Deltaboy1984
Member
Thank the Good Lord she is alright. She is very blessed to have walked away. I say carry spray, a good handgun 44 mag + and a good knife.
Bear Attack Victim: I wish I had a gun
- Thread starter Alaska444
- Start date
- Status
beatledog7
Member
Sometimes one must choose his tools for their ability to perform multiple tasks.
I have .44 Mag in my safe, but I don't own a single can of bear spray.
I have .44 Mag in my safe, but I don't own a single can of bear spray.
xerxesthecat
member
with all this bear talk, I was inspired to do an internet search for animal attacks. apparently many people have been savaged by packs of raccoons. No kidding - youtube has a whole list of examples, so this might be a greater problem than we think. And while I agree with the .454 concept for bear, it seems to me that tactical zombie gear might be best for small, fast assailants - an acog sighted M4 loaded with zmax rounds, heavy chaps and gloves, possibly a codpiece. you can never be too prepared in the raccoon woods.
sansone
Member
enjoying this thread ..
I voted gun but my usual carry is a tiny .380 which isn't much better than spray
JustinJ
Member
So when people with guns get mauled is it accepted as proof that bear spray is superior?
Bobson
Member
Depends if its windy. Its not uncommon for the user of a chemical agent to feel it's effects nearly as much as the target.
To answer your question, it probably depends on the manufacturer. UDAP bear spray is advertised of having a range of "up to 30 feet plus," and "30-35 feet." Their website actually says both of those, so you can take that for what it is. This spray is rated at 3.3 million Scoville Heat Units.
Last edited:
Dear JustinJ,
That is not what this thread is about. All of the retrospective studies to date have established an hypothesis that spray is better than guns. However, many including myself question the bias inherent in these studies funded often by the people promoting pepper spray and avoiding bear deaths. Unfortunately, none of these studies has the ability to eliminate this potential bias since they are not prospective studies. Nor will anyone every perform those studies.
So many continue in the myth that they have proven pepper spray is better when all that they have done is to raise the question, nothing more, nothing less. The question remains and will remain unanswered and unanswerable. So questioning that guns are better or worse is a debate without an answer.
The correct answer is multiple layers of bear protection starting with avoidance. I would hope folks don't fall for the propaganda that guns have no place in bear defense. In the case in the OP, it is the defense of choice.
Bobson
Member
Something to kick around for a bit:
After being exposed to OC, some people become even more aggressive/violent than they were initially; and its far from being the 1 in every 1000 people some might make it out to be.
Would it be outrageous to suggest the same possibility exists with animals?
After being exposed to OC, some people become even more aggressive/violent than they were initially; and its far from being the 1 in every 1000 people some might make it out to be.
Would it be outrageous to suggest the same possibility exists with animals?
Last edited:
Lost Sheep
Member
The voice of reason.
First line of defense (and survival generally) is knowledge. Good woodscraft will serve you better than spray OR firearms.
Prospective studies do not have the preeminence of double-blind scientific studies, but they do have illustrative value. Even anecdotal evidence carries weight
In support of spray:
http://www.adn.com/bearattacks/story/147318.html
On this thread, find the post by Windwalker (page 5, halfway down)
http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/view...r=asc&start=60
this Montanan has a lot of experience with bears and a wide choice of remedies.
In support of firearms:
http://www.peninsulaclarion.com/stories/080709/out_478669517.shtml
http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/wildlife/bears/story/897940.html
and for a direct quote from the surviving party with pictures
http://www.go2gbo.com/forums/index.php/topic,179994.0.html
Lost Sheep
JustinJ
Member
Studies by definition offer evidence as opposed to proof. If one wishes to challenge a study it should be done on its merits and methodology instead of by ad hominem. What bias one expects from the BYU study i'm not sure of. The school seems an unlikely hotbed of animal rights activity. And studies in general are far more useful than single anecdotal events such as that of the article. What i see is a bias against a study for offering information contrary to preconceived notions.
I don't know who claims to have proven such a thing. Science by its nature is always open to further information and in one regard never truly finalizes an answer. Information from it can only provide a best answer based on available information. The bear spray vs gun studies I've read are obviously very general and make only general predictions. What gun, skill level, type of bear, location, time of year, etc. are all considerations that could influence if a spray or gun will provide better protection but such considerations are likely not practical for general advise.
One has no way to know if a gun would have made the situation better or possibly worse.
Carrying both is fine and likely a good idea however in many attacks one will have only time to choose one or the other.
Dear JustinJ,
You are out on a limb. You state I should attack the studies based on methodology instead of ad hominem attacks????
Sorry, page after page after page and post after post after post on the weakness of the study design is basing my arguments on methodology my friend. Please go back and read them again, no ad hominem in my arguments at all.
Texas doesn't have bears so for those of us that face the risk of bears running around in the woods of Idaho know and understand these issues since it is a real life issue that we have to deal with in person.
I challenge your contentions that the lady in the OP was incorrect in stating, I wished I had a gun.
Questioning whether a researcher was biased IS a legitimate aspect of critiquing scientific studies ESPECIALLY when the researcher chooses a method in his report that DOES NOT control for any bias. That my friend is NOT ad hominem.
Let's stick to the issues my friend.
My message is and has been quite clear on this issue.
1) The studies making headlines for year after year are retrospective case series studies. These are the lowest form of scientific evidence. Look at the picture I will attach.
2) You cannot quantitate whether one intervention is better based on the magnitude of the outcomes in a retrospective case series. These studies are important in generating the hypothesis, but they are not designed to answer that hypothesis. Just the way it is scientifically JustinJ.
3) Even in the studies, in their discussions, they advise to use pepper spray IN CONJUNCTION with firearms. Go read them, that is what they state. Yet, the propaganda around these studies voices the opinion that pepper spray is all that a person needs. Read the studies for yourself and that is what they state.
4) I advocate and act upon a multi-layered bear protection plan. Yes, JustinJ, here in Northern Idaho in grizzly country, this is not a hypothetical discourse, this is real life. The critters are here, they are not in Texas.
Get real folks, scientific studies can produce erroneous "evidence." Anyone that lives in a profession dependent on scientific research understands that you MUST evaluate any scientific study for its strengths and weaknesses before blindly excepting the conclusions.
In fact, there are methods to analyze scientific research studies. When I was in my internal medicine training, we based our analysis of medical studies on the McMaster series on how to evaluate them to see what is and what is not applicable to your personal practice.
http://www.srs-mcmaster.ca/Portals/20/pdf/ebp/qualguidelines_version2.0.pdf
Once again, retrospective case series are the lowest form of a scientific study and are greatly limited in what they can conclude.
Attachments
piece of meat
Member
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2010
- Messages
- 179
I would take both..that way when the bear comes id roll the can of bear spray under the bear then shoot it with my gun, blowing the bear apart in a huge fiery explosion
JustinJ
Member
Are you talking about some other thread because i don't see mention of any specific study nor its methodology in this one?
Actually, Texas does have Black Bears. They are extremely rare where i live but i have and will spend plenty of time outdoors in West TX which actually has a fair and growing population.
Great, except that is not what i said.
Attacking the researcher is by definition ad hominem. The proper course would be to identify how the methodology failed to account for variables that made the study itself bias. What study are you referring to, what variable remains that creates bias and how should it have been controlled?
I agree that a double blind controlled placebo study is always better but obviously it would be hard to find volunteers to test the hypothesis that guns or bear spray is better. Retrospective studies are very often the best thing available and in the absence of better data one goes with what is known. For example, retrospective studies are regularly used to evaluate and choose if approved medications need to be pulled or further regulated. Or would you suggest one wait for an experiment to be performed if deadly side effects begin popping with a medication one is prescribed? Or swim in the ocean at dusk in murky water? Or not wear a seatbelt? etc.
How a study is performed and how outside parties try to manipulate the results are two completely different things and quite irrelevant per this discussion.
So if a bear is charging you without sufficient time to draw gun and spray which are you going for?
Who said it can't? And science can produce erroneous results after a double blind controlled placebo experiment as well. So what? Again, one goes with the best available information.
Again, what study claims to have proven this?
Dear JustinJ,
Showing a public statement of a researchers bias is NOT ad hominem, it is simply showing that bias. Go look up ad hominem. I didn't denigrate the man, I only quoted his OWN statement. Go figure.
Yes, that small population of black bears is also highly protected as an "endangered" species so you may as well shoot yourself instead of the bear in Texas. You don't have any wild grizzly bears which is where pepper spray is the most effective. Pepper spray is least effective on black bears.
Once again, you have to failed to understand my contention. My contention is NOT that there is no place for pepper spray, but instead that it is limited in its scope of effect and since it and guns are not 100% effective, you need multiple layers of defense.
The studies are quite limited and you need to truly understand that limitation. Yes, I have been discussing this on THR's sister site, TFL. I may have placed more evidence on methodology over there.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=495664
Showing a public statement of a researchers bias is NOT ad hominem, it is simply showing that bias. Go look up ad hominem. I didn't denigrate the man, I only quoted his OWN statement. Go figure.
Yes, that small population of black bears is also highly protected as an "endangered" species so you may as well shoot yourself instead of the bear in Texas. You don't have any wild grizzly bears which is where pepper spray is the most effective. Pepper spray is least effective on black bears.
Once again, you have to failed to understand my contention. My contention is NOT that there is no place for pepper spray, but instead that it is limited in its scope of effect and since it and guns are not 100% effective, you need multiple layers of defense.
The studies are quite limited and you need to truly understand that limitation. Yes, I have been discussing this on THR's sister site, TFL. I may have placed more evidence on methodology over there.
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=495664
Last edited:
JustinJ
Member
I agree that both are preferable and never argued any different. But if a bear is charging one could very easily have time to deploy only one or the other. So again, which would be your first choice? If you won't address my other points and questions at least respond to that one.
I fully understand that limitation. Which is why i have maintained they provide the best AVAILABLE information.
When I am in the woods, since my wife cannot handle anything beyond a .22 LR, she carries pepper spray, I carry at least two guns in the boonies, my EDC .357 SP101 often pocket carried and my .44 Magnum SRH. I go with my gun first, my wife goes with pepper spray.
Lastly, if a study is seriously flawed from a researchers bias, then the results of that study are seriously flawed and are worse than anecdotal evidence alone since now they are spreading disinformation.
When you look at Tom Smith and his public statement about why he did his study, his bias is evident that he wishes to promote pepper spray:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080325171221.htm
In addition, his latest study on how effective guns are in bear defense is also subject to bias since he was motivated by the change in law allowing guns into national parks. Sorry, that by definition is bias that could easily affect the outcome of his studies SINCE none of his studies controls for bias. The latest study of 269 encounters since 1883 is subject to critique since there have been thousands of encounters. The data set is limited and subject to skewed outcomes. Once again, it can only generate the hypothesis but it cannot at all answer that question with retrospective case series.
Yes, I question the results of these studies on how GOOD pepper spray is and how BAD buns are for bear defense. I have several friends here in Idaho who have shot dozens of black bears, most hunting but a few in self defense situations. Guns work well my friend, I question anyone who has publicly stated he is motivated by showing how good pepper spray is and is concerned about people carrying guns in national parks. Sorry, but that is evidence of bias and you are simply wrong to erroneously accuse me of an ad hominem attack.
Certaindeaf
member
That does it, I'm going to the zoo.
j/k
j/k
Lost Sheep
Member
pa350z
Member
When in the woods or hunting, my Colt Trooper MKIII .357 6inch barrel is at my side with three spare speed loaders. My grandpa hunted deer and dropped deer with one shot and used it in the woods regularly. My BUG in the woods is a Glock 27 if I am not hunting with a rifle or shotgun.
wdyasq
Member
Remember your woodscraft ....
Bear scat has little bells in it ans smells like pepper spray.
Ron
Bear scat has little bells in it ans smells like pepper spray.
Ron
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked