We have had this debate many times.
Opening the article, I was expecting the usual "guns are the answer! what was the question?" Cue the face palm.
But the writer, to his credit, took a measured approach and laid out the difficulty of acquiring good data and how that can give useful guidance to us ground-pounders.
For me, north of 49, the choice is between bear spray and a long gun. I have both, but for the self-propelled traveller, from a survival perspective, the extra weight of a thunderstick is hard to justify -- dehydration and hypothermia are the genuine threats. Spray gives me an additional statistical edge, and I'll take it. Situation awareness gives me an even bigger statistical edge.
If I was travelling by motorized transport, I would have both options at hand. That's just practical.
One of the wild cards is how effectively people use firearms when under stress, and whether they train seriously for close-encounter situations. A lot of people can't hit the broad side of a barn in genuine high-stress moments. A scoped rifle set for 200 yards is a tricky thing when the target is at 30 yards and closing fast.
BTW, I hope we won't make the mistake of politicizing this as "us vs. them" issue. I can't see how that adds value in the slightest. My 2c.
Edited by dougwalkabout (06/29/23 12:59 AM)
_00544-1061044638.png)
Previous Topic
Index
