Perhaps, but years ago I met a young couple (old for me, I was 12), berry picking, and he had a holstered .357 Magnum.

I asked him why, and he said the same, with a big BUT, the BUT being that if mama had the kids in tow, all bets were off!

Tom

Exactly. What I learned was: "The second you see a bear, look for the cubs, and vice versa."

In Ontario they generally made enough noise that I heard them coming before I saw them... But this was before the Walkman.

My sister in VT gets bears in her yard a couple times a year, but as far as I know she doesn't have a gun.

On the other hand, if my sister in CT ever gets any in her yard, there will be a grill party!

Tom

While this sounds totally reasonable .... what do you do when it happens?!
Kill the mother and leave the kids? Kill all of them?!

Guns in such situations make sense to me if they were anesthetic.

You don't need a gun you just need a bad-ass cat...

^^ This is the only relevant question.

I haven't read through 3000 comments in this thread.

For me: I'm not anti-gun but anti-unchecked-access to automatic/semi-automatic weapons. No one needs them to "defend themselves" and they do not form part of the US' (or NRA's) beloved basic constitutional right to bear arms.

That being said, having access to guns doesn't make you a killer. Most households in Switzerland have a gun (army weapon), yet barely any mass shootings happen and if there's shootings at all, they're based on personal issues/relationships/disputes.

The real question is what Sandgrounder says: what factors are REALLY to blame. Ther must be something else and it's not access to guns or video games or anything like that.

So, you would prefer to be mauled?

Realize, this is close quarters, which is why a high power hand gun and not a shotgun loaded with 000 buck shot or .730 slugs is the better choice, a tranquilizer gun would be useless!

Tom

Breakdown of the family unit, boys growing up without fathers.

You run out of the line of sight between the mother and the cubs, and you fire into the air.

I think you'd have to be a pretty good shot to stop a charging bear, and a .357 is a pretty small bullet to try and do it with.

All things considered, bear attacks are pretty rare. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._North_America)

You're probably more likely to die from an accident involving a garage door than being attacked by a bear.

But it's damn loud!

Also, .357 Mangnum with dum-dums will do a lot of damage to anything it hits.

Tom

Answer a question with a question?! Was that a yes?

No, I think I simply wouldn't go berry picking on a bear-baby-playground?

That explains why there are so many school shootings in the US?

I think it plays a large role in it, yup.

The old "correlation / causation" trap, eh?

Assuming this is linked to divorce: for example, Switzerland has one of the highest divorce rates in the world, yet boys who grow up without a father here don't go out shooting up their school.

Well that is easy then, ban boys growing up without fathers from gun ownership, simplist, bigly!

Awwwww....... hand me that gun! I'm more than entitled to having one.

I'm sure you'd agree if there were no guns, there would be no shootings.

I wrote earlier in the the thread that there seems to be a different, more mature and respectful attitude to guns in Switzerland than there is in the U.S.

Because most see it (owning a gun) as a fundamental right for an American citizen and are willing to pay the highest price in order to defend it. A bit foolish if you ask me, but so it's with some other things too. You'd give up this right in exchange for some sort of comfort - I say some because there will always be a black market for the most determined..but most Americans - won't. A bit like a few French folks defending the freedom of speech.... Each to their own.

Its more than just divorce, 40% of babies in the US are born to unmarried mothers.