Hacker News Reader

Comment by mschuster91 | Hacker News Reader

IMO there is only one case for having guns in the hands of civilians other than hunting - self defense against wild animals when hiking. I mean, Sweden has bears, moose and wild pigs, how are people supposed to defend against these?

View on HN

This is an imaginary problem.

"31 people were attacked in all of Scandinavia between 1977 and 2012. Few of the attacks had deadly outcomes and almost all took place during a hunt."

https://sweden.se/nature/swedens-most-dangerous-animal/

Turns out if you leave them alone they leave you alone. You don't need to 'defend' yourself against them, let alone with firearms.

Thanks for the insight!

My brother spends a significant amount of time outdoors (not hunting) and was attacked and seriously injured by a wild animal, with two more attacks by the same species in the same area in the same year, one of which resulted in another hiker's death. A year later my brother was charged by a moose in a different area.

Animal attacks are real, and even when you leave them alone they won't always leave you alone. That said, bear spray is much more effective than a firearm, and has saved my brother's life in the past.

That's one data point.

Let's look at the data in aggregate instead, in order to make a decision, using the link I already gave. It's an extraordinarily low risk. I'm not even sure how quickly a hiker could bring a rifle into battery when they're just hiking along. And a pistol isn't going to stop a large animal. Whole thing seems unrealistic to me.

Bear spray, easily reachable on one's person, will be much more effective than a pistol. But data-wise, you have to consider that most near-misses probably aren't reported, that successfully defended attacks may not even be reported, and that people in certain environments will have a much greater risk than the average.

People foraging berries in Swedden place themselves in the same places as bears sometimes. I had seen a video showing a real "bear attack" and is very interesting. They have lots of close encounters each year.

A female bear is startled and charges towards the people, the researcher keep his ground and the bear makes an arc to avoid crossing paths.

Moose is the biggest killer in the area with difference. They are really dangerous when involved in car crashes because they have very tall legs, so in an accident the animal is pushed trough the windshield inside the car. Then, the struggling moose trying to break free, typically will hit repeatedly the driver in the head and torso with his legs

> A female bear is startled and charges towards the people

Which is why the #1 preventative step taught in Canada (where we also have large bears and moose) is to be noisy. If the Bear, Moose, Deer, etc can hear you from a decent distance, they'll get well out of your way before you even know they're there.

I've been camping since before I can remember (literally) and the only "protection" we bring is mace and bear bangers (basically tiny fireworks without the lightshow). We've come across bears a number of times, but never had to use either. Just talk loudly and make some noise, and they just wander away.

I think the reason so many attacks happen to hunters is because they're trying to be stealthy and end up sneaking up on them (whether on purpose or or not), which is when they are dangerous.

Relying on a firearm to stop a brown or a moose at close range before it ends you is an iffy gamble. Firearms are more for protecting you from the most dangerous animal in the woods.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com