Dog Soldier
member
Now that is a real World Post. It says a lot.
If you need a gun, you need it badly
- Thread starter Deaf Smith
- Start date
- Status
Dog Soldier
member
Jelly Jar you are a wise fellow. There are many more incidents of "SS&S" than you can imagine. In Wyoming we are asking that the Grizz be delisted. They were Big Game until around 1973.
OC-Trainer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 567
Funny how you make this statement, but then proceed to talk about bear spray the entire time. Anyway, as far as this statement goes...
You are incorrect. It is as if Google doesn't exist to some of you.
https://www.tsa.gov/travel/security-screening/prohibited-items
OC-Trainer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 567
Now that is a real World Post. It says a lot.
Yeah, firearms are completely infallible...
People are complaining about a little back spray from OC, yet this guy blows his toes off. But hey, he's alive, right?
https://craigmedred.news/2016/08/09/bear-killed-man-shot/
RetiredUSNChief
Member
I usually stay out of the bear spray/gunbarguments, but:
Seems to me that I remembered bear spray coming in larger containers. So I googled that to check, and it turns out it comes in about 9 to 10 ounce cans. Call it 2 1/2 times the TSA limits.
This would have been an EXCELLENT Mythbusters episode.
Well...a Tazer was made for large animals, and there's even a video on youtube of a test taking a bull down. Looks like the bull was down hard while being tazed, but got up right after the tazing stopped. It was only a brief tazing, though. Didn't look too happy.
I'd guess the issue would really be whether the darts would penetrate the bear's fur deeply enough to be effective.
Seems to me that I remembered bear spray coming in larger containers. So I googled that to check, and it turns out it comes in about 9 to 10 ounce cans. Call it 2 1/2 times the TSA limits.
This would have been an EXCELLENT Mythbusters episode.
Well...a Tazer was made for large animals, and there's even a video on youtube of a test taking a bull down. Looks like the bull was down hard while being tazed, but got up right after the tazing stopped. It was only a brief tazing, though. Didn't look too happy.
I'd guess the issue would really be whether the darts would penetrate the bear's fur deeply enough to be effective.
TheSquire
Member
I'd love to one day. Once my sons finish University and I have some cash again .. I can dream!
Last edited:
OC-Trainer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 567
The letter of the law when it comes to bear spray (as per EPA regulations), says it must be at least 7.9 oz. Deaf implied that no OC was permitted on board planes, which is patently false.
Tirod either did not read the studies or didn't comprehend them, because it addresses that and breaks down the types of behaviors when the spray was used. He also is ok with the results of the firearm study, evidently and the results were worse.
For him to even suggest a TASER for defense against a bear further illustrates how little he grasps these concepts.
You are wise. These threads are usually (virtually always) an exercise in futility. I feel like I lose brain cells reading some of the things written on these boards; especially when it comes to this topic.
OP
OP
Deaf Smith
Member
My wife as been to Spain, Morocco, Israel, Gibraltar. My mother England and Yugoslavia! Me? I barely have made it to Mexico, Canada, and Virgin Islands... We will still be here sir!
Yea.. that would be a downer if it didn't make it past the fur...
It is no wither firearms OR bear spray are 'infallible'. It's studies purported to show bear spray are SUPERIOR. That's the problem I have. Those studies are badly done to the extent they are biased.
OMG.... small OC cans can be checked in but large OC cans can't..... my bad. But when I flew years ago they were banned.
Once again the voice of inexperience speaks forth. OC spray is highly effective against most humans, and if it has the same effect against most bears then it's a good tool. It's not the only tool but anyone who thinks spray doesn't work should try some. They'll be in for a frightful awakening.
Last edited:
OP
OP
Deaf Smith
Member
First you say 'most humans', hence not all of 'em. Then second you say 'if it has the same effect against most bears' making it now a 'most' and 'if' and another 'most'. That does not instill confidence.
Then you say if you don't think it's effective then try some. So using the same logic, if we don't think a .44 will off a bear, should we try it ourselves?
Like I said,
I have no doubt bear spray will work on many (but not all as Mr. Orr found out) bears and it has it's place just as guns do.
What I'd like to see is unbiased research, say from 1992 (when bear spray was first used) to 2016 for both bear spray and firearms. No 'anecdotal' evidence. No newspapers either. Just evidence from encounters writ up by, say, the state Parks & Wildlife.
And use the same parameters. That is stuff like if a failure to use the device cause it was not there or deep in a pack then it is not recorded. It is thrown out. Nor if the user tripped and fell. Just actual encounters WERE THE BEAR CHARGED AND THE USER USED HE DEVICE TO STOP, OR NOT STOP, THE BEAR.
Why just when bears charged? Cause in most localities one cannot shoot a bear that is just a nuisance. They have to be attacking. Hence the only firearms usage will be on attacking bears. It should be the same for bear spray. Only when bears were actually attacking.
Simple as that.
Deaf
Last edited:
OC-Trainer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 567
That information is already out there. It is the most comprehensive data possible to date. Reread the studies and you'll find it.
TomJ
Contributing Member
Being from Chicago, the only Bears we deal with play on Sunday and based on their record last year are pretty harmless, so I'm admittedly ignorant in regards to what works best for bear protection. I do understand that bear spray has been effective at times, but the question I have for those advocating bear spray is whether they also recommend carrying a firearm. If no, given that there are cases of bear spray not working and the person being attacked by the bear then using a firearm to save themselves, how do you ignore the fact that these people could have been seriously injured of killed had they not had a gun? If yes, are your responses responsible in that having a gun for backup is stressed, as it's proven to be necessary at times or are you leading people to believe that bear spray in itself is the only thing necessary? Do we know of any cases where firearms have failed and bear spray was used successfully as a backup?
OP
OP
Deaf Smith
Member
You mean the studies YOU posted about??? Well here are the facts with OC's bear spray fantasy (and yes he brought up the two studies):
Dr. Smith made two studies. One for firearms, one for bear spray.
http://wdfw.wa.gov/hunting/bear_cougar/bear/files/JWM_BearSprayAlaska.pdf
"Efficacy of Bear Deterrent Spray in Alaska"
He says on the research:
"Although bear spray was 92% effective by our definition of success**, it is important to note that 98 % of persons carrying it were uninjured after a close encounter with bears."
And looking farther I could NOT find any of his research showing any 'failures'. Failures like in his efficacy of firearms research below.
He says on the research:
"Nonetheless, only one of the 3 reported that the spray had failed to protect them. No mechanical failures of spray canisters were reported in the 71 cases."
Note total number of incidences was 72 for basically 1985 thru 2006.
http://www.polarbearsinternational....errence_in_alaska_2014_01_29_15_23_07_utc.pdf
Human Dimensions Efficacy of Firearms for Bear Deterrence in Alaska
TOM S. SMITH... as above.
"Our findings suggest that only those proficient in firearms use should rely on them for protection in bear country.
Success rates** by firearm type were similar with 84% of handgun users (31 of 37) and 76% of long gun users (134 of 176) successfully defending themselves from aggressive bears."
No kidding.
"Firearms failed to protect people for a variety of reasons including:
1. lack of time to respond to the bear (27%), <--- gee gosh! And how many didn't have time to respond to the bear with bear spray?
2. did not use the firearm (21%), <--- well duh, that ain't the firearms fault. That is the dummies fault.
3. mechanical issues (i.e., jamming;14%),
4. the proximity to bear was too close for deployment(9%), <--- And how many didn't have time to respond to the bear with bear spray?
5. the shooter missed the bear (9%), the gun was emptied and could not be reloaded (8%),
6. the safety mechanism was engaged and the person was unable to unlock it in time to use the gun (8%), <--- gun or shooter's fault???
7. people tripped and fell while trying to shoot the bear (3%), <--- so how is this the gun's fault? And how many didn't have time to respond to the bear with bear spray?
8. and the firearm’s discharge reportedly triggered the bear to charge that ended further use of the gun(1%)"
Where is the same kind of stats on bear spray? Does he really think those handling bear spray were infallible?
Now you see in order to compare two studies they MUST have the same criteria. But the OC bear spray study had NO "OC failed to protect people for a variety of reasons .." None of them had a 'lack of time to respond', nor 'didn't use the bear spray', nor 'to close to deploy', nor did anyone 'trip or fall'. You do see that makes the studies very questionable just by itself.
"We compiled, summarized, and reviewed 269 incidents of bear–human conflict involving firearms that occurred in Alaska during 1883–2009. Total of 444 people and at least 367 bears were involved in these incidents."
"With respect to efforts to model firearm efficacy, we classified 156 incidents as successful."
"We encourage all persons, with or without a firearm, to consider carrying a non-lethal deterrent such as bear spray because its success rate under a variety of situations has been greater (i.e., 90% successful for all 3 North American species of bear; Smith et al. 2008) than those we observed for firearms."
**"We defined successful outcomes as bear spray having stopped the undesirable behavior of the bear. A bear that no longer pursues a person, breaks off an attack, abandons attempts to acquire food or garbage, or turns and leaves the area are examples of successful outcomes."
Later Dr. Smith says:
"Once a bear charged, odds of firearm success decreased nearly 7-fold"
When he gave that '7-fold' he pointed to Table 4:
It says.. table 4:
"Logistic regression coefficients, standard errors (SE), odds ratios, and 95% confidence intervals from the highest ranked model (Akaike’s Information Criterion adjusted for small sample sizes (AIC c) weight ¼ 0.96) of firearm success as a function of bear, firearm, human, and spatio-temporal influences in Alaska, USA during 1883–2009"
Note it says, function of ' bear, firearm, human, and spatio-temporal influences in Alaska'. So it's human and, uh, 'spatio-temporal'?
So this relates to space and time? As in 'time to get the gun/bear spray' or 'time to not use the firearm' or time to trip and fall?
Sounds like he was just adding fancy language to impress.
NOTE... In the OTHER study, about OC spray, there is NO table 4. Where is the function of 'bear, bear spray, human, and spatio-temporal influences in Alaska'??? Nothing about any reduction of effectiveness if the charge. Strange isn't it? Again, you see in order to compare two studies they MUST have the same criteria.
Note the time periods I mentioned on the two studies by the same author. One goes way back into the black powder era (1883–2009) and uses "information on bear attacks from readily accessible state and federal records, newspaper accounts, books,and anecdotal information that spanned the years", the other (1985 to 2006) uses "state and federal agencies, newspaper accounts, andanecdotally."
This is what Dr. Smith uses for 'scientific data'.
BTW, might want to check this to:
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.p...hy-he-didnt-shoot.812429/page-4#post-10394385
Post #65
Deaf
captain awesome
Member
Thank you for posting deaf. "Studies" pretty much always have an agenda and you really have to read between the lines and look at data that is NOT specifically mentioned or skirted around to get any real idea of truth. Ask your self, so what are they NOT telling me?
I have always been sceptical of the so called effectiveness of BS (bear spray) and their "Statistics"
I find it ironic that on a gun forum where there are so many skeptical people constantly pointing out how the antis are always skewing statistics to push their agendas, so many people have let those statistics about bear spray slide unquestioned as gospel and use it to discourage the use of fire arms for protection.....when ones right to do so and encouraging others to do so as well is one of the major reasons this forum exists in the first place.
I have always been sceptical of the so called effectiveness of BS (bear spray) and their "Statistics"
I find it ironic that on a gun forum where there are so many skeptical people constantly pointing out how the antis are always skewing statistics to push their agendas, so many people have let those statistics about bear spray slide unquestioned as gospel and use it to discourage the use of fire arms for protection.....when ones right to do so and encouraging others to do so as well is one of the major reasons this forum exists in the first place.
Last edited:
OC-Trainer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 567
Since you refuse to start a new thread on the topic I guess I'll have to do this here...
Are you serious? Please tell me you actually have something of substance besides these questions? You know, empirical data? A third-party study? A smoking gun? Something other than "because Deaf says it's flawed, it must be flawed."
You keep saying you "disproved" the study, but what you've actually done is unwittingly point out why bear spray offers better odds for success to the user in stopping a charging bear; fewer things can go wrong with a canister of bear spray and it is more gross motor skill based.
1. lack of time to respond to the bear<---Rifle slung on your back, pistol in holster on backpack etc. Bear spray is easier and faster to access.
2. did not use he firearm<---"Dummies fault" or they second guessed shooting the bear. (perhaps because of fearing fines/investigation?) No worries with that with bear spray, so precious milliseconds aren't lost thinking about the legal ramifications.
3. mechanical issues<---Convenient how you left this blank. Sorry, Deaf guns jam. They are more complex than an aerosol canister.
4. the proximity to bear was too close for deployment<---No worries about aiming or accidentally killing your hunting partner (it's happened) in CQ.
5. the shooter missed the bear, the gun was emptied and could not be reloaded<---Again, you conveniently left this blank. Speed/Accuracy matters, duh...
6. the safety mechanism was engaged and the person was unable to unlock it in time to use the gun<---Extreme duress (like a 1000lb. bear barreling down on you) makes simple tasks exponentially more difficult.
7. people tripped and fell wile trying to shoot the bear<---self explanatory. Again, extreme duress makes tasks like aiming more difficult. Bear spray doesn't require precise aiming, so less chance of tripping, no kick back, unlike a high powered rifle of shotgun, which further increase odds of failing. Especially on uneven terrain.
8.and the firearm’s discharge reportedly triggered the bear to charge that ended further use of the gun.<---Again, side stepped this one, huh? This is a biggie. What this means is mauling. The firearm caused the bear to charge and maul the shooter.
So, if you want to believe in the conspiracy theories and that the authors (yes, more than one expert worked on these case studies) "purposely" left out that information from the bear spray study, go right ahead. You'd be wrong, but if it makes you feel better, then who am I to judge. (See willful ignorance in the DSM V) The simple explanation is those things either didn't happen in the real life accounts that the authors reviewed or it couldn't happen when using bear spray.
Neither you, nor @captain awesome, or any other of the "usual suspects" will be able to produce any credible evidence that these studies were "bias" or "skewed" or whatever, because it doesn't exist. It's a dead end just like last two links you posted above. The case studies are considered scientifically valid, whether you believe them or not.
Are you serious? Please tell me you actually have something of substance besides these questions? You know, empirical data? A third-party study? A smoking gun? Something other than "because Deaf says it's flawed, it must be flawed."
You keep saying you "disproved" the study, but what you've actually done is unwittingly point out why bear spray offers better odds for success to the user in stopping a charging bear; fewer things can go wrong with a canister of bear spray and it is more gross motor skill based.
1. lack of time to respond to the bear<---Rifle slung on your back, pistol in holster on backpack etc. Bear spray is easier and faster to access.
2. did not use he firearm<---"Dummies fault" or they second guessed shooting the bear. (perhaps because of fearing fines/investigation?) No worries with that with bear spray, so precious milliseconds aren't lost thinking about the legal ramifications.
3. mechanical issues<---Convenient how you left this blank. Sorry, Deaf guns jam. They are more complex than an aerosol canister.
4. the proximity to bear was too close for deployment<---No worries about aiming or accidentally killing your hunting partner (it's happened) in CQ.
5. the shooter missed the bear, the gun was emptied and could not be reloaded<---Again, you conveniently left this blank. Speed/Accuracy matters, duh...
6. the safety mechanism was engaged and the person was unable to unlock it in time to use the gun<---Extreme duress (like a 1000lb. bear barreling down on you) makes simple tasks exponentially more difficult.
7. people tripped and fell wile trying to shoot the bear<---self explanatory. Again, extreme duress makes tasks like aiming more difficult. Bear spray doesn't require precise aiming, so less chance of tripping, no kick back, unlike a high powered rifle of shotgun, which further increase odds of failing. Especially on uneven terrain.
8.and the firearm’s discharge reportedly triggered the bear to charge that ended further use of the gun.<---Again, side stepped this one, huh? This is a biggie. What this means is mauling. The firearm caused the bear to charge and maul the shooter.
So, if you want to believe in the conspiracy theories and that the authors (yes, more than one expert worked on these case studies) "purposely" left out that information from the bear spray study, go right ahead. You'd be wrong, but if it makes you feel better, then who am I to judge. (See willful ignorance in the DSM V) The simple explanation is those things either didn't happen in the real life accounts that the authors reviewed or it couldn't happen when using bear spray.
Neither you, nor @captain awesome, or any other of the "usual suspects" will be able to produce any credible evidence that these studies were "bias" or "skewed" or whatever, because it doesn't exist. It's a dead end just like last two links you posted above. The case studies are considered scientifically valid, whether you believe them or not.
Last edited:
TomJ
Contributing Member
"Although bear spray was 92% effective by our definition of success**, it is important to note that 98% of persons carrying it were uninjured after a close encounter with bears."
OC Trainer,
The above sentence is what's wrong with this study as well as the way you present it. To be clear, I'm not saying that bear spray is not effective. It is a valuable tool, and when I was in Glacier National Park last June with my sons we had 2 cans of it with us but I also had a 454 Casull. If we vacation in an area with bears again, we'll continue to bring both. However, when someone like me who knows little about bears reads this statement and takes it as fact, it's reasonable to believe that bear spray is all I need to keep myself and my kids safe as a 98% success rate is about as good as it gets in self defense encounters. What I learned, however, is that there have been many cases in which bear spray did not work and people were either hurt or killed as a result of it not working or were fortunate enough to have a gun as a back up, surviving because they shot the bear after the spray failed. No empirical data or studies are needed. These things actually happened.
The day after we returned from Glacier National Park someone was killed by a grizzly not far from where we were staying. Protecting yourself and your family when in areas populated by bears is not a joke. When a person like me takes your information as fact and does not also bring a firearm as backup because they believe this 98% number, the potential for a tragedy is there. The responsible thing for you to do in forums like this is to point out the benefits of bear spray, which are many, but acknowledge that it does not always work and that if possible a firearm should also be carried as it's not possible to predict what situation you'll find yourself in, and the more available tools you have to protect yourself and your family, the better.
Tom
OC Trainer,
The above sentence is what's wrong with this study as well as the way you present it. To be clear, I'm not saying that bear spray is not effective. It is a valuable tool, and when I was in Glacier National Park last June with my sons we had 2 cans of it with us but I also had a 454 Casull. If we vacation in an area with bears again, we'll continue to bring both. However, when someone like me who knows little about bears reads this statement and takes it as fact, it's reasonable to believe that bear spray is all I need to keep myself and my kids safe as a 98% success rate is about as good as it gets in self defense encounters. What I learned, however, is that there have been many cases in which bear spray did not work and people were either hurt or killed as a result of it not working or were fortunate enough to have a gun as a back up, surviving because they shot the bear after the spray failed. No empirical data or studies are needed. These things actually happened.
The day after we returned from Glacier National Park someone was killed by a grizzly not far from where we were staying. Protecting yourself and your family when in areas populated by bears is not a joke. When a person like me takes your information as fact and does not also bring a firearm as backup because they believe this 98% number, the potential for a tragedy is there. The responsible thing for you to do in forums like this is to point out the benefits of bear spray, which are many, but acknowledge that it does not always work and that if possible a firearm should also be carried as it's not possible to predict what situation you'll find yourself in, and the more available tools you have to protect yourself and your family, the better.
Tom
Last edited:
OC-Trainer
Member
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2014
- Messages
- 567
Tom,
I understand your concern, but you have to realize that a) the quotes from the study are by the authors, not me and b) bear spray and firearms are your last line of defense against bear attacks. There is way more to staying safe in bear country that what tools you carry.
Furthermore, it has been statistically proven, by bear human conflict experts, that bear spray gives you a better chance in deterring a charging bear. It is not because it grants you mythical powers, it is because of the mammalian responses to both the chemicals in the can, and how we, as human beings, respond to stressful stimuli. Often overlooked is how absolutely crucial gross motor skills are during any kind of stress situation. The fewer fine motor skills required during these events, the better. That is (possibly) the biggest advantage to bear spray over a firearm when used on a charging bear in close-quarters.
Remember, even if one doesn't "believe" in the effectiveness of bear spray (or any chemical deterrent), the results of the firearm study are pretty bad.
Compare that to the stats you posted. Which would you rather have, a better than 90% chance of walking away unscathed or a 56% chance? And the Smith/Herrero study wasn't the only study to determine this...
http://above.nasa.gov/safety/documents/Bear/bearspray_vs_bullets.pdf
Last edited:
Nope. We are not doing yet another spray vs gun bear thread. Let's toss this one on the pile with the other 500..
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
