jogger carries gun for mountain lions

(rick++) said:

L.A. Times has article about a rural jogger (hiker?) who
carries a gun for mountain lions and saw one recently.
latimes.comla meOpen ↗
lion14may14,1,3058274.story?coll=la-headlines-
california

I carry one too, but it's mostly for the bald headed
gang banger variety of predator. They shoot at me, I
shoot back.....

M.T.

rick++ said:

L.A. Times has article about a rural jogger (hiker?) who
carries a gun for mountain lions and saw one
recently. latimes.comla meOpen ↗
lion14may14,1,3058274.story?coll=la-headlines-
california

My take was that a gun may not be that useful. When a lion
is hungry, it stalks and attacks you from BEHIND, so you
only see the non-hungry ones in general.

Sounds just as effective as carrying a gun to protect
against criminals (as gun owners and gun toters love to do).
The criminals don't know you have it, just as the lion
doesn't know, and the gun never gets brandished or used. But
it makes the gun-carrier feel better, despite statistically
reducing his safety. -- Josh (not very pro-gun, as if you
couldn't tell)

"available only to registered users"

[email hidden] (rick++) wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

L.A. Times has article about a rural jogger (hiker?) who
carries a gun for mountain lions and saw one
recently. latimes.comla meOpen ↗
lion14may14,1,3058274.story?coll=la-headlines-
california

My take was that a gun may not be that useful. When a lion
is hungry, it stalks and attacks you from BEHIND, so you
only see the non-hungry ones in general.

'nuff said

"rick++" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

L.A. Times has article about a rural jogger (hiker?) who
carries a gun for mountain lions and saw one
recently.

latimes.comla meOpen ↗
lion14may14,1,3058274.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Quoted message said:

My take was that a gun may not be that useful. When a lion
is hungry, it stalks and attacks you from BEHIND, so you
only see the non-hungry ones in general.

It might be useful if he jogger comes around the corner and
happens upon a puma finishing up a meal of another jogger.
Otherwise, yes, you are correct, a jogger will never see the
mountain lion in time to shoot him. Mountain lions can be
sitting a matter of "feet" from the edge of a trail and you
would never have a clue that they were even there. Moreover,
there is a good chance that in a panic, the jogger might
actually shoot himself instead of the puma if attacked.

Best just to stay home with a beer, if you ask me.

Em

It seems to me I heard somewhere that rick++ wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

L.A. Times has article about a rural jogger (hiker?) who
carries a gun for mountain lions and saw one recently.
latimes.comla meOpen ↗
lion14may14,1,3058274.story?coll=la-headlines-
california

Quoted message said:

My take was that a gun may not be that useful. When a lion
is hungry, it stalks and attacks you from BEHIND, so you
only see the non-hungry ones in general.

You're probably right about the stalking habits making
effective use of a gun less likely, but the story behind
this article is that a month or so ago there were two bad
mountain lion encounters in that same area, with one
death and one severe mauling which probably would have
ended in death if not for the victim's companion and
other nearby hikers finally driving the lion off. The gun
probably contributes more to this hiker's peace of mind
than to his safety.
--
Don [email hidden]

"Joshua Steinberg" <[email hidden]> wrote:

Well, I've given some serious thought to packing, as I often
run in the early morning aaalllll alone in the San Gabriels,
miles from nowhere. In the instant case, it appears that the
gun would have been useful. I would *not* want to be in the
same situation he was without a weapon. What if he jogged
down the path just a few seconds earlier...

An attack isn't always over instantly. Lots (well, several
I've read about) of people have fought with the lions. I
read one harrowing account of a guy who killed one with many
blows to the head using a sharp rock, and who was seriously
injured in the process. Sometimes you win, sometimes you
lose. The trick is being able to get to the gun or knife --
or rock -- quickly, and not hurt yourself!

Quoted message said:

Sounds just as effective as carrying a gun to protect
against criminals (as gun owners and gun toters love
to do). The criminals don't know you have it, just as
the lion doesn't know, and the gun never gets
brandished or used.

Au contrair, this happens many thousands of times per year
in the US...

Quoted message said:

But it makes the gun-carrier feel better,

True.

Quoted message said:

despite statistically reducing his safety.

False. If you want to duke it out off list, you know
where I am.

Quoted message said:

-- Josh (not very pro-gun, as if you couldn't tell)

You know, I sensed that about you...

--Dan

<chomp>

Quoted message said:

I carry one too, but it's mostly for the bald headed gang
banger variety

of predator.

Quoted message said:

They shoot at me, I shoot back.....

Aaaahhh, it's nice to live in a country without such a
prevalent gun mentality! (Flame running suit on.) I run in a
national park here in suburban Sydney without a care in the
world. My biggest concern is accidentally tripping on a
hedgehog and hurting the little bugger. I hope this happy
state of affairs around here never changes, though trends
may suggest otherwise. 🙁

There are though, parts of this fine city where I wouldn't
run, where gangs are turning more and more to guns. Hard to
believe frankly.

A few years ago I spent some time in PNG (Papua New Guinea)
and couldn't run at all in Port Moresby for fear of being
mugged, shot, bashed etc. My running was done within the
confines of a heavily guarded compound or around a remote
mining town accompanied by some heavies employed by the
mine. Those [censored] could run - big guys and noone was
going to give an inch so we almost all died of heart attacks
and heat exhaustion... but not of shame! hehe

Cheers, Dave (Sydney)

"Joshua Steinberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

rick++ said:

L.A. Times has article about a rural jogger (hiker?) who
carries a gun for mountain lions and saw one
recently.

latimes.comla meOpen ↗
lion14may14,1,3058274.story?coll=la-headlines-california

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

My take was that a gun may not be that useful. When a
lion is hungry, it stalks and attacks you from BEHIND,
so you only see the non-hungry ones in general.

Sounds just as effective as carrying a gun to protect
against criminals (as gun owners and gun toters love to
do). The criminals don't know you have it, just as the
lion doesn't know, and the gun never gets brandished or
used. But it makes the gun-carrier feel better, despite
statistically reducing his safety. -- Josh (not very pro-
gun, as if you couldn't tell)

"Joshua Steinberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Sounds just as effective as carrying a gun to protect
against criminals (as gun owners and gun toters love to
do). The criminals don't know you have it, just as the
lion doesn't know, and the gun never gets brandished or
used. But it makes the gun-carrier feel better, despite
statistically reducing his safety. -- Josh (not very pro-
gun, as if you couldn't tell)

Liberal lies hard at work.

The truth, backed up by hard FBI statistics:
kc3.comCCWSTATS.htmlOpen ↗

"HardwareLust" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

The truth, backed up by hard FBI statistics:

Oh yes the FBI, clearly an accurate account. Let's just say
in recent months my faith in both the FBI and the CIA have
been severely shaken. I think the J. Edgar Hoover mentality
still walks the halls of the FBI. Credibility from the
president down.........

"HardwareLust" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Liberal lies hard at work.

The truth, backed up by hard FBI statistics:
kc3.comCCWSsTATS.htmlOpen ↗

More republican [censored]. Gee, that good 'ol FBI did so well
for us in the past with that "WMD" thing,I guess we could
NEVER doubt their word.

"HardwareLust" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"Joshua Steinberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message

Quoted message said:

Sounds just as effective as carrying a gun to protect
against criminals (as gun owners and gun toters love to
do). The criminals don't know you have it, just as the
lion doesn't know, and the gun never gets brandished or
used. But it makes the gun-carrier feel better, despite
statistically reducing his safety. -- Josh (not very pro-
gun, as if you couldn't tell)

Liberal lies hard at work.

The truth, backed up by hard FBI statistics:
kc3.comCCWSTATS.htmlOpen ↗

lol... ummm yeah... guns are the answer. More and more guns.
I'll go for the "liberal lies". Maybe you should take a look
at countries other than your own when regarding how
successful easy access to guns is. The murder rate involving
guns in the US is ridiculous. I won't even get into general
crime involving guns.

Then again, if you are the standard gun-loving "you can take
my gun when you can pry it out my my cold, dead fingers"
type of American, then any attitude that involves thinking
that perhaps everyone having guns in not the greatest idea
is "liberal lies" to you.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see putting other people
down constantly."

Quoted message said:

Well, I've given some serious thought to packing, as I
often run in the early morning aaalllll alone in the San
Gabriels, miles from nowhere. In the instant case, it
appears that the gun would have been useful. I would
*not* want to be in the same situation he was without a
weapon. What if

he

Quoted message said:

jogged down the path just a few seconds earlier...

An attack isn't always over instantly. Lots (well, several
I've read

about)

Quoted message said:

of people have fought with the lions. I read one harrowing
account of a

guy

Quoted message said:

who killed one with many blows to the head using a sharp
rock, and who was seriously injured in the process.
Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose. The trick is being
able to get to the gun or knife -- or rock -- quickly, and
not hurt yourself!

Overwhelmingly attacks occur to the back, back of the neck
or back of the head. You would have to be pretty damn
dexterous to be able to defend yourself against a 120
attacking puma from this vantage point. These things are
HUGE and designed for one purpose and one purpose only - to
KILL and eat stuff. Once it makes physical contact with you,
unless you are 250 pound guy (like one survivor was), or
lucky as hell (which the occasional survivor
is), you are gonna die. A gun, a knife, a big rock, ain't
gonna help you. But you know what? I would rather be
killed and eaten by a puma than die in a robbery attempt
by some big black guy named "Killah" wouldn't you?

Em who fortunately, has never had to make that choice.

".?." <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Liberal lies hard at work.

The truth, backed up by hard FBI statistics:
kc3.comCCWSsTATS.htmlOpen ↗

More republican [censored].

No support for your argument (see below), but you did raise
the rhetorical temperature ("[censored]" is far more macho and
dramatic than "lies"😉.

Quoted message said:

Gee, that good 'ol FBI did so well for us in the past with
that "WMD" thing,I guess we could NEVER doubt their word.

No, that was the CIA's area.

So what's your source that the FBI makes up crime
statitistics? Is such a conclusion supported by a
neutral analysts?

--Dan

"SwStudio" <[email hidden]> wrote

David,

You are a good runner and a good and generous guy, so I am
going to tell you some stuff you might not know.

Quoted message said:

Maybe you should take a look at countries other than your
own when regarding how successful easy access to guns is.

Every able bodied male in Switzerland is in the militia, and
is issued an actual fully-automatic assualt rifle, which he
must keep at home. The country is awash in guns. Shooting is
more popular than golf. I think you know where this is
going...SZ has less crime than England, where guns are very
hard to get. In 1993, not a single armed robbery was
reported in Geneva.

On the other side of the coin, Jamaica, Mexico and Peru have
very high murder rates, and very restrictive gun laws.
Jamaica's gun laws are very similar to England, but they
have *six* times the homicide rate we have here. Again it's
the drug/gang culture which is the problem--gun ownership is
rare (except among criminals).

Within the US, where there are more guns per capita, there
is less crime (after controlling for age, socio-economic
status). In fact, a well supported case can be made that
more guns = less crime (see the eponymous book). In states
where the law-abiding may carry guns, there is less crime
than states where they can't (again controlling for the
same factors).

Quoted message said:

The murder rate involving guns in the US is ridiculous.

Most murders in the US are within the gang/drug subculture
or committed by domestic abusers with arrest histories.
Outside of that lovely slice of humanity, US murder stats
are very low.

The US also has a built-in right to bear arms (second
Amendment, right after freedom of speech). Some say that
right makes us citizens, not subjects, and that a disarmed
society gives too much power to the government. Look up gun
confiscation in Turkey (Armenian genocide), Germany (you can
figure it out), Russia, China, and Cambodia prior to bad
things going down. Not a cause and effect relationship, to
be sure, but confiscation sets the conditions for gross
human rights violations.

Finally, in several areas of crime, US rates may be lower
here than in England. The Department of Justice in 1994
(Clinton era) concluded that England has higher rates of
crime in these areas: robbery1.4 times, assault
2.3 times, and burglary 1.7 times higher than in the US.
I've also read that Canada has higher rates in these
categories, especially in home-invasion robberies
(much less risky for the criminal if he knows you
don't have a gun).

Quoted message said:

Then again, if you are the standard gun-loving "you can
take my gun when you can pry it out my my cold, dead
fingers" type of American, then any attitude that involves
thinking that perhaps everyone having guns in not the
greatest idea is "liberal lies" to you.

First let me concede that the "cold, dead fingers" stuff is
pure Drama Queen. We agree that not "everyone" (criminals
and unstable types) should own guns (and can't legally). But
law abiding folks should be able to, that's all.

I'm prepared to debate the merits. But if the opposition
makes things up, I'll call them lies, just as you would.

Regards,

Dan

"SwStudio" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"HardwareLust" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"Joshua Steinberg" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message

Quoted message said:

Sounds just as effective as carrying a gun to protect
against criminals (as gun owners and gun toters love
to do). The criminals don't know you have it, just as
the lion doesn't know, and the gun never gets
brandished or used. But it makes the gun-carrier feel
better, despite statistically reducing his safety. --
Josh (not very pro-gun, as if you couldn't tell)

Liberal lies hard at work.

The truth, backed up by hard FBI statistics:
kc3.comCCWSTATS.htmlOpen ↗

lol... ummm yeah... guns are the answer. More and more
guns. I'll go for the "liberal lies". Maybe you should
take a look at countries other than your own when
regarding how successful easy access to guns is. The
murder rate involving guns in the US is ridiculous. I
won't even get into general crime involving guns.

Because you can't. David, you are SO full of [censored].

tkb

(.?.) said:

"HardwareLust" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Liberal lies hard at work.

The truth, backed up by hard FBI statistics:
kc3.comCCWSsTATS.htmlOpen ↗

More republican [censored]. Gee, that good 'ol FBI did so
well for us in the past with that "WMD" thing,I guess we
could NEVER doubt their word.

Yeah, the FBI is really pro-gun. Like at Waco, and with
Randy Weaver. Pro-gun activists, that's the FBI.

---
Bob

"Dan Stumpus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

"SwStudio" <[email hidden]> wrote

David,

You are a good runner and a good and generous guy, so I am
going to tell

you

Quoted message said:

some stuff you might not know.

Dan - you are a much better runner and I value your
posts. I hope my opinions here on this issue are not
taken with offence.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Maybe you should take a look at countries other than
your own when regarding how successful easy access to
guns is.

Every able bodied male in Switzerland is in the militia,
and is issued an actual fully-automatic assualt rifle,
which he must keep at home. The country is awash in guns.
Shooting is more popular than golf. I think

you

Quoted message said:

know where this is going...

<snip info>

I knew there would be exceptions, and perhaps more than that
- I believe that I was dismissive of the problems with
various culture, focusing on the guns themselves. I see your
point, but still believe having no guns is better than
having easy access, even if it seems that crime and murder
rates don't seem to support the case. Call it a gut feeling,
but I don't think everyone owning guns is a good thing.

In terms of gang situations, the guns should be removed, and
efforts should be made to give people who grow up in these
gun-infested neighbourhoods an alternative; an option, a way
out... like education or whatever. It sounds fanciful and I
know people already try to do this, but it's got to continue
in this direction. It's the only way. Continually escalating
people's ablility to arm themselves is not. The root of the
problem is social in nature, so it must be dealt with in the
social realm.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The murder rate involving guns in the US is ridiculous.

Most murders in the US are within the gang/drug subculture
or committed by domestic abusers with arrest histories.
Outside of that lovely slice of humanity, US murder stats
are very low.

I wasn't thinking the of the career or lifestyle of people
when I brought that point up. People killing each other is
people killing each other whether they are dentists or
druggies, but yeah, your point here seems to fall in line
with what I was trying to say earlier - and I suppose what
you are saying is that the people doing the killing are the
ones using illegal guns anyway - good point, but I could
counter that here in Canada the murder rate per capita, even
among gang members, is a lot lower. It's harder to get a gun
illegally when there aren't tons of legal ones around.

Quoted message said:

The US also has a built-in right to bear arms (second
Amendment, right

after

Quoted message said:

freedom of speech). Some say that right makes us citizens,
not subjects, and that a disarmed society gives too much
power to the government. Look

up

Quoted message said:

gun confiscation in Turkey (Armenian genocide), Germany
(you can figure

it

Quoted message said:

out), Russia, China, and Cambodia prior to bad things
going down. Not a cause and effect relationship, to be
sure, but confiscation sets the conditions for gross human
rights violations.

I'm sure I could name some countries with great records
and low gun use as well. Again, Canada's pretty tough on
guns and I don't think we'll be up for any gross human
rights violations soon. I don't think lack of guns in the
general poplace caused those crazy governments to do the
things they did.

Quoted message said:

Finally, in several areas of crime, US rates may be lower
here than in England. The Department of Justice in 1994
(Clinton era) concluded that England has higher rates of
crime in these areas: robbery1.4 times,

assault

Quoted message said:

2.3 times, and burglary 1.7 times higher than in the US.
I've also read that Canada has higher rates in these
categories, especially in home-invasion robberies (much
less risky for the criminal if he knows you don't have
a gun).

We have to agree to disagree, I suppose - your take is that
if people can't arm themselves they are possibly vulnerable
and more open to things like robbery; the governenment has
too much (potential) power; and the vast majority of the
crimes committed with guns are with illegal guns anyway
(gangs, etc). I think all these issues can be tackled
without resorting to the choice of "just allow everyone
guns" as the way to solve these issues.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Then again, if you are the standard gun-loving "you can
take my gun when you can pry it out my my cold, dead
fingers" type of American, then any attitude that
involves thinking that perhaps everyone having guns in
not the greatest idea is "liberal lies" to you.

First let me concede that the "cold, dead fingers" stuff
is pure Drama Queen. We agree that not "everyone"
(criminals and unstable types) should own guns (and
can't legally). But law abiding folks should be able to,
that's all.

I think it should be very hard to own a gun. I respect your
opinion, but I'm used to where I live and it just seems like
a better deal.

cheers,
--
David (in Hamilton, ON) www.allfalldown.org "The most
insecure people are the ones you see putting other people
down constantly."