[at-l] weight/use efficiency & Guns

[shane@theplacewithnoname.com (Shane Steinkamp)]

> I guess my question for Shane is whether the
> incidences on the AT which
> are even close to life threatening, in which a
> gun would prevent such
> from occurring, would even be vaguely close to an
> efficient use of
> carrying the weight.  Obviously, for me, having
> section hiked 1,200
> miles of the AT from Springer to Port Clinton, PA
> so far, I don't think
> so.

I've decided to respond to Phil, since he's one of the few I
haven't received snipe mail from - and he's actually been
nice while asking meaningful questions and making meaningful
responses.  I am very sorry to have brought this topic to
the list.  I'm new here, and evidently this is a topic that
has already been hashed, the anti-gun people coming out on
top.  Sorry folks, I guess I'm a sucker.

Anyway, Phil makes a good point, and to answer his question
meaningfully:  Is the statistically remote possibility of
needing a gun on the AT worth carrying the weight of a
firearm?  I am very sure of the answer, and the answer is
NO.  It isn't worth the weight.

Looking at a simple survey in British Colombia, over the
course of 18 years 88 people were killed (10) or injured
(78) by black bears.  Even so, I am more likely to be struck
by lightning than be attacked by a black bear in BC.

If I looked only at statistics, however, I wouldn't
recommend that police officers wear ballistic vests,
either - since being shot is actually a statistical rarity
and so they aren't worth the expense or discomfort.
Interestingly enough, I am helping a friend prepare his
lesson plan for a law enforcing training conference in
Anchorage, Alaska.  One of our areas of focus is trying to
defeat the, "It will never happen to me." mindset.

So, no, it isn't worth the weight, but it's worth my life.
To answer some of the snipe, I am not afraid and I do not
feel inadequate.  I filter my water when other people choose
not to.  It's a safety thing, not a security thing.

> I haven't hiked in Alaska, though, so I don't have
> that experience to
> give me a preconceived notion of how dangerous
> the AT might be.  I would
> defer to your judgment, however, in carrying a
> rifle, or whatever, in
> an Alaska hike.

It's interesting to me that a polar bear will kill you for
no reason.  Not because he's hungry, or hunting you, or
anything vicious.  He'll follow you and kill you because he
doesn't know what you are and is curious to find out.  I've
never had the experience, but I understand that if a polar
bear starts stalking you, you'd better be prepared to face
him because he'll catch you eventually if you don't get out
of his territory.  What you have in your pack is very
definitely dependent on where you are.

Frankly, I'm a little amazed at some of the response.  HYOH
doesn't seem to apply to this topic.  I pack my own pack,
and I pack my own parachute.  I also carry the miserable SOB
for many miles.  If I see some wildlife (or wild human life)
attacking someone on the trail (or off it), I suppose I'll
have to ask them if they think it would be all right for me
to use my weapon before I help them...

On the opposite end of the spectrum, I would like to ask
this question:  If I told you that next year you will
definitely be attacked by an angry bear (moose, alligator,
insert other angry, or even not so angry wildlife here)
while hiking, would you take a weapon or not?  What if you
had your kids with you?

Shane