If you need a gun, you need it badly

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here is my take on the OC vs firearm for defense against bears.

In order for any type of statistical analysis of bear attacks to be valid then either all bear attacks during a certain time period and in a certain large area must be included or a truly random sample must somehow be taken of the total population of such attacks. It would be unlikely that all bear attacks could be included in such a study so at best it would be necessary to only analyze a random sample if possible. However, any variable that would increase the likelihood of some attacks being part of such a sample while others are not would result in a biased sample and any statistical analysis of such a sample would be invalid unless somehow it would be possible to control for such a bias.

Now consider, normally shooting a bear out of season and without a permit would be illegal. So it would be reasonable to believe that many if not most people who are successful in defending against a bear attack with a firearm and killing the animal would be reluctant to report such an event to the authorities for fear of being charged with poaching. Therefore, any study that does not control for such a bias is invalid and unreliable at best. The above activity is called Shoot, Shovel and Shut up. I do not know how often this happens but I would not be surprised if it happens very often so I don't take much stock in studies that say firearms, including very powerful handguns, are not better for defense against bear attacks than using OC spray.

So what would I do if I lived in big bear country? I would buy one of the very powerful revolvers in 44mag or better and practice often with it and be as careful as possible when out and about.

Take care

JJ

Perhaps I should modify my tagline below to say "I don't live in fear, I live in Alabama and there ain't no grizzlies here thank God"
 
Last edited:
Deaf Smith said:
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
Click to expand...
Brother,you MUST understand that with his moniker 'oc sprayer" you are never going to win with FACTS.

I see your valid points and I will have the boom stick IN HAND,o.c. in pack.:evil::evil::evil::evil::evil:
 
scaatylobo said:
Brother,you MUST understand that with his moniker 'oc sprayer" you are never going to win with FACTS.

I see your valid points and I will have the boom stick IN HAND,o.c. in pack.:evil::evil::evil::evil::evil:
Click to expand...


Facts, what facts? He didn't provide any facts.You are as misguided and ignorant on this subject as he is. All he did was repost data that I previously provided, and then added his non-expert opinions to those of experts.

Here is what I can gather, Steve after reading numerous posts on this topic by the two of you. You are both armchair quarterbacks with zero real- world experience dealing with a charging bear. You both refuse to accept real-world data from those who are world renowned experts in bear- human conflict. You both let your egos and machismo rule your decisions based on this topic, instead of listening to those who know better.

Stay on those La-z-boys and leave the bear defense advice to those who actually know what they are talking about.
 
I would gladly stay on the La-Z-Boy and avoid a charging grizzly!

Moving away from bears and back to humans, last night I was surprised by a stranger at the door asking for money. Often I am aware when someone enters my driveway. With all the snow, it is hard to sense when a vehicle pulls in. I have a "Dutch Door"- the bottom remains locked and the top opens. I listened to the usual story about having to get somewhere but not having gas money, could I help out? Big, young fellow, not aggressive or alarming. Still, I was happy to have the Colt Cobra in my pocket.
 
JellyJar said:
In order for any type of statistical analysis of bear attacks to be valid then either all bear attacks during a certain time period and in a certain large area must be included or a truly random sample must somehow be taken of the total population of such attacks. It would be unlikely that all bear attacks could be included in such a study so at best it would be necessary to only analyze a random sample if possible. However, any variable that would increase the likelihood of some attacks being part of such a sample while others are not would result in a biased sample and any statistical analysis of such a sample would be invalid unless somehow it would be possible to control for such a bias.
Click to expand...

Exactly. 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'.

Keep it up OC. Lots of luck with your "world renowned experts".

Deaf
 
Cooldill said:
Unless they're water bears. :)

htgrf.jpg
Click to expand...
never thought i'd see a photo of a tartigrade ever again...
 
depending on the terrain and distance traveled it would be perfectly normal to have rifles unloaded and attached to a pack or slung. If you are a paying client hunting in Alaska with a guide that is how you will travel or you won't hunt.

Sadly then, I won't hunt with them. I CCW, carry locked and loaded in the field from the trail head on, and have served in the Army along side other men also locked and loaded on duty. Many have. You can never predict when or if an opportunity may come up where you need to fire your weapon - whether for game or self protection. I've flagged whitetails within 100 yards of my parked car. Who is anyone to say that can't happen with a bear near a lake shore or trail head?

The biggest risk being around my buddies was discovering they had used the pepper spray in the vehicle vents, again, laughing their butts off. I understand the Guide's point of view - money does not equate to competence in his trade. It's just sad they will never see my money over this inconsequential point. If they can't trust me then I certainly won't trust them. It's a two way street.

If you have never served, and hunted with the safety off for long periods of the day when alone, then of course, you don't get it. However, some do. It's a matter of personal confidence. And don't say it's never done - plenty of LEO's carried DA/SA autos twenty years ago safety off with a round in the chamber, department policy. We do carrying DA pocket autos.

And in bear country - a lot of those .44 magnums don't have the safety on either. As noted, if the bear charges then if the gun goes off at burning hair distance at least you know it's going to be a hit. Hopefully major nervous system damage occurs - because at that point spray is NO LONGER A DETERRENT. The bear already made it's decision.

Show me in the studies how many bears were stopped by spraying once they had charged. Since "bear suits" are available and you can actually test this hypothesis with actual bears - show me the result of THAT testing. I already know the results from using a firearm and until OC is proven at least as good then no thanks.

We already know how useless it is dealing with humans. It just got pushed into the continuum of force when saps, nightsticks, and maglites were taken away from cops. If OC spray was that good - why then invent the Taser? And why not carry a Taser big enough to stop a bear? Not worth the bother. A gun will do as well, and IT'S JUST A BEAR for all that. He can kill me, therefore I will carry enough force to kill him.

The loser gets to eat the other out there. Be the winner.
 
I don't believe there can be an accurate comparison done between encounters in which spray is used and those involving a firearm.
We are trying to use data in which every encounter could have spray deployed with little to no repercussions and compare with gun encounters in which every use has huge potential for serious repercussions.
I'm not claiming that is what is happening but by its nature spray is much more likely to be deployed and the results could be highly subjective and full of here say but a gun defense that is reported will be highly investigated.
 
TheSquire said:
I am sometimes envious of the ease of American gun ownership compared to here in the UK, but I am really glad we have no large carnivorous predators!
Click to expand...

But you do have ISIS, yobs, and the like.


Why not carry a Taser big enough to stop a bear?
Click to expand...

Well that's interesting. I wonder how much power it would take to disable a bear?

We are trying to use data in which every encounter could have spray deployed with little to no repercussions and compare with gun encounters in which every use has huge potential for serious repercussions.
Click to expand...

Mauling is a 'serious repercussion'. I'll deal with the Parks&Wildlife AFTER the bear is stopped.

Deaf
 
Last edited:
Deaf Smith said:
Mauling is a 'serious repercussion'. I'll deal with the Parks&Wildlife AFTER the bear is stopped.
Click to expand...
Not disagreeing, trying to point out the flawed methodology of those claiming such great results with spray.
 
TheSquire said:
I am sometimes envious of the ease of American gun ownership compared to here in the UK, but I am really glad we have no large carnivorous predators!
Click to expand...

Come to Texas sir! We only have black bears, cougars, coyotes, and some real nasty hogs. But we have lots of elbow room.

Deaf
 
@Tirod
We already know how useless it is dealing with humans. It just got pushed into the continuum of force when saps, nightsticks, and maglites were taken away from cops.
Click to expand...

False. Not sure were you got that from, but that is incorrect.

"Useless" is a strong word. How confident are you about that?
I'll be happy to set you up with some testing to see how "useless" it is.

Edit to add>>>Direct message me and we can get you squared away.
 
Last edited:
TheSquire said:
I am sometimes envious of the ease of American gun ownership compared to here in the UK, but I am really glad we have no large carnivorous predators!
Click to expand...

Well the two actually go together quite well.
It is a lot harder to tell people they shouldn't have something that can kill things when you may need to kill something trying to eat you. A primal fear is activated.
The more of the population that is exposed to these predators or is in areas known to be their stomping grounds the higher the support for something that can effectively stop them.

A grizzly bear is a big friend to the RKBA. When you live in a place that has numerous dangerous large predators that people have little chance of besting in a physical confrontation, even people that may not like firearms must acknowledge they are required.
While the real secret is most people can avoid problems with them, so they add a huge support for firearms without adding much increased danger to the average person.
California wouldn't be so anti gun if it still had the grizzly bear on its state flag roaming around the state.

Wild monsters easily dealt with if they are a problem also bring people closer together without really adding that much more danger to most people.
Freedom is actually provided by the brown bear.

Once the only thing that poses danger to people is other humans it is easier to move towards a 'call the professional'' mindset for everything, and so only the professional needs the proper tool. Even if in reality the professional generally gets there too late to stop things.
Since other people become seen as the only danger to the population, legislators legislate away their ability to have weapons and all sorts of other freedoms.

Wild predators allow men to still be men. When the wild is pacified some of our natural balance is lost. Which I think is why you see so much more of society spending their free time in virtual worlds of video games and movies, including the highly violent ones most males play or watch.
 
Last edited:
TheSquire said:
I am sometimes envious of the ease of American gun ownership compared to here in the UK, but I am really glad we have no large carnivorous predators!
Click to expand...

When my wife and I have visited your beautiful country several times and done some traveling out in the countryside ... I was glad you had no large carnivorous predators too! :D

L.W.
 
Now as for OC spray. I can see times, like bears that are just nuances, that OC is quite appropriate. No need to kill them.

And if all you have is OC, well heck use it!

The only thing that gripes me is those pushing OC as superior to firearms and then give stats that just don't measure up.

Carry a good gun, or OC, or something effective. But carry it where you can get to it quickly. That is the point of this thread.

Deaf
 
We'll I've never lived in grizzly country for a long period of time, but I have hiked, hunted, and camped in it several times. Interesting thing about "bear spray" which has become somewhat of a joke among my friends and not because it is ineffective. A good friend of mine maced himself and his wife when he was fighting through a thick brush tangle and the bear spray dangling on his pack went off. I felt bad laughing because I knew it was painful but it was comical and they laughed about it afterwards. Another friend of mine had an ND with his bear spray in his car when it was in the floorboard under his pack while he was driving down the road.

It is not a firearm and I do not know anyone who had to use it on a bear, but if you are not careful it can certainly ruin your day.
 
Plus no airline will allow OC on board. If one of those bear spray cans went off... that would be bad news on any plane!

Deaf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Deaf Smith
  • Locked
Nother Bear attack in Glacier National Park
Replies
7
Views
732
rbernie
rbernie
A
  • Locked
Should you carry a gun or a camera in Denali?
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
Robert
Robert
D
  • Locked
Bad / worst firearms advice?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
140
Views
8K
DFW1911
D
G
  • Locked
he fumbled with his bear spray while his wife was being attacked
2
Replies
33
Views
2K
rudolf
R
Double Naught Spy
  • Locked
Gun In Truck - Attacked By Bear Away From Truck
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
Rio Laxas
R
Back
Top