"According to Iditarod Rule 34, if an edible big game animal — like a moose, caribou or buffalo — is killed in defense of life or property, the musher is required to gut the animal and report it to race officials at the next checkpoint. Mushers who follow must help gut the animal when possible and no teams may pass until the animal is gutted and the musher gutting the animal has proceeded."
The 1904 Olympic marathon had a South African runner, one of the first black participants, lose partially because they were chased a mile off course by a pack of wild dogs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Len_Taunyane
> The actual winner, Thomas Hicks, was near collapse and hallucinating when he crossed the finish line, a side effect of being administered brandy, raw eggs, and strychnine by his trainers.
This was, presumably, before they'd really figured out how to do doping.
> When he reached the stadium, his support team carried him over the line, holding him in the air while he shuffled his feet as if still running.[6] Hicks had to be carried off the track on a stretcher, and might have died in the stadium had he not been treated by four doctors. He lost eight pounds during the course of the marathon.
In sailing, boats are required to render help to a boat that is in problems, before continuing their race. Boats that render help are compensated for the loss in position/time in the race afterwards, by a jury.
This is generally just a de jure rule, very very rarely put into practice. In the vast majority of races, there are enough motorized “race committee” boats which render aid where needed, so the other racing sailboats wouldn’t be much help and don’t need to stop.
Long-distance coastal or offshore races it would be somewhat more likely as race committee boats generally are only at the beginning and end of the race. But even then, after hailing mayday, a good samaritan motorboat is far more likely to reach you first than one of your sailing competitors.
It's not so uncommon, I was just reading about Kristen Neuschafer and Yannick Bestaven who both rescued fellow competitors in solo races. Both happened in the last couple years.
In the hundreds of sailboat races I’ve been in, I’ve not seen it happen once. The race committee boats help someone out nearly every other race, but I’ve never seen another racer stop to render aid. It’s not callous, it’s just their help isn’t needed.
It really is very rare. But then so is gutting a moose during a sled dog race.
I have done quite a few long coastal and bluewater international races. I do agree with you, but again, the participating sailboats usually get very far apart relatively early on.
It's illegal in Alaska to waste meat of big wild game animals because it's a form of food waste otherwise.
> If no attempt is made to salvage meat, the minimum fine is $2,000 and 7 days in jail. The more egregious charge, of wanton waste, carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $10,000 fine.
thers not so mucha worry of wolves as much as feral dog packs, bears are a concern, and it becomes an issue when winter kills thaw out and they are too close, they have to be buried or trucked out away from homes.
we even try to salvage meat, from roadkills but thats often futile if its been too long or the digestive organs are damaged.
Most likely it got tangled after attacking. Moose are well known for being heavily biased into the "fight" portion of fight/flight/freeze. They have horrible eyesight, so they are easy to "startle", resulting in a very sudden outbreak of ~500kg's of violence.
A bunch of dogs and a sled speeding around is definitely a good way to provoke one.
Honestly, it had not occurred to me that Europe even had moose species. I can't think of a time I've ever seen one in europeon media (not that I'm exposed to that much of it). I grew up in michigan, having done various camping trips there and in canada. Large animal related safety was impressed on us, and moose attacks do appear in the news.
But yes, if you see a moose, stay the hell away. If you see a calf, get the hell away faster (before mom finds you).
To be clear, while I wouldn't call them docile, moose aren't really stalking around for fresh victims. But there are things which can instantly set them off and it's best not to roll those dice if you can avoid it because they straight up aren't afraid of you.
Reading the above, it seems they do have a special hatred of dogs though.
It's possible you may be mixing them up with elk, which do have a healthy fear of people and dogs, and would certainly make me question my ears if I heard that one had attacked a bobsled.
Yeah stay away from moose, they are friendly enough when lying down drunk on fermented apples in the yard, but if you come between a mom and a calf when walking in the forest you may be in a world of pain. Yes, they do attack dogs that become a nuisance.
Source: The huge beasts that live in our neighbourhood forest in southeastern Norway
Growing up we had a dog, and once our dog went after a big moose in the yard. The moose turned and tore after our dog, who stumbled or fell over himself in terror - the moose was running so fast that it jumped over our dog, who was unharmed (physically, at least).
I’ve lived around moose most of my life and don’t mind getting close, but you have to read their body language.
It’s not unheard of, though not common. There was an incident a couple years ago where a musher, not during the Iditarod iirc, had to shoot a moose. She could not down it despite emptying her gun into it. She managed to cut some of her dogs loose, but the rest were basically hostages. It’s horrific what can happen! That moose stayed close by and attacked off and on for an extended time before she could get help. (Source: https://m.facebook.com/koahteam/posts/this-has-been-the-most... ). I’m glad Seavey was able to dispatch this one without further harm.
As a sort of PSA: moose are frankly more likely to attack if you have a dog. It’s honestly a risk factor for being attacked by a moose here in Alaska for much of the year (besides the presence of calves, of course). They have strong instincts against anything reading like a wolf. Moreover, they are more likely to opt for fight over flight when in deeper snow because it is tiring to traverse and they won’t be able to run as well. They’re exhausted, grumpy, desperate.
Many have probably been hassled by all the unleashed dogs running around. Then they see a human with a dog and think you're coming back for more, so it sets them off.
I met a guy whose dogs had been killed by a moose during the Iditarod. My understanding is you generally give them a wide berth if possible as they can be very dangerous.
> Seavey said he was mushing down a hill and around a blind corner when most of his team passed by the moose. He had to scramble to get his gun, a .357-caliber revolver he keeps in a pouch at the top of his sled bag.
> “I didn’t get it out until the moose was all the way to the back of the team. Right about that time, I thought, ‘This thing might just walk right by us.’ I mean, it was touching the dogs,” Seavey said. “And then all of a sudden it just started kicking.”
> Seavey shot the moose once at first, and the sound of the gunshot startled his dogs, causing them to lurch and pull the sled forward. Then he shot the moose four more times in the head, and it fell, first on his sled, then in the middle of the trail, he said.
> One of his dogs, Faloo, had been running in the wheel position, closest to the sled, and got the worst of the kicking, Seavey said. The 5-year-old dog had to be flown from the next checkpoint to Anchorage, where veterinarians were caring for her.
> One of his dogs, Faloo [who got the worst kicking from the moose] had to be flown from the next checkpoint to Anchorage, where veterinarians were caring for her.
Come on, the moose is obviously not a psychopath for doing this. He’s a prey animal and is simply reacting to a perceived threat, a whole bunch of very close relatives to his own arch predator. He can’t help that he doesn’t understand the concept of a race.
Don't off-body carry. Or if you do, have an on-body pistol (in this situation, 10mm, ammo loaded to full pressure, pretty long barrel), and a rifle off-body.
Edit: off-body weapons can be used against you pretty easily, or you can forget them/get separated. It's a relatively uncontroversial point, except in the military, and even then my advise was eventually followed in Afghanistan.
Edit 2: oh yeah, he used 5 rounds, pretty good evidence for having a semi-automatic like a 10mm.
>off-body weapons can be used against you pretty easily
Somehow I don't think the giant ruminant is capable of firing a firearm. This race takes place in one of the most remote places on the planet. The firearm was for survival situations like this.
Yeah, I was suggesting in general. I don't want to single out women (anyone can have the problem, including people in a professional military), but carrying a gun in a purse is not usually a good idea. I'd go as far as saying that if I don't know your scenario it probably has negative expected value.
I am curious if carrying at all on average has a negative or positive expected value. I know firearm companies love to talk about stories of it saving a life, but I wonder how many times it unnecessarily escalates a situation and causes additional harm to the carrier. My gut feel is carrying is negative on average, with enough positive anecdotes to make it seem good.
For most people I think it matters if you think probabilistic deterrence is a real thing or not. Think about it like this, do you vote, even if your vote has almost zero chance of changing the outcome by normal lights?
I think you would want to factor in to your gut feel the deterrent effect conferred by the increased likelihood that possible victim targets are armed even if they aren't.
Increased gun prevalence is a strong incentive to escalate (and by "escalate" I mean someone getting killed in a situation where it would not be necessary or helpful for ANYONE involved), even if only one party is armed. It does not even matter which "side":
Police, criminals and victims are all more likely to fire because of perceived threat (compared to nations where it is vanishingly unlikely for anyone to be armed with a firearm).
For context, I'm something of an absolutist about arms and self defense; I could probably count on one hand the number of times I've been completely disarmed in the past decade.
That said, I also strive to be as introspective as possible and enjoy challenging my own biases.
> I am curious if carrying at all on average has a negative or positive expected value.
I've read studies showing both positive and negative net value, so it's not exactly clear from a data standpoint.
Anecdotally, I'd say it's highly dependent upon the person. I tend to avoid situations with the potential for escalation, and see the use of a firearm (to include brandishing, or even implying to the other party that I am armed) as an absolute last resort. In my mind, there is exactly one reason to employ a firearm against a person: to defend human life in a situation where deadly force has already been introduced by a hostile party.
I argue that someone who is predisposed to seeing a firearm as a means to force their will on others is going to be the type of person who would do so anyhow, and who is accustomed to being able to do so due to their physical stature relative to the people around them. They are also not the type to carry whether or not their actions are legal or ethical.
On the other hand, the type of person that buys a gun, trains to some degree, and spends the time and money to learn to be comfortable carrying it in public is not interested in hurting anyone.
> I wonder how many times it unnecessarily escalates a situation and causes additional harm to the carrier.
I'm 100% certain that it happens. The real world is chaotic, and outcomes aren't clear. Every action you take - and every time you choose inaction - is a roll of the dice. You can't know the outcome with certainty beforehand, and you can't know the outcome after the fact if you had made different decisions.
To put it in D&D terms, someone threatening you with a knife has rolled a d6, with the stakes being your life. Drawing a firearm on that person is like rolling a d20 with those same stakes. It's absolutely not a guarantee of the outcome you wnat - but it heavily influences the odds.
> My gut feel is carrying is negative on average, with enough positive anecdotes to make it seem good.
I can think of a few circumstances where a rational person with a firearm could end up in a situation worse than if they did not have it. I can think of more (but still not many) where it could improve things.
The vast majority of the time, the other person is never aware of its presence. The fact that you, as the carrier, are aware tends to cause you to recognize situations for what they really are. That influences your thinking about it.
I would never, under any circumstances, "fight" someone while carrying. I'm a 6'2" guy who is at least moderately capable of defending myself, but the only way someone would be able to get me to employ force is if they leave no other option available to me.
In my experience, this is the way the _vast_ majority of people who carry firearms for defense think about things.
> I can think of a few circumstances where a rational person with a firearm could end up in a situation worse than if they did not have it
I think this is dangerous framing. My personal impression is that every single person stops acting rationally when enough pressure is applied, and this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations.
For me, the biggest numerical contributor to negative value from firearm carry would be escalation of e.g. relationships arguments, or desperation/depression turning into murder-suicide or simply accidents.
I think its impossible to prevent those by selectively granting concealed carry permits or whatever, I believe that they outweight the positive outcomes where a firearm allows you to kill or fend off an aggressor.
But I still think that you should have the right to carry even if its mostly net-negative...
> My personal impression is that every single person stops acting rationally when enough pressure is applied, and this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations.
As you might imagine, I've had this discussion many, many times over the years. This is the most common opposed argument by far. I believe it reveals more about the person making it than anything else - which, to be clear, is not in any way intended to be an insult or a slight.
I've come to the conclusion that people handle stress in very different ways. For me, if I'm in under critical stress, I "go cold". It's not that I don't have emotions - they're there, and I'm aware of them, it's just that they feel like just another data point to me at the time. It's as if I defer processing them until the crisis has passed.
Maybe that's an extreme example of my own ADHD mind, or maybe it's a genetic thing that gives some evolutionary advantage. I honestly don't know.
What I do know is that I've been depressed in the past to the point that I earnestly just wanted to die. I had access to many firearms during that time and I never once had the urge to turn one on myself.
> this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations.
I accept that this is a real issue for some people. I don't have any data to even begin to have a feel for whether that's the vast majority of people or a tiny minority. Intuitively, it must not be "the vast majority" in the US, or there would be a lot more murders and suicides than there are.
> For me, the biggest numerical contributor to negative value from firearm carry would be escalation of e.g. relationships arguments, or desperation/depression turning into murder-suicide or simply accidents.
For me and everyone I know personally, it's the opposite - having the real capability to escalate a disagreement to a lethal outcome causes people to be unwilling to allow those disagreements to get heated.
I'll be the first to say that this could be selection bias.
I can only speak really vouch for my own experience. While I could refer to studies that have been published on defensive gun use to support my position, it would be equally easy to point to studies that show the opposite. That conversation always devolves into comparing the minutiae of their respective methodologies, which isn't helpful in this context.
---
For what it's worth, I recognize that I feel very strongly about this topic. I believe that every adult should have the ability to defend themselves with the most effective weapons possible for that purpose. While I believe that is a strong net positive for society, my position is deontological; the "net benefit" isn't actually relevant to why I hold the right to be absolute.
I like to be challenged on my beliefs. I don't hold them unless I believe I understand the arguments of those who hold opposing views: "iron sharpens iron".
About half of the time these discussions end with both of us gaining a slightly better understanding of each other's views. I think that's great. Sometimes they end when the other party gets heated about it. I disengage in those cases, as it's not my intention to invoke anger.
I _have_ changed my beliefs in the past as I've gained understanding about things. I've managed to change a mind or two over the years as well (though that's sadly rare).
Now that I think about it... this sort of thing is the closest I'm willing to get to mutual combat :)
This thread has been great so far. Let me know if you want to talk about economics or religion sometime!
It's not ADHD. I don't have ADHD but still think very similarly to you. I certainly get emotional, often way too emotional, in inappropriate situations, but for one reason or another, my response to acute stress and crisis situations is absolute calm. I've also been suicidal with access to firearms but recognized the feeling for it is and knew from past experience it was going to pass. I guess that's getting a bit meta about feelings, but it's how I cope with bad stuff in general. It's happened before and I got through it before. So when it happens again, my learned insinct is I'll get through it again and I don't panic.
In any case, I agree this is a great thread but the initial question you were responding to I think is asked in error. The "average" situation doesn't exist. Each person is a person. Should you personally own a firearm or carry one in any given situation? I obviously can't tell you the answer, but I can tell you the answer shouldn't depend on what the answer is on average. At some point, you're going to die, and it's very likely that, when it happens, there will be at least one thing you could have done differently that might have extended your life a little bit. By all means, avoid the obvious unnecessary risks, but you shouldn't live like a min-max video game speedrunner trying to micro-optimize every decision you ever make based on its expected contribution to your lifespan or healthspan. Try to get the obvious, well-known, big rocks right. On everything else, you're going to make mistakes. One of them will probably kill you. Make peace with that and live anyway.
This guy was not hunting. Hunting puts weird restrictions on firearms and ammo, but you don't have to follow them for self defense. It's only a moose that I'm talking about for 10mm, good quality 9mm defensive ammunition is good against pretty much everything else in North America, except some large bears.
A moose once came to our front door and stuck his head in, on my birthday to boot. Never had that happen! He was super chill, too. But when he started pushing in, me and my dad had to lean on the door. But I doubt we’d have been able to stop him had he really tried.
Nice to see that the dog made it. It's not long ago that the dog would have certainly been shot on the spot as well.
Conventional wisdom says not to treat working dogs as pets because it makes them soft, but in the experience of both hunters and mushers that I know, the stronger the bond with the dog, the better the dog performs. I wonder if the same may be true of code monkeys.
He used a handgun! The only time I've been close to a moose 1 - it looked like a Chevy Suburban on stilts and 2 - I hoped it didn't see me or didn't care.
I was relieved when it just continued on its way as if I didn't exist.
82 comments
[ 4.3 ms ] story [ 172 ms ] threadDoes this rule exist in any other sports?
https://archive.ph/gyruI
Let a herd of feral camels or pigs or what have you loose at the start of the archery and the javelin.
Gold medal comes with a side of ribs!
The entire race was bonkers, I like fourth place having taken a nap after eating rotten apples he stole from an orchard. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athletics_at_the_1904_Summer_O...
This was, presumably, before they'd really figured out how to do doping.
They didn't.
You don't think people gave more of a shit about athlete lives, comfort, and longevity then, than now?
In sailing, boats are required to render help to a boat that is in problems, before continuing their race. Boats that render help are compensated for the loss in position/time in the race afterwards, by a jury.
Long-distance coastal or offshore races it would be somewhat more likely as race committee boats generally are only at the beginning and end of the race. But even then, after hailing mayday, a good samaritan motorboat is far more likely to reach you first than one of your sailing competitors.
It really is very rare. But then so is gutting a moose during a sled dog race.
Or do. Not my problem!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_34
> If no attempt is made to salvage meat, the minimum fine is $2,000 and 7 days in jail. The more egregious charge, of wanton waste, carries a maximum penalty of one year in jail and a $10,000 fine.
https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/index.cfm?adfg=hunting.meatcare
we even try to salvage meat, from roadkills but thats often futile if its been too long or the digestive organs are damaged.
Just reading the headline it sounded like the moose attacked, which sounded strange.
A bunch of dogs and a sled speeding around is definitely a good way to provoke one.
But yes, if you see a moose, stay the hell away. If you see a calf, get the hell away faster (before mom finds you). To be clear, while I wouldn't call them docile, moose aren't really stalking around for fresh victims. But there are things which can instantly set them off and it's best not to roll those dice if you can avoid it because they straight up aren't afraid of you.
https://coloradooutdoorsmag.com/2018/10/15/moose-attacks/
https://www.wildlifexteam.com/about/blog/moose-attacks-more-...
Reading the above, it seems they do have a special hatred of dogs though.
It's possible you may be mixing them up with elk, which do have a healthy fear of people and dogs, and would certainly make me question my ears if I heard that one had attacked a bobsled.
Source: The huge beasts that live in our neighbourhood forest in southeastern Norway
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-fCBcgDq4Y
I’ve lived around moose most of my life and don’t mind getting close, but you have to read their body language.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hippopotamuses_in_Colombia
The plural of moose is meese, similar to goose -> geese.
As a sort of PSA: moose are frankly more likely to attack if you have a dog. It’s honestly a risk factor for being attacked by a moose here in Alaska for much of the year (besides the presence of calves, of course). They have strong instincts against anything reading like a wolf. Moreover, they are more likely to opt for fight over flight when in deeper snow because it is tiring to traverse and they won’t be able to run as well. They’re exhausted, grumpy, desperate.
> Seavey said he was mushing down a hill and around a blind corner when most of his team passed by the moose. He had to scramble to get his gun, a .357-caliber revolver he keeps in a pouch at the top of his sled bag.
> “I didn’t get it out until the moose was all the way to the back of the team. Right about that time, I thought, ‘This thing might just walk right by us.’ I mean, it was touching the dogs,” Seavey said. “And then all of a sudden it just started kicking.”
> Seavey shot the moose once at first, and the sound of the gunshot startled his dogs, causing them to lurch and pull the sled forward. Then he shot the moose four more times in the head, and it fell, first on his sled, then in the middle of the trail, he said.
> One of his dogs, Faloo, had been running in the wheel position, closest to the sled, and got the worst of the kicking, Seavey said. The 5-year-old dog had to be flown from the next checkpoint to Anchorage, where veterinarians were caring for her.
1: https://www.adn.com/outdoors-adventure/iditarod/2024/03/05/a...
> One of his dogs, Faloo [who got the worst kicking from the moose] had to be flown from the next checkpoint to Anchorage, where veterinarians were caring for her.
Edit: off-body weapons can be used against you pretty easily, or you can forget them/get separated. It's a relatively uncontroversial point, except in the military, and even then my advise was eventually followed in Afghanistan.
Edit 2: oh yeah, he used 5 rounds, pretty good evidence for having a semi-automatic like a 10mm.
Somehow I don't think the giant ruminant is capable of firing a firearm. This race takes place in one of the most remote places on the planet. The firearm was for survival situations like this.
Increased gun prevalence is a strong incentive to escalate (and by "escalate" I mean someone getting killed in a situation where it would not be necessary or helpful for ANYONE involved), even if only one party is armed. It does not even matter which "side":
Police, criminals and victims are all more likely to fire because of perceived threat (compared to nations where it is vanishingly unlikely for anyone to be armed with a firearm).
That said, I also strive to be as introspective as possible and enjoy challenging my own biases.
> I am curious if carrying at all on average has a negative or positive expected value.
I've read studies showing both positive and negative net value, so it's not exactly clear from a data standpoint.
Anecdotally, I'd say it's highly dependent upon the person. I tend to avoid situations with the potential for escalation, and see the use of a firearm (to include brandishing, or even implying to the other party that I am armed) as an absolute last resort. In my mind, there is exactly one reason to employ a firearm against a person: to defend human life in a situation where deadly force has already been introduced by a hostile party.
I argue that someone who is predisposed to seeing a firearm as a means to force their will on others is going to be the type of person who would do so anyhow, and who is accustomed to being able to do so due to their physical stature relative to the people around them. They are also not the type to carry whether or not their actions are legal or ethical.
On the other hand, the type of person that buys a gun, trains to some degree, and spends the time and money to learn to be comfortable carrying it in public is not interested in hurting anyone.
> I wonder how many times it unnecessarily escalates a situation and causes additional harm to the carrier.
I'm 100% certain that it happens. The real world is chaotic, and outcomes aren't clear. Every action you take - and every time you choose inaction - is a roll of the dice. You can't know the outcome with certainty beforehand, and you can't know the outcome after the fact if you had made different decisions.
To put it in D&D terms, someone threatening you with a knife has rolled a d6, with the stakes being your life. Drawing a firearm on that person is like rolling a d20 with those same stakes. It's absolutely not a guarantee of the outcome you wnat - but it heavily influences the odds.
> My gut feel is carrying is negative on average, with enough positive anecdotes to make it seem good.
I can think of a few circumstances where a rational person with a firearm could end up in a situation worse than if they did not have it. I can think of more (but still not many) where it could improve things.
The vast majority of the time, the other person is never aware of its presence. The fact that you, as the carrier, are aware tends to cause you to recognize situations for what they really are. That influences your thinking about it.
I would never, under any circumstances, "fight" someone while carrying. I'm a 6'2" guy who is at least moderately capable of defending myself, but the only way someone would be able to get me to employ force is if they leave no other option available to me.
In my experience, this is the way the _vast_ majority of people who carry firearms for defense think about things.
I think this is dangerous framing. My personal impression is that every single person stops acting rationally when enough pressure is applied, and this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations.
For me, the biggest numerical contributor to negative value from firearm carry would be escalation of e.g. relationships arguments, or desperation/depression turning into murder-suicide or simply accidents.
I think its impossible to prevent those by selectively granting concealed carry permits or whatever, I believe that they outweight the positive outcomes where a firearm allows you to kill or fend off an aggressor.
But I still think that you should have the right to carry even if its mostly net-negative...
As you might imagine, I've had this discussion many, many times over the years. This is the most common opposed argument by far. I believe it reveals more about the person making it than anything else - which, to be clear, is not in any way intended to be an insult or a slight.
I've come to the conclusion that people handle stress in very different ways. For me, if I'm in under critical stress, I "go cold". It's not that I don't have emotions - they're there, and I'm aware of them, it's just that they feel like just another data point to me at the time. It's as if I defer processing them until the crisis has passed.
Maybe that's an extreme example of my own ADHD mind, or maybe it's a genetic thing that gives some evolutionary advantage. I honestly don't know.
What I do know is that I've been depressed in the past to the point that I earnestly just wanted to die. I had access to many firearms during that time and I never once had the urge to turn one on myself.
> this "stops acting rational" limit is very feasible to reach for almost all of us in highly emotional situations.
I accept that this is a real issue for some people. I don't have any data to even begin to have a feel for whether that's the vast majority of people or a tiny minority. Intuitively, it must not be "the vast majority" in the US, or there would be a lot more murders and suicides than there are.
> For me, the biggest numerical contributor to negative value from firearm carry would be escalation of e.g. relationships arguments, or desperation/depression turning into murder-suicide or simply accidents.
For me and everyone I know personally, it's the opposite - having the real capability to escalate a disagreement to a lethal outcome causes people to be unwilling to allow those disagreements to get heated.
I'll be the first to say that this could be selection bias.
I can only speak really vouch for my own experience. While I could refer to studies that have been published on defensive gun use to support my position, it would be equally easy to point to studies that show the opposite. That conversation always devolves into comparing the minutiae of their respective methodologies, which isn't helpful in this context.
---
For what it's worth, I recognize that I feel very strongly about this topic. I believe that every adult should have the ability to defend themselves with the most effective weapons possible for that purpose. While I believe that is a strong net positive for society, my position is deontological; the "net benefit" isn't actually relevant to why I hold the right to be absolute.
I like to be challenged on my beliefs. I don't hold them unless I believe I understand the arguments of those who hold opposing views: "iron sharpens iron".
About half of the time these discussions end with both of us gaining a slightly better understanding of each other's views. I think that's great. Sometimes they end when the other party gets heated about it. I disengage in those cases, as it's not my intention to invoke anger.
I _have_ changed my beliefs in the past as I've gained understanding about things. I've managed to change a mind or two over the years as well (though that's sadly rare).
Now that I think about it... this sort of thing is the closest I'm willing to get to mutual combat :)
This thread has been great so far. Let me know if you want to talk about economics or religion sometime!
In any case, I agree this is a great thread but the initial question you were responding to I think is asked in error. The "average" situation doesn't exist. Each person is a person. Should you personally own a firearm or carry one in any given situation? I obviously can't tell you the answer, but I can tell you the answer shouldn't depend on what the answer is on average. At some point, you're going to die, and it's very likely that, when it happens, there will be at least one thing you could have done differently that might have extended your life a little bit. By all means, avoid the obvious unnecessary risks, but you shouldn't live like a min-max video game speedrunner trying to micro-optimize every decision you ever make based on its expected contribution to your lifespan or healthspan. Try to get the obvious, well-known, big rocks right. On everything else, you're going to make mistakes. One of them will probably kill you. Make peace with that and live anyway.
That's cuz you haven't watched enough cartoons!
Why would him shooting 5 rounds be good evidence for a 10mm handgun? The article explicitly says he shot a revolver (chambered in .357).
But depending on the time of year and that particular moose, they can be aggressive, just like any other wild animal.
Thankfully, it doesn't have the modal pop up (unlike the archive.org one).
The last two paragraphs are shaded to a lighter gray though, but are still readable. At least on my monitor.
In better news, the injured dog seems to be recovering after surgery: https://www.adn.com/outdoors-adventure/iditarod/2024/03/07/i...
Conventional wisdom says not to treat working dogs as pets because it makes them soft, but in the experience of both hunters and mushers that I know, the stronger the bond with the dog, the better the dog performs. I wonder if the same may be true of code monkeys.
I was relieved when it just continued on its way as if I didn't exist.
https://humanemushing.org/statistics/