It is incredibly sad that your insecurities and willful ignorance on this subject cause you to continuously say things like this. Do I have to remind you what happened the last time you went down this road?
Post #55
https://www.thehighroad.org/index.php?threads/the-10-mm-as-a-bear-gun.806109/page-3#post-10420995
Maybe you should leave the advice about what to use and not to use against a charging bear to the bear biologist and other experts in the field.
Well here are the facts with OC's bear spray fantasy:
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."
Strangely none had lack of time to respond, none had any mechanical issues, none had any problem with the 'safety', none tripped and fell, and they all seemed to use it.. Yet in his next research on firearms all kinds of 'failures' happened.
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 trig-gered 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?
"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."
So how can one compare the firearms, which his own research showed some failures due to many reasons but his magical bear spray never failed. Something is wrong with his research. One item cannot be 100 percent perfect but the other item has all kinds of failures.
**"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"
See 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. But yes again, tripping and falling or not having the gun or not using it is
NOT THE FAULT OF THE WEAPON NOR AN INDICATION THEY WEAPON FAILED.
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? Kind of like the researcher had an agenda.. like Bear Spray.
Just like the omission of any failures in the Bear Spray study yet gives bunches of FIREARMS FAILURES.
Why?
See that '7 fold' thing becomes suspect when there is no 'Bear Spray' failures at all. Kind of like the author cherry picked the incidences to make the Bear Spray look good and firearms look bad.
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
