 mile radius will want to try some of my food. So I'll say it again, over half the deaths involving bears in the USA are in national parks/forests. I have the right to protect myself in such areas without someone using an argument that somehow me protecting myself in a national park somehow makes everyone else's life significantly more dangerous than what I'd be dealing with without a gun. This is what I consider unnecessary intrusion and making laws that will make my life more dangerous rather than less. Especially when I'm cooking steak or the new honey soy chicken I made today on a bbq.

You are making other people less safe. You're making yourself less safe, too. The risk of that gun of yours killing you is higher than the risk of a bear killing you. Period.

What I find confusing is that you'd put people at risk because your belief is that others remotely from the situation, would somehow be safer, and you think not carrying is not a factor in bear attack/defense.
That's faith, I'm not into that, and you're putting others lives on the line based on your faith that you have it right.

It's data. Bear fatalities are laughably rare. Self-inflicted gun fatalities using handguns, in the US at least, are not.

QED.

Plus, and I think this bears (ha!) repeating: I have at all times maintained that you can have a handgun in the wilderness if you can prove that it is the only option to keep you safe. So what's your issue? If you can present a convincing argument that, based on your specific situation, you need one, you can have one. And if you're incapable of making such an argument? Well, why would anyone let you have one?

The more confusing part is that you stated that you don't want the death penalty because what if an innocent man is sentenced to death.
One innocent life lost is not worth it.
What happens here?
You are using the same reasoning that the proponents of the death penalty are using.
If we do this, then society will be safer. The only difference is your version has an element of luck, like Russian roulette. Though with the state of the legal system here there is also a huge element of luck in the death penalty issue, I guess they are the same then.

False equivalence.

The difference here is that there is zero evidence that a life sentence causes more harm to other people than a death sentence. But there is a great deal of evidence that having handguns in easy circulation is likely to result in more deaths of innocents than bear attacks. There's no hypocrisy, here. Just a clear cost/benefit analysis.

This is why I said that Fisher's argument boils down to "you can't regulate anything." It's because it entirely abandons the cost/benefit calculation for a kind of slippery-slope argument. "Well, you're just banning things willy-nilly! First it's guns, then it's ice cream! If you wouldn't ban ice cream, you wouldn't ban guns!"

In that case, I ask, why do we ban private ownership of hydrogen bombs? If you wouldn't ban ice cream, you wouldn't ban them, right? Well, no - the cost/benefit doesn't work out on h-bombs.

So I'm not banning things willy-nilly when I want to regulate firearms. The argument is based on the likely outcomes of the regulation.

So when one person dies because of a bear attack in a national park and that person would have taken a gun if allowed, then your ideology becomes responsible for that death. But the same argument can't work in reverse, i.e. if you don't let that guy have a gun for visiting bear areas, no one can show that a life was saved.

How many people die from being shot by a handgun compared to the number of people who die from bear attacks? Many, many more - bear attacks are incredibly rare. You are literally more likely to die by being struck by lightning. But getting shot? Far, far more likely. A policy that allows for easy circulation of handguns in society is responsible for that. A policy that allows for even easier circulation of handguns is going to increase the number of people killed by gunshot - far in excess of the number of people saved from bears.

The policy is irrational. It purports to be an attempt to save lives, but it is incapable of saving more than it ends.

Then we'' get a person requesting to take a handgun into the wilderness for protection, being denied by the do gooders and then getting killed and eaten.
Bit like Rick Perry letting an innocent man die because he couldn't be bothered to read the last minute appeal...see what I mean, luck in the death penalty laws exist too.

False equivalence, again. And kind of insulting to boot.

Yes, not being allowed to take handguns into the woods may result in people dying. That's tragic. And I understand if it's you, you're going to be pissed before you get eaten. But allowing that sort of freewheeling handgun regime, allowing the things to float around in society, is also going to kill people. More people than are killed by bears. And I bet if it's you, you're going to be just as pissed before you bleed to death. Why would a rational government make that law?

And, look, what you're doing is saying "If you restrict my ability to have a handgun, you're just as responsible for my death if I get eaten by a bear as if you hanged me." But why, if a government doesn't restrict handguns, is that government any less responsible for all the people killed by handguns?

Let's accept that the government is entirely culpable either way (though I dispute that). Fine. So do you want them to be morally culpable for one death or hundreds?

You can't lay all the culpability one one side rather than the other. If they're guilty for deaths resulting from their laws, that must apply to all laws universally. Including laws that provide lax restrictions on guns.

So, again: why would you want a law that means you are responsible for killing more people than you need to? Wouldn't you pass firearms regulations that minimize overall deaths? Isn't that literally the only rational course of action?

[The Supreme Canuck]

tl;dr the above?

Summary:
Basing a law on the loose association of broad statistics such as the correlation of firearm numbers and firearm deaths, and applying it to a specific situation where no such association is present nor demonstrable, but where significant negative impacts are expected if implemented, is not a good foundation for law.
IMHO.

However, basing a law on the likely outcomes of two different policies is the only good foundation of law.

Loosening restrictions on handguns in national parks has not reduced the number of bear deaths at all. The policy therefore has zero positive outcome.
Having many handguns in circulation significantly increases the number of people killed by them. Increasing the number of handguns is likely to make that worse. Loosening restrictions on handguns in national parks is likely to increase the number in circulation, and thus increase the rate of overall deaths.

Yes, there is no direct proof that such a policy will actually result in increased gun deaths. But there is a strong correlation and thus likelihood. This, in combination with the fact that there is demonstrably zero positive result from the loosening of restrictions, is enough to conclude that restrictions ought to be reinstated.

Why? Because, at best, this lack of restriction results in no net change in deaths from the situation prior to 2010. At worst, it kills far more people. And, given the correlation between gun ownership and gun deaths, the latter is more likely.

[The Supreme Canuck]

[Your argument boils down to "there is never good reason to regulate anything." That's overly reductive and entirely misses the point of good public policy formulation - the essence of which is to ask "are the good results of this law outweighed by the bad?"

Actually, I have addressed the issue of public policy previously in other gun threads. Cigarette Smoking, Cancer, Cardiac Disease, Obesity, and even automobile deaths are significantly more deadly than guns are as far as raw numbers go. The US has engaged in a vigorous public policy campaign against most or all of these hazards. Including gun safety.

But, if you have limited resources and you can save 250,000 lives vs 8,000 or so which public safety policy would you vigorously champion?

As FZ says, luckily you don't have to choose.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Regarding bears, y'all are both missing a crucial detail here and that is the gigantic difference between black bears and grizzlies. The odds of a black bear hurting you if you run into it are pretty minimal unless you surprise a mom and her cubs, grizzly bear you're fucked over pretty easily. Most of my family lives these days in New Hampshire which has had an explosion in the bear population in recent years (bear season used to coincide w deer season, now it doesn't, so most people who would shoot one out of opportunity now don't)- like my parents saw one twice on the road driving to their place common, and there's plenty of people in the area this time of year, and I've run into them while hiking/geocaching on trails right next to towns. But no one in my family has a gun or is thinking of getting one for this particular reason TBH...

Grizzlies on the other hand only live in the continental USA in the Yellowstone area, and Alaska of course. Turns out they have a rather nice breakdown of grizzly vs black bear fatalities over the years, both for front and back country here. Long and short, one injury/year from grizzlies in the backcountry, far lower for bears, only seven deaths in the ~30 year period we're considering. Frankly more people have died falling into the geysers than by bear attack.

I will further mention that honestly the details you are arguing about are such small number statistics that I think "not fucking likely" is what I will say it is regardless of country, especially if you aren't an inexperienced person in the backcountry, and call it a day.

I pretty much agree. Though I would add that since it's so startlingly unlikely you'll be harmed by a bear, and since it's so much more likely you'll be harmed by your own gun... maybe having the gun to protect yourself from bears is idiotic. And maybe any loosening of regulations with the purpose of allowing people to have guns to protect themselves from bears is thus also equally idiotic. It's just bad public policy.

I do think also though that regardless of hangun vs rifles vs whatever and what is appropriate, I'm sure there are more macho guys who think they need a gun for car camping and then don't secure it at home than are responsible, so I still have no clue why they can get them without taking a class and getting a permit. I have to do that to drive my car or boat or hell even to operate my Ham radio, though last I checked the last one there is in no danger of killing anyone.

Yep. That's precisely the regulation I'm arguing in favour of. Well, okay, I go a bit further than that, admittedly. Special handgun course and exam, a special class of licence for handguns, restrictions on storage, restrictions on transportation, restrictions on transfer of ownership, restrictions on where you're allowed to have the thing, mandatory registration, and absolutely no carrying it on your person (concealed or open) without a special permit obtained by convincing the regulator that you genuinely need to do so (say you're a Brinks truck guard or whatever).

You're right to say that there are regulations for other potentially dangerous things. That there are courses, exams, and licences. Why the hell not for handguns? Especially since I'm still not convinced that they're good for anything other than A) shooting humans and B) competitive target shooting.

[FZR1KG]

However, basing a law on the likely outcomes of two different policies is the only good foundation of law.

Loosening restrictions on handguns in national parks has not reduced the number of bear deaths at all. The policy therefore has zero positive outcome.

Wrong.


http://www.nationalparkstraveler.com/20 ... eserve5943

One life saved.

Then there are others where a handgun saved them:

http://www.fieldandstream.com/photos/ga ... a/?image=0

Oops, make that two

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009 ... 54-casull/

Three

http://www.adn.com/node/1488121

four...make that five since the article states that this was the second time in that season.

Some of the above are in parks, others are just in the general area where there are bears.
The first was in a national park where guns weren't allowed before.

I'm going to say that had these guys not had a handgun the results would have been different.
One life already saved by the change.
Take it or leave it but I'm a supporter of having a handgun in those areas.
Mind you I'd recommend spray as well especially for those with no firearms experience.