I believe a gun would have helped this dad protect his son from this bear attack

[Rainman]

http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/local/state/sfl-0812boymauled,0,2513571.story

[Greentick18d]

I agree. He sounds like he did a good job with what he had in the situation tho... Prayers for full recovery for the kid and family.

[taildragger]

Nah, just the MS hiking staff equipped with metallic end cap. Easier to aim for most people, and legal to carry

[Homer&Marje]

Large knife is probably best, gives you closest range so you don't risk hitting your son. If it's a 55 lb bear, a small bear, it's moving fast and the bullet potentially could pass through the bear if not a direct hit, better to try and stab it in the eye, always go for critical areas that will send a clear message, eyes, nose, mouth and throat.
I don't fear much with my knife in hand.:D
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/files/1/7/8/4/6/jackaranda.jpg

[rickb]

The bear will undergo a necropsy and genetic testing to determine if it was the bear that attacked the family.

I can't help but wonder if they will find Skittles in the bears stomach.

Seems like there has got to be more to that story than we a hearing.

Or not. I wasn't there.

[Homer&Marje]

This is all I can do to edit my post. 86 lb bear I apologize, another story this morning had quoted the bear as being a 55 lb yearling... still a bullet can pass through almost any portion of an 86 lb bear

[Nearly Normal]

Large knife is probably best, gives you closest range so you don't risk hitting your son. If it's a 55 lb bear, a small bear, it's moving fast and the bullet potentially could pass through the bear if not a direct hit, better to try and stab it in the eye, always go for critical areas that will send a clear message, eyes, nose, mouth and throat.
I don't fear much with my knife in hand.:D
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/files/1/7/8/4/6/jackaranda.jpg

Tarzan lessons.
Contact telephone# BR-549
Ahh-ahh-ahh-a-ahh-a ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

[Bob S]

This is all I can do to edit my post. 86 lb bear I apologize, another story this morning had quoted the bear as being a 55 lb yearling... still a bullet can pass through almost any portion of an 86 lb bear


Not going to get into a big debate on how bullets work, but almost all handgun bullets are made of soft lead wrapped in a very thin fragile copper jacket. They are made to deform or open up depending on what design they are. They will generally not just go through a bear. Bears have a lot of fur; this alone will take a lot of the energy out of a handgun bullet. A hollow point bullet (the one most people would buy and have in a gun, and the wrong choice for bear, but they don’t know any better so that’s what they buy) will hit the bear, expand and dump all it’s energy too soon and stop before leaves the bear, and probably before it hits any vital organs. Other then a very small animal, hollow points don’t penetrate far enough to do what needs to be done on an animal.


A hard cast lead bullet (no copper jacket, just lead) will hold together, deform a lot less and penetrate a lot further, but it’s still unlikely it’s going to go through and keep going. Hard cast lead bullets are much harder then copper jacketed bullets and are a much better choice for deadly animals.

[Ramble~On]

Yes, a gun would have been handy in this case...or a former Marine dad with a log.

I recall a similar story involving a father/son bear attack where the dad picked up a log and threw it at the bear..hit the bear in the head and killed the bear instantly...Marine Corps Dad...:rolleyes:

I've hiked up to Rainbow Falls a bunch of times and I really like Roaring Fork...it's a really pretty part of the park..I usually see more than one bear in that area and some of the photos in my gallery are of bears on this trail.
This is a really popular trail and it gets a ton of use.
An 86 pound bear was likely starving to death and viewed the little boy as food...I seriously doubt it had rabies. As everyone has pointed out this kind of thing is extremely rare.....So don't pay any attention to the number of attacks that have happened in the past few years:eek:.. Bears will eat just about anything and they have this crazy built in instict to survive! A bear living in this area of the park likely had numerous encounters with humans and as so often is the case many of these humans probably threw little pieces of food to the bear....the bear associated humans with food...in this case it didn't get a handout and had it's mind set on getting something to eat...the boy must have looked like an easy meal. Sad. Here's a wild animal that mauled a little boy as it had lost its fear of humans. A "wild" black bear likely would have run the second it knew the people were near.

[Homer&Marje]

Not going to get into a big debate on how bullets work, but almost all handgun bullets are made of soft lead wrapped in a very thin fragile copper jacket. They are made to deform or open up depending on what design they are. They will generally not just go through a bear. Bears have a lot of fur; this alone will take a lot of the energy out of a handgun bullet. A hollow point bullet (the one most people would buy and have in a gun, and the wrong choice for bear, but they don’t know any better so that’s what they buy) will hit the bear, expand and dump all it’s energy too soon and stop before leaves the bear, and probably before it hits any vital organs. Other then a very small animal, hollow points don’t penetrate far enough to do what needs to be done on an animal.


A hard cast lead bullet (no copper jacket, just lead) will hold together, deform a lot less and penetrate a lot further, but it’s still unlikely it’s going to go through and keep going. Hard cast lead bullets are much harder then copper jacketed bullets and are a much better choice for deadly animals.


Not going to get into a big debate over semantics of the literal translation of our Bill of Rights in this country but the "Right to Bear Arms" was originally drafted so that men and women could have a gun in their homes in order that when "fighting" arose in our country they could arm State Militias to defend our country.

Also not going to debate the fact that even my knife is illegal in most states and I would have a harder time trying to register and legally carry that knife vs. trying to get a gun, that's screwed up. Probably why theres a lot of Joe America hikers with a weekend pistol course and a snub nosed 38 strapped to his waste. Not to mention guns weigh more.:rolleyes:

Not even "Tarzan" over here likes guns, all I am saying is that if per chance he misses the bear, glances a shot off of the bear, or I guess much less likely that the bullet passes through the bear he risks hitting his son. I believe what he did was perfect fighting the bear off with his hands and a stick, Hoo-Rah.

[jersey joe]

It sounded like a very confusing situation and a gun may have done more harm then good.

[TFin04]

Large knife is probably best, gives you closest range so you don't risk hitting your son. If it's a 55 lb bear, a small bear, it's moving fast and the bullet potentially could pass through the bear if not a direct hit, better to try and stab it in the eye, always go for critical areas that will send a clear message, eyes, nose, mouth and throat.
I don't fear much with my knife in hand.:D
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/files/1/7/8/4/6/jackaranda.jpg

Let me get this straight...

You want to go hand to hand....with a bear!?

Proper training with a firearm would make shooting a bear with others around fairly easy. The odds of ending the threat with a few well placed shots (while maintaining a 'safer' distance) are much higher than trying to slash the bear with your knife. As much as you may think it does, putting a knife in your hand doesn't make you invincible. If it's the only tool you have then of course it's the best choice. I'd prefer a gun.

[workboot]

Not going to get into a big debate over semantics of the literal translation of our Bill of Rights in this country but the "Right to Bear Arms" was originally drafted so that men and women could have a gun in their homes in order that when "fighting" arose in our country they could arm State Militias to defend our country.

.

Thats an incorrect interpretation of the 2`cd Adm. Period.

[Rainman]

Actually, the interpretation mentioned is pretty accurate.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

This article does a good job of describing the most recent Supreme Court case dealing with the second amendment. I have read a good bit of Heller, but have not finished it.

[Mags]

Hmm? Anyone familiar with the old Infocom games?

Here's a chestnut found at this link:
http://www.webmasterworld.com/forum9/8231-2-30.htm


Do a CTRL F and do a find for "SCREAM BEAR" and see how effective that is.. ;)

Maybe a deterrent for bears?

[take-a-knee]

Large knife is probably best, gives you closest range so you don't risk hitting your son. If it's a 55 lb bear, a small bear, it's moving fast and the bullet potentially could pass through the bear if not a direct hit, better to try and stab it in the eye, always go for critical areas that will send a clear message, eyes, nose, mouth and throat.
I don't fear much with my knife in hand.:D
http://whiteblaze.net/forum/vbg/files/1/7/8/4/6/jackaranda.jpg

Mike Tyson said, "Everybody has a plan...until they get hit."

[take-a-knee]

Thats an incorrect interpretation of the 2`cd Adm. Period.

Enlighten us then.

[IceAge]

Let's not get into arguments over different interpretations of the Constitution here. Actually, I'm not sure what the purpose of this thread is. It is possible that a firearm may have been useful in this situation, it's equally possible that one may have been useless, no real way to tell from the information available.

As for attacking a bear in hand-to-claw combat, all I can say is I don't personally recommend it.

[workboot]

Enlighten us then.

This isnt the right type of forum for this. So I will be brief and end it with this. I am pro-firearm proponent so its going to sway that direction.

The distinction between personal and collective (militia) right isn't a specification issue. "The right of the people" is used in the Constitution and all over the 18th and 19th centuries to mean individual rights. The reason the gun cases are so vexing is that turning that into a collective right really does seem like the Humpty-Dumpty logic. The same language is used in the First Amendment, and I strongly suspect that trying to treat "the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" as a non-individual right wouldn't go over well.

Treating "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized," as a collective right wouldn't be very exciting either.

While the collective right does play into the 2`cd it is not entirely the basis for the admendment. My best attempt at parsing this in plain language is that the U.S. Federal govt. is barred from taking steps to disarm individual citizens, the rationale for which is that under some circumstances the State govt.'s may need to call upon their citizens (in the form of a regulated state militia) to resist a tyrannical Federal govt by force of arms. The 2`cd also is provisioned for individual security and other uses of arms deemed as neccesary by the indiviual his or herself.

Thats about as far as I will go into the matter here. The great thing about this country is that we all have thr right to have a difference of opinion.

Now back to the hiking...

[Homer&Marje]

Thats an incorrect interpretation of the 2`cd Adm. Period.

Really... Because you sat down with the founding fathers and said, "by the way I think that should include my right to carry a gun while hiking"

Don't tell me that I misinterpreted the constitution... read it... understand it... then formulate an opinion based on fact. The right to bear arms in this country was in order that if fighting arose in our country that we might be able to arm STATE MILITIAS to DEFEND THE HOMELAND. Unfortunately, most gun owners are actually the ones that have misinterpreted the 2nd amendment.

[general]

what in the hell does the 2nd ammendment have to do with health safety and hygene? i'm sure there is nothing anywhere in the constitution about cleaning thyself. you do have the right in this country to have differences in opinion just not on this site.

[take-a-knee]

what in the hell does the 2nd ammendment have to do with health safety and hygene? i'm sure there is nothing anywhere in the constitution about cleaning thyself. you do have the right in this country to have differences in opinion just not on this site.

'Cause when they come after your Glock it'll be nasty.:eek:

[Mags]

I, for one, am sure this debating about the 2nd Amendment will be a friendly, non-partisan exchange of ideas that will be of benefit to everyone.
:rolleyes:

Really folks. This argument has been debated ad nauseum on this BBS and many other places. I am sure you can all have a wonderful exchange of ideas via PMing on this Very Important Issue.


Now, that I have given this PSA..here's a pertinent youtube video for you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_VlVckrUgY

[Nearly Normal]

I believe this has turned into a political thread.
Yank it.

[Sly]

I'd be reluctant to shoot a bear in this instance. Too easy to hit the kid.

[Bob S]

I don’t really care if someone carry’s a gun, I’m just glad the kid wasn’t killed and I hope he recovers fully and is not too scared to get back out camping.

[oldfivetango]

I'd be reluctant to shoot a bear in this instance. Too easy to hit the kid.

I disagree because the Dad pulled the bear off with his bare hands.
Stands to reason if he pulled the bear off with his bare hands he could
have stuck a knife in said bear,therefore leaving an old guy with limited
cognitive resources to conclude that if he could have pulled with the
bare hands on the bear and/or stuck a knife in the bear then he could
just as easily stood in the same position relative to the bear and the
kid,pressed pistol to vitals of bear at a distance of about 3 inches and
pulled the trigger.

The question I have is this-which would do more damage,my little mouse
of a .380 keltec with plain copper jacketed ball (I am looking for lead,thankyou Bob S) or my rather LARGE tinhorne identifying knife(think
Mick Dundee aye;))?

And finally,what part of "A well regulated militia,being necessary for the
safety and security of a free state,the Right of the People to keep and
bear arms,SHALL NOT be infringed" is it that people don't understand?

I get the feeling that the constitution has become like the Bible and
certain people want to twist it around to say what they want it to say
because they have their own agenda.And that goes for me since I
have declared myself a militia of one in charge of defending my life,my
home,my property,and my family.I don't plan to call 911:D but by the same token would not hike with a pistol because the weight/caliber
ratios just dont add up.
Oldfivetango

[Sly]

I disagree because the Dad pulled the bear off with his bare hands.
Stands to reason if he pulled the bear off with his bare hands he could
have stuck a knife in said bear,therefore leaving an old guy with limited
cognitive resources to conclude that if he could have pulled with the
bare hands on the bear and/or stuck a knife in the bear then he could
just as easily stood in the same position relative to the bear and the
kid,pressed pistol to vitals of bear at a distance of about 3 inches and
pulled the trigger.


How can you disagree with "I'd be reluctant?" You want to shoot the bear with the possibility the bullet may pass through and hit the kid, go ahead.

[oldfivetango]

How can you disagree with "I'd be reluctant?" You want to shoot the bear with the possibility the bullet may pass through and hit the kid, go ahead.

Really Sly,it's all about penetration studies.
Sure,my steel jacketed high powered rifle could be
a problem in that case but most handguns would be
doing good to get a penetration of just a few inches
at best.
Granted,wouldn't hurt to pick the right spot and angle
before you shoot though.
And finally,if I were the hapless victim on the ground I
would likely quote the late great Jerry Clower and say
"just shoot in here amongst us cause one of us GOT
to have some relief.":banana
Oldfivetango

[The Weasel]

I, for one, am sure this debating about the 2nd Amendment will be a friendly, non-partisan exchange of ideas that will be of benefit to everyone.
:rolleyes:

Really folks. This argument has been debated ad nauseum on this BBS and many other places. I am sure you can all have a wonderful exchange of ideas via PMing on this Very Important Issue.


Now, that I have given this PSA..here's a pertinent youtube video for you!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_VlVckrUgY

Mags, I regret that you're wrong, and so are those who say that the Second Amendment is for citizen protection. As the plain language indicates, and as this thread illustrates, it gives citizens the right to protect themselves from bear attacks, and upon doing so, to sever their fore arms to collect (as was the case in past times) the bounty on bears.

Hence, the "right to bear arms." Not guns. Bear arms.

TW

[SGT Rock]

Looks like the boy and his dad are still alive. So whatever he had available - his plan worked.

Interesting to see people from behind a keyboard debating what they would have done. One of the laws of combat: "No plan survives contact with the enemy"

[Mags]

Hence, the "right to bear arms." Not guns. Bear arms.

TW

We like to say "beah ahms" where I come from.

So folks...be sure to fight for your right to beah ahms!

http://www.pmags.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_view=core.DownloadItem&g2_itemId=17494&g2_serialNumber=2&g2_GALLERYSID=9b7269e0127675108ae6001d1d0952b4

My beah ahms...while carrying a very full pack full of vino. Nice famahs tan, too...

[Sly]

Speaking of bear arms... I think I have more stitches from playing hockey.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/media/photo/2008-08/41582764.jpg

[Tipi Walter]

Why is it that every time someone on WB mentions a bear other people chime in with handgun loads, hollow points and the best fighting knives? Why not just have at it and wipe them all out? Do some species-profiling with a handgun. Take away all the wilderness risk and pry away whatever bit of land the black bears have left by having a free-for-all period of ethnic cleansing similar to the bison slaughter or the Native American holocaust. Then we can all have fun in the wilderness w/o these pesky bears and only have to carry weapons to fight off other humans. Make the wilderness safe for the timid and the terrified.

[Sly]

Why is it that every time someone on WB mentions a bear other people chime in with handgun loads, hollow points and the best fighting knives? Why not just have at it and wipe them all out? Do some species-profiling with a handgun. Take away all the wilderness risk and pry away whatever bit of land the black bears have left by having a free-for-all period of ethnic cleansing similar to the bison slaughter or the Native American holocaust. Then we can all have fun in the wilderness w/o these pesky bears and only have to carry weapons to fight off other humans. Make the wilderness safe for the timid and the terrified.

Lots of weanies with more time on the internet than on the trails....

[MOWGLI]

Why is it that every time someone on WB mentions a bear other people chime in with handgun loads, hollow points and the best fighting knives? Why not just have at it and wipe them all out? Do some species-profiling with a handgun. Take away all the wilderness risk and pry away whatever bit of land the black bears have left by having a free-for-all period of ethnic cleansing similar to the bison slaughter or the Native American holocaust. Then we can all have fun in the wilderness w/o these pesky bears and only have to carry weapons to fight off other humans. Make the wilderness safe for the timid and the terrified.

Bingo!!! In the Sierra last week, someone tried to convince me (repeatedly) that I didn't really want to see a bear during my hike. Unfortunately, I didn't.

[SGT Rock]

Bingo!!! In the Sierra last week, someone tried to convince me (repeatedly) that I didn't really want to see a bear during my hike. Unfortunately, I didn't.
I've had that same experience. And then the guys trying to convince me of it were the ones that got to see the bear while I missed it.

[Homer&Marje]

XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion."

"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state:"

The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Palladium_%28mythology%29) of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.[28 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution #cite_note-27)

WHY DO HIKERS NEED GUNS. IT IS A PEACEFUL ACTIVITY. THIS IS NOT AN ARGUMENT ABOUT THE SECOND AMENDMENT BUT RATHER THAT HIKERS SHOULD NOT CARRY GUNS AND THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO UNDER SECOND AMENDMENT INTERPRETATION.

Now, If you think interpretation of our constitution does not affect you think about our freedom of speech for a minute. The same laws that prevent radio DJ's and TV reporters from swearing or being offensive also allow groups like NAMBLA ( North American Man-Boy Love Association) and the Ku-Klux-Klan to openly meet and organize peacefully to state there beliefs in a form of organization or protest... so go ahead, listen to the 20th century interpretations of it. I'm going back to hiking... I hate politics but also aggravating is the ignorance of it all

[Rainman]

There have been many threads on WB dealing with the pros and cons of hikers carrying a gun as part of their usual equipment. When I read the story, and thought about hiking with my own son, it simply occurred to me that I would prefer to be armed than have to fight back bare handed against an enraged bear in order to save my son. More than that I never said or meant.

[SGT Rock]

I'm going back to hiking... I hate politics but also aggravating is the ignorance of it all
Thanks. Maybe you should have done that earlier instead of complaining about politics but at the same time bringing it up.

Think about it.

[Homer&Marje]

There have been many threads on WB dealing with the pros and cons of hikers carrying a gun as part of their usual equipment. When I read the story, and thought about hiking with my own son, it simply occurred to me that I would prefer to be armed than have to fight back bare handed against an enraged bear in order to save my son. More than that I never said or meant.

I couldn't really picture taking the risk of shooting a gun towards a family member in a situation where there is panic, terror, pain, and sheer desperation. I hope it never happens to that many people, but it seems to me the guy was better off without a gun, all of you that have children just think what if. What if a bear attacked my child, I shot at the bear, and missed hitting and killing the child in the process. All of the accidents that have happened with guns in the last century, I wouldn't risk it. But WB'rs prove every time that we will do what we god damn please. Not two weeks ago mind you a 14 year old shot a woman hiking with a rifle. Our constitution allowed a 14 year old to accidentally shoot a woman that he thought was a bear.

[SGT Rock]

Our constitution allowed a 14 year old to accidentally shoot a woman that he thought was a bear.

I thought you were going to drop it?:-?

[Plodderman]

Glad they are alright and bears are just part of it in the Smokies. I hike there alot and have read up on bears and what to do but have never been attacked. Hope it never happens but if you are in the Smokies there is a pretty good chance you are going to see a bear.

[Homer&Marje]

Thats an incorrect interpretation of the 2`cd Adm. Period.

I will drop it, but when someone tells me that I dont know how to interpret our constitution I will beg to differ, and when all of the valid points that keep coming to mind why hikers shouldn't carry guns stop, I will drop it. Thanks for the input Sgt.

[SGT Rock]

But do you think you are actually solving anything by continuing to rant? Or do you think you are starting to come off like someone that can't let go?

Think about it.

[SGT Rock]

Anyway, since some people have decided to turn this into a thread about their personal politics related to gun control, it is a dead end. Everyone got their say. Hopefully my last post will clue you into why I am closing this puppy down.

Have a good hike y'all.