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"
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: