Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: Mandatory carry - against polar bears

  1. #1
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037

    Mandatory carry - against polar bears

    I just read this story and wished these people would give lessons to our government.

    "Attacks are not uncommon, and according to unique warning signs it is illegal to leave a human settlement without carrying a gun."

    "According to Norway's TV2, Friday's attack was the first deadly polar bear attack on Svalbard since 1995. Chapple's death brings to five the number of people killed on the archipelago since 1973, when polar bears became a protected species, it reported."

    We lose about 50,000 to violence a year, or 1,900,000 since 1973. They've lost 5 and require you to be armed to mitigate the risk.

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    125
    Are you sure they don't mean "brings to five the number of people killed by polar bears"? A quick google says that their murder rate is not that low...

  3. #3
    Founder's Club Member Jim675's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Bellevue, Washington, USA
    Posts
    1,037
    The entire article is about the danger from bears. 5 deaths, since 1973. Because of that danger they require that those going out and about in that area must carry a firearm. 5 deaths in 38 years. The US has experienced about 1.9 MILLION violent deaths during that same time and we have to constantly be on guard against those who would restrict our right to carry.

    Maybe we should import some polar bears.

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Baton Rouge, Louisiana, USA
    Posts
    125
    I don't think that they'd fare well in Louisiana weather. Maybe up there where you live...

    I'm not a fan of the notion of mandatory armaments. Even setting aside that its a government decree and thereby offends my sense of liberty, a person who doesn't want a weapon is unlikely to train with it, maintain it, or be of a proper mindset to use it during the short window of opportunity when they need it. Shooting a bear doesn't evoke the same reluctance as shooting a human, even if both are to save one's own life. Those tall tales about weapons being used against their owners? I think that they get a bit shorter if the owner genuinely doesn't have the will to use them, even when terrified.

    That said, it's quite nice to see a government recognizing weapons as useful tools rather than sources of human evil. Maybe we can import some Norwegians?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •