I apologize to the thread and the forum for the adversarial nature of my post. It seemed to me that the one post had enough posturing to justify a response.
I, in no way wish to suggest that pepper spray is always the correct defense in every situation, nor that it is the best tool for every person. If you believe you are better served by a 2" .357 Magnum, that's good for you. My point is that no solution is wisely rejected out of hand and that reasoned choice based on real facts is best. Also, that a decision, once made, may need to be reviewed periodically in the face of new information.
If you believe the debate on spray vs firearm is a closed question, your position is correct for every human on the planet in all situations, every time, please stop reading here.
Pepper spray is a total joke!.
I believe that neither firearms nor pepper spray is a total joke (no more than some people's marksmanship under pressure). As in most debates neither position has an exclusive claim to divine truth.
If you live where bears are hunted, it is very hard to sneak up on one. Most bear attacks happen when you surprise a sow with cubs. If you do surprise one it was because the wind was blowing hard in your face, so that she is unable to smell you or hear you coming. The pepper will do you no good in this case.
The first part of that statement is true enough. But there are numerous exceptions. Bears busily engaging in a salmon feast is only one.
The BS statistics of pepper compared to pistols, are just that... seems every person that uses pepper runs and reports it.
Do you have opposing statistics?
It seems to me that anyone who has a close enough encounter with a bear that is dangerous enough to require some type of defensive action is a good candidate for reporting, as least if it is in an area frequented by people (as opposed to really off the beaten track).
..truth is these are the same people that if they stepped off the groomed trail, they would most likely become lost and die in the woods anyway.
There are plenty of nimrods who carry guns, too. There was one last year in Denali Park who killed a Grizzly with a 45 Auto. It was declared a good shoot mainly by lack of evidence to the contrary, but it is likely the bear did not have to die (or even be sprayed) if good woodscraft had been followed beforehand.
The use of handguns most often goes un-reported or mentioned for 2 reasons...One, the screwed up media doesn't want to suggest that the humans life is more valuble than the bear and that the pistol is a necessary tool.
And 2nd...Well have you ever been driving down the road and looked down to see that you were driving little over the posted limit?? Did you immediately pull over, call 911 and report yourself, or did you simply
ease off the throttle??...yeah, thought so..that's why.
You do what need doin and you walk on.
Accidentally breaking a law and correcting the error is different from killing a bear and keeping mum about it. Wounding a bear and leaving it to die in agony or to menace other people in the wild is the height of irresponsibility. (But with that last sentence, I am guilty of putting words in your mouth.)
Oh and about the OP..a man here in Montana succesfully used a 357 snuby this fall to stop a grizzly attack and save he and his friends life. He missed with all but the last shot . And even in this case where the handgun was used to save 2 lives..the pepper spray(or the lack of) got way more mention in all of the articles written about it.:banghead:
Proving what? That a handgun is harder to aim that a spray can? I would like to read the write-ups on the incident. Can you provide a link, please?
Respectfully submitted for the consideration of any who want to consider multiple viewpoints.
Lost Sheep
