Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => The Roundtable => Topic started by: Matthew Carberry on December 07, 2011, 02:17:57 PM
-
Not rabies or starving or emotionally deprived, just wolves being wolves.
The story
http://www.adn.com/2011/12/06/2205617/dna-samples-confirm-wolves-killed.html
The Fish and Feathers Report
http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/home/news/pdfs/wolfattackfatality.pdf
(I'm agin' the "kill 'em all" mindset but it sure is nice to slap a hippy in the face with reality once in a while.)
-
But
Grizzly bears wolves are just people with fur!
-
But Grizzly bears wolves are just people with fur!
Yep, which is why it's so silly to think they won't eat you like the furless people will. =)
-
Perhaps the nutball from NJ thinks the wolves will just need people avoidance training as well.
-
Uh? This isn't the first nor the third such incident in the United States.
El Comrade Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans) has a list.
-
Uh? This isn't the first nor the third such incident in the United States.
El Comrade Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans) has a list.
It is generally assumed to mean in the modern age. That last such incident in the United States not involving a pet is 1910 according to your link. (Also that "documented" is another weasel word.)
-
Uh? This isn't the first nor the third such incident in the United States.
El Comrade Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_attacks_on_humans) has a list.
You're a fer'ner so I'll fill in the blanks. ;)
The unspoken caveat(s) among the wolf-idiots here in the states is "documented as killed and eaten by wild, healthy, unprovoked wolves".
Not domesticated or habituated to being fed, not starving (invariably due to humans destroying nature somehow), and not injured or infected with rabies (or other diseases). They also discount reports that don't include ironclad proof from some "proper authority" of the above. Most of the wiki list attacks are "pets", habituated, or are from long enough ago to be untrustworthy as they come from a time when wolves were being systematically eradicated and were not "sufficiently documented" by trustworthy authorities.
You'll see that even in the comments to the current story, "the wolves could have just fed on the body, it doesn't mean they did the killing..."
@makattak - great, now I seem all wordy =D
-
You're a fer'ner so I'll fill in the blanks. ;)
The unspoken caveat(s) among the wolf-idiots here in the states is "documented as killed and eaten by wild, healthy, unprovoked wolves".
Yes, and "bears do not attack people".
Does anyone take these idiots seriously?
They're big predators. You are made of meat. Do the math.
-
Yes, and "bears do not attack people".
Does anyone take these idiots seriously?
They're big predators. You are made of meat. Do the math.
Yes. Some people take these idiots seriously.
They're the kind of people who think Bambi was a documentary, though.
-
Can't help but think that would be a horrible way to die.
-
Can't help but think that would be a horrible way to die.
I don't know if you've read any Jack London, but I think he correctly portrays just how terrible the fear leading up to the horrible death would be.
-
In countries with wolves where carrying a gun isn't an option, go jogging with your Caucasian Ovcharka I guess.
-
Ironically, the odds are indeed higher that the gun used for wolf protection will involve a lethal accidental discharge than the odds a wolf will kill you. If safety is your aim, proabably not the best way to go about it.
-
Ironically, the odds are indeed higher that the gun used for wolf protection will involve a lethal accidental discharge than the odds a wolf will kill you. If safety is your aim, proabably not the best way to go about it.
See if you can figure out why this is wrong.
-
See if you can figure out why this is wrong.
I've already shot a number of deer, snakes, coyotes, porcupines, and gophers without shooting myself yet.
-
Ironically, the odds are indeed higher that the gun used for wolf protection will involve a lethal accidental discharge than the odds a wolf will kill you. If safety is your aim, proabably not the best way to go about it.
Show your math.
There are only about 600 lethal accidental shootings in the US per year total, last I checked. Any occuring at home don't count for this comparison, nor those involving hunting accidents (as the weapon is not being primarily carried for predator protection), nor those occuring while carrying a gun primarily for protection against humans or in any areas where wolves are not present.
Hell, even granting you all instances of weapons being carried partly or mostly for wolf and bear and mountain lion protection, (since wolves don't exist anywhere one of the other two apex predators do not and no one carries "just for wolves" when bears or cats are also around), I'd say you'd be hard pressed to show an equivalence, much less a statistically significant higher level, of lethal misadventure than of successful use in defense, which is the proper comparison.
-
I've done lots of dangerous things without killing myself - not under the pretense of improving my safety, though. If a guy's actually worried about the risk of wolf attacks, he should probably be looking for a solution that overall lowers his risk of death...now if you like guns and want to spend time in nature dong things with them, taking one out (to wolf inhabited areas or elsewhere) is a smart move.
-
Show your math.
There are only about 600 lethal accidental shootings in the US per year total, last I checked. Any occuring at home don't count for this comparison, nor those involving hunting accidents (as the weapon is not being carried for predator protection), nor those occuring while carrying a gun for protection against humans or in any areas where wolves are not present.
Hell, even granting you weapons carried partly or mostly for wolf and bear and mountain lion protection, in places where one of those three predators live, I'd say you'd be hard pressed to show an equivilence, much less a statistically significant higher level of lethal misadventure than of successful use.
Uh, why don't accidents at home count? You would presumably need to keep the anti-wolf weapon at home...but anyway, how does 600 lethal accidents compare to the number of wolf caused deaths?
That's several thousand percentage points higher I'd wager
-
I've done lots of dangerous things without killing myself - not under the pretense of improving my safety, though. If a guy's actually worried about the risk of wolf attacks, he should probably be looking for a solution that overall lowers his risk of death...now if you like guns and want to spend time in nature dong things with them, taking one out (to wolf inhabited areas or elsewhere) is a smart move.
The thing is, using a gun is :
1) not dangerous (most of these 'gun accidents' are actually 'heinous gun stupidity')
2) useful against threats other than wolves.
The proper question is to measure the risk of gun accidents vs. the risks of all of the things a gun helps you to protect from (wolves, robbers, carjackers, rapists, terrorists).
Certainly if you know there are wolves or coyotes in your geographical area, carrying a gun not only makes sense, but is the solution recommedned by many experts.
-
Uh, why don't accidents at home count? You would presumably need to keep the anti-wolf weapon at home...but anyway, how does 600 lethal accidents compare to the number of wolf caused deaths?
That's several thousand percentage points higher I'd wager
Again, that isn't a valid nor useful comparison. The proper comparison is "number of lethal accidents occuring with guns being used for wolf (large predator) protection" to "number of successful uses of guns to defend against wolf (large predator) attack. That's apples to apples.
With your position you might as well compare "all accidents involving guns owned that might be used for protection against wolves" to "having trees fall on you in the woods" as far as relevence goes.
-
We all know that a Wolf can easily take the gun & use it on you itself, they're supposed to be smarter then tame dogs and every year there is a fresh case of a "domestic" dog "accidentally" shooting its master.
http://www.fox13now.com/news/kstu-shot-by-dog-dog-shoots-hunter-in-the-buttocks-20111130,0,7820602.story
-
Ironically, the odds are indeed higher that the gun used for wolf protection will involve a lethal accidental discharge than the odds a wolf will kill you. If safety is your aim, proabably not the best way to go about it.
Source citation, please?
-
Ironically, the odds are indeed higher that the gun used for wolf protection will involve a lethal accidental discharge than the odds a wolf will kill you. If safety is your aim, proabably not the best way to go about it.
"Mr. DeSelby, what you've just Posted... Is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
With apologies to "Billy Madison" =D
-
"Mr. DeSelby, what you've just Posted... Is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling, incoherent response, were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."
With apologies to "Billy Madison" =D
Like - With apologies to Facebook.
-
Can't help but think that would be a horrible way to die.
I agree.
The descriptions of what happened based upon the prints and blood that were found gave me the chills.
-
Well let's see, here's a chart that actually compares lifetime odds for unintentional deaths: [url]http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/Odds%20of%20Dying.pdf[I/url]
Lifetime odds of dying from animal bite (other than dogs): 1 in 56,602
Accidental shooting: 1 in 5,981
I doubt there have been enough animal attacks of any kind to have swayed those odds since 2006
If you factor in the odds that someone else with a gun will kill you intentionally, the wolves are starting to look fairly unimportant. This is hilarious - our love for guns demands that we deny they're dangerous in any way.
-
I don't think anyone is denying the potential dangers of firearms, particularly when mishandled which is the cause of the overwhelming majority of "accidental" shootings.
For myself I can't think of many(any?) situations where NOT having the means to adequate selfdefense would be the preferred condition.
-
Well let's see, here's a chart that actually compares lifetime odds for unintentional deaths: [url]http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/Odds%20of%20Dying.pdf[I/url]
Lifetime odds of dying from animal bite (other than dogs): 1 in 56,602
Accidental shooting: 1 in 5,981
I doubt there have been enough animal attacks of any kind to have swayed those odds since 2006
If you factor in the odds that someone else with a gun will kill you intentionally, the wolves are starting to look fairly unimportant. This is hilarious - our love for guns demands that we deny they're dangerous in any way.
What do the odds someone else with a gun will kill me intentionally have to do with the decision to carry a gun myself?
Carrying a gun yourself does not become more dangerous because other people might shoot you with their own guns.
-
Well let's see, here's a chart that actually compares lifetime odds for unintentional deaths: [url]http://www.nsc.org/news_resources/injury_and_death_statistics/Documents/Odds%20of%20Dying.pdf[I/url]
Lifetime odds of dying from animal bite (other than dogs): 1 in 56,602
Accidental shooting: 1 in 5,981
I doubt there have been enough animal attacks of any kind to have swayed those odds since 2006
If you factor in the odds that someone else with a gun will kill you intentionally, the wolves are starting to look fairly unimportant. This is hilarious - our love for guns demands that we deny they're dangerous in any way.
Number of firearms in the United States: over 200 million privately held. Add in those held by police and the military, we are near to 1 gun per person in the United States. (That's over 300,000,000)
Number of wolves in the United States? Over 11,000. (And lets add in Bears and cougars: ~500,000) So we have around 500,000 dangerous animals and 300,000,000 firearms. That's 600 guns to every 1 dangerous animal.
Now, what are the odds of a specific firearm killing you versus a specific wolf killing you?
Your point may have been correct had you said you are more likely to die from SOME gun killing you than from SOME wolf killing you. However, you did not say that. You said the gun that you carry (as in that specific gun) was more likely to kill you than a (as in any random) wolf. That is blatantly false.
-
I don't think anyone is denying the potential dangers of firearms, particularly when mishandled which is the cause of the overwhelming majority of "accidental" shootings.
For myself I can't think of many(any?) situations where NOT having the means to adequate selfdefense would be the preferred condition.
This.
-
Statistically, car owners are more likely to be killed in a car wreck than they are to use the car to escape from a pack of wolves.
Therefore, if you want to escape from wolves, there are safer ways than buying a car.
:lol:
-
Tall Pine beat me to it. I was going to use the comparison that since a measurable number of people have been beat to death by fire extinguishers, keeping one to protect against a single type of fire, say bacon grease flare ups, is false security.
You are ignoring the other uses for the tools in both instances.
-
when attacked by a wolf, drown yourself in a bucket
it's the only way to save the statistics.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgooglepixel.com%2Fpictars%2Fbuffalooooo.gif&hash=8dacb4a43a6c60d265957969dc134a95eb880580)
-
Maybe we need to merge this thread with the one about the naked 300 # body builder. [popcorn]
-
Maybe we need to merge this thread with the one about the naked 300 # body builder. [popcorn]
My money's on the wolves in that fight. One wolf versus roid boy, though, I might have to go with roid boy.
-
Insert Quote
Quote from: Jocassee on December 07, 2011, 09:28:30 PM
Can't help but think that would be a horrible way to die.
I agree.
The descriptions of what happened based upon the prints and blood that were found gave me the chills.
Timmy Treadwell reportedly said "it would be an honor to be eaten by a Grizzly" but when that honor occurred he tried to have his girlfriend bash the Grizz with a frying pan ;/
-
Timmy Treadwell reportedly said "it would be an honor to be eaten by a Grizzly" but when that honor occurred he tried to have his girlfriend bash the Grizz with a frying pan ;/
Yes, I remember that.
I guess he didn't plan on the part where the bear had to kill him first.
Poor guy & girlfriend.
Now I'm off to read about "'Roid Boy"....BRB
-
Statistically, car owners are more likely to be killed in a car wreck than they are to use the car to escape from a pack of wolves.
Therefore, if you want to escape from wolves, there are safer ways than buying a car.
:lol:
More to the point - statistically, car drivers are more likely to be killed by an airbag than motorcycle riders. Can you imagine the laugh we'd be having if someone posted a thread about an airbag death, and then said "well, I'm getting that bike licence for sure now!"
The gun will do you well for other things, but it's silly to relate itntodefense from wolves.
-
More to the point - statistically, car drivers are more likely to be killed by an airbag than motorcycle riders. Can you imagine the laugh we'd be having if someone posted a thread about an airbag death, and then said "well, I'm getting that bike licence for sure now!"
The gun will do you well for other things, but it's silly to relate itntodefense from wolves.
Are you ignoring Makattak's point on purpose?
-
Wait - I'm carrying a gun (or several) for defense against cougars, bears, and two-legged snakes, but I should not draw it if I'm attacked by a wolf because I might shoot myself ???
:P
-
My hatred of fairy tales started with Peter and the Wolf.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_and_the_Wolf
In the story's ending, the listener is told that "if you listen very carefully, you'd hear the duck quacking inside the wolf's belly, because the wolf in his hurry had swallowed her alive."
"But Mommy, wouldn't the wolf's digestive juices have killed the duck anyhow?"
"Hush up. It's only a story. Go to your room now."
"And what about Jonah and the whale..." <SLAP!>
"I TOLD you to go to your room!"
I'm not signing this one so nobody will know who posted it.
-
when attacked by a wolf, drown yourself in a bucket
it's the only way to save the statistics.
(https://armedpolitesociety.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fgooglepixel.com%2Fpictars%2Fbuffalooooo.gif&hash=8dacb4a43a6c60d265957969dc134a95eb880580)
And remember, you do not have to run faster than the wolves, just faster than your buddy you knock over. That's some serious Blue Falcon material right there.
-
More to the point - statistically, car drivers are more likely to be killed by an airbag than motorcycle riders. Can you imagine the laugh we'd be having if someone posted a thread about an airbag death, and then said "well, I'm getting that bike licence for sure now!"
The gun will do you well for other things, but it's silly to relate itntodefense from wolves.
BTW, where in the post did anyone, who doesn't already own a gun, discuss acquiring one solely for the purpose of protection from wolves? Which is, by the way, the gun equivalent of your car/motorcycle example.
And, again, you are not comparing apples to apples. You can't, with any useful meaning statistically, compare the risks of mere "ownership of a gun" for any and all purposes with "risk of death in animal attacks". That comparison, made that way, invalidates any risk placed in the second position as the likelihood for the majority of gun owners of any even experiencing any given individual threat one might be armed against, much less die from, even combined, are statistically infinitesmal.
Try this hypothesis, controlling for other variables, car drivers in accidents where airbags could have made a difference are statistically less likely to die in that collision than drivers of cars without airbags in the exact same situation.
For animal attacks it would be, controlling for other variables (such as hunting, during which the hunter is typically not armed solely for the purpose of animal protection, and, once the prey animal is down, has changed the circumstances and likelihood of a large predator encounter) those who enter areas where large predators exist and are armed for the purpose of defense against such animal attacks are less likely to be killed in such an attack than those not armed in the same situation.
Those are statistically meaningful comparisons to make and test.
-
Wait - I'm carrying a gun (or several) for defense against cougars, bears, and two-legged snakes, but I should not draw it if I'm attacked by a wolf because I might shoot myself ???
:P
Tallpine, you're missing the obvious!! The Wolf is going to take your gun away from you & then use it against you.
-
Are you ignoring Makattak's point on purpose?
It's OK, he does that to everyone.
-
That's one smart buffalo...knock your little friend down so the wolves eat him.
"(I'm agin' the "kill 'em all" mindset but it sure is nice to slap a hippy in the face with reality once in a while.)"
I'm thinking once just got smacked ...by wolves. A tragedy for sure...but the outcome isn't that surprising. I'm not a hippie...but I don't think wiping wolves out is a good response to a very naive person running alone, unarmed, while listening to her Ipod, in the middle of Alaska.
-
That's one smart buffalo...knock your little friend down so the wolves eat him.
"(I'm agin' the "kill 'em all" mindset but it sure is nice to slap a hippy in the face with reality once in a while.)"
I'm thinking once just got smacked ...by wolves. A tragedy for sure...but the outcome isn't that surprising. I'm not a hippie...but I don't think wiping wolves out is a good response to a very naive person running alone, unarmed, while listening to her Ipod, in the middle of Alaska.
true enough, but you can be safe in Alaska-just find some one like her to jog with! :angel:
-
That's one smart buffalo...knock your little friend down so the wolves eat him.
"(I'm agin' the "kill 'em all" mindset but it sure is nice to slap a hippy in the face with reality once in a while.)"
I'm thinking once just got smacked ...by wolves. A tragedy for sure...but the outcome isn't that surprising. I'm not a hippie...but I don't think wiping wolves out is a good response to a very naive person running alone, unarmed, while listening to her Ipod, in the middle of Alaska.
The wolves just need to be taught that the two-legged naked bears aren't safe to play with ;)
-
If you ask me, the big buff was knowingly doing the little buff a favor. ;)
-
What? By ramming him in the gonads before he get's eaten alive by wolves? :laugh:
-
Stunning it? Rendering it unconscious? Killing it outright? Not sure but it's obvious the wolves have it, the big buff made it quick and relatively painless rather than it be torn apart fully aware. I do tend to give animals more credit for having a higher intelligence than most people would think. Actually, I give animals credit for having a higher intelligence than most people these days. :lol:
Present company excluded of course. Well, except for Fistful. ;)
-
The wolves just need to be taught that the two-legged naked bears aren't safe to play with ;)
Depends on the two-legged naked bear..... ;)
-
Depends on the two-legged naked bear..... ;)
Some people don't tread well in bear country ;/
-
Some people don't tread well in bear country ;/
I see what you did there..... ;)
-
Maybe the little guy was just the herd smartass.
-
Maybe the little guy was just the herd smartass.
:lol:
Actually, it's more likely the big buffalo was aiming for the wolves and either missed or didn't know the other bison was there. Big herbivores like that are often nearsighted and can't see worth a damn.